Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Neoliberal globalization blowback bulletin, 2016

Home 2099 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Dec 01, 2017] Elite needs a kill switch for their front men and women

marknesop.wordpress.com
Patient Observer , July 23, 2016 at 7:07 pm
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that rang true:

Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.

An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.

One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.

The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-tokyo-rose-ran-for-president/

Cortes , July 24, 2016 at 11:16 am

Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation: that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-relying-upon-maoist-professors-of-cultural-studies/

marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 12:29 pm
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Cortes , July 25, 2016 at 9:08 am
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is quite downbeat:

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-will-there-be-a-spotlight-sequel-to-the-killing-fields/

marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 10:40 am
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the Cover-Up.

yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 3:40 pm

So, McCain was Hanoi Jack broadcasting from the Hanoi Hilton?

[Dec 27, 2016] Is Trump just another globalists shill?

Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
John San Vant... Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 08:07 AM , December 27, 2016 at 08:07 AM
John,

I wonder what facts you have to label Trump's team "globalist shills".

Robert W. Merry in his National Interest article disagrees with you
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-vs-hillary-nationalism-vs-globalism-2016-16041
=== start of the quote ===
Globalists captured much of American society long ago by capturing the bulk of the nation's elite institutions -- the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks, NGOs, charitable foundations. So powerful are these institutions -- in themselves and, even more so, collectively -- that the elites running them thought that their political victories were complete and final. That's why we have witnessed in recent years a quantum expansion of social and political arrogance on the part of these high-flyers.

Then along comes Donald Trump and upends the whole thing. Just about every major issue that this super-rich political neophyte has thrown at the elites turns out to be anti-globalist and pro-nationalist. And that is the single most significant factor in his unprecedented and totally unanticipated rise. Consider some examples:

Immigration: Nationalists believe that any true nation must have clearly delineated and protected borders, otherwise it isn't really a nation. They also believe that their nation's cultural heritage is sacred and needs to be protected, whereas mass immigration from far-flung lands could undermine the national commitment to that heritage.

Globalists don't care about borders. They believe the nation-state is obsolete, a relic of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which codified the recognition of co-existing nation states.

Globalists reject Westphalia in favor of an integrated world with information, money, goods and people traversing the globe at accelerating speeds without much regard to traditional concepts of nationhood or borders.
=== end of the quote ===

I wonder how "globalist shills" mantra correlates with the following Trump's statements:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/28/donald-trump-globalization-trade-pennsylvania-ohio/86431376/

=== start of quote ===
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.

In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called [Obama] "failed trade policies" - including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.

In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.

[Dec 27, 2016] The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. Peoples actual experience in their lives has been different.

Notable quotes:
"... We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default process just to add insult to injury. ..."
"... One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations ..."
"... The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience in their lives has been different. ..."
"... Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that. ..."
Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
RC AKA Darryl, Ron
RE: Democracy Is Dying as Technocrats Watch - William Easterly

Assaults on democracy are working because our current political elites have no idea how to defend it.

[There are certainly good points to this article, but the basic assumption that our electorally representative form of republican government is the ideal incarnation of the democratic value set is obviously incorrect. We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default process just to add insult to injury.

One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations:<) ]

Peter K. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... December 27, 2016 at 06:39 AM

The author fails to mention the Sanders campaign. An elderly socialist Jew from Brooklyn was able to win 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%.

This despite a nasty, hostile campaign against him and his supporters by the Clinton campaign and corporate media.

There's also Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Podemos, Syriza, etc.

Italy's 5 Star movement demonstrates a hostility to technocrats as well.

The author doesn't really focus on how the technocrats have failed.

The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience in their lives has been different.

Trump scapegoated immigrants and trade, as did Brexit, but what he really did was channel hostility and hatred at the elites and technocrats running the country.

Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that.

RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Peter K.... , -1
Yes sir.

[Dec 27, 2016] Donald Trump targets globalization and free trade as job-killers

Dec 27, 2016 | www.usatoday.com

"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.

In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called "failed trade policies" - including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.

In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.

[Dec 27, 2016] Neopopulism

Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K.... December 26, 2016 at 07:15 AM neopopulism: A cultural and political movement, mainly in Latin American countries, distinct from twentieth-century populism in radically combining classically opposed left-wing and right-wing attitudes and using electronic media as a means of dissemination. (Wiktionary)

[Dec 23, 2016] This is the time for stronger, more interventionist in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy

Notable quotes:
"... Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy. ..."
"... The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed. ..."
"... Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat) ..."
"... Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself. ..."
"... Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks. ..."
Dec 23, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fed C. Dobbs : , December 23, 2016 at 02:16 PM
(So, how long will the
post-inaugural honeymoon last?
I'd give it no more than a month.
Then what? I dunno, but nothing good.)

Reality TV Populism
http://nyti.ms/2i72Rol
NYT - Paul Krugman - Dec 23

This Washington Post article on Poland - where a right-wing, anti-intellectual, nativist party now rules, and has garnered a lot of public support - is chilling for those of us who worry that Trump_vs_deep_state may really be the end of the road for US democracy. The supporters of Law and Justice clearly looked a lot like Trump's white working class enthusiasts; so are we headed down the same path?

(In Poland, a window on what happens when
populists come to power http://wpo.st/aHJO2
Washington Post - Anthony Faiola - December 18)

Well, there's an important difference - a bit of American exceptionalism, if you like. Europe's populist parties are actually populist; they pursue policies that really do help workers, as long as those workers are the right color and ethnicity. As someone put it, they're selling a herrenvolk welfare state. Law and Justice has raised minimum wages and reduced the retirement age; France's National Front advocates the same things.

Trump, however, is different. He said lots of things on the campaign trail, but his personnel choices indicate that in practice he's going to be a standard hard-line economic-right Republican. His Congressional allies are revving up to dismantle Obamacare, privatize Medicare, and raise the retirement age. His pick for Labor Secretary is a fast-food tycoon who loathes minimum wage hikes. And his pick for top economic advisor is the king of trickle-down.

So in what sense is Trump a populist? Basically, he plays one on TV - he claims to stand for the common man, disparages elites, trashes political correctness; but it's all for show. When it comes to substance, he's pro-elite all the way.

It's infuriating and dismaying that he managed to get away with this in the election. But that was all big talk. What happens when reality begins to hit? Repealing Obamacare will inflict huge harm on precisely the people who were most enthusiastic Trump supporters - people who somehow believed that their benefits would be left intact. What happens when they realize their mistake?

I wish I were confident in a coming moment of truth. I'm not. Given history, what we can count on is a massive effort to spin the coming working-class devastation as somehow being the fault of liberals, and for all I know it might work. (Think of how Britain's Tories managed to shift blame for austerity onto Labour's mythical fiscal irresponsibility.) But there is certainly an opportunity for Democrats coming.

And the indicated political strategy is clear: make Trump and company own all the hardship they're about to inflict. No cooperation in devising an Obamacare replacement; no votes for Medicare privatization and increasing the retirement age. No bipartisan cover for the end of the TV illusion and the coming of plain old, ugly reality.

anne -> Fed C. Dobbs... , December 23, 2016 at 02:23 PM
Correcting the date:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/reality-tv-populism/

December 19, 2016

Reality TV Populism
By Paul Krugman

likbez : , -1
Two points:

Point 1:

Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy.

The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed.

Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat)

Point 2:

Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself.

Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks.

So if we think about Iraq war as the way to prevent to use euro as alternative to dollar in oil sales that goal was not achieved and all blood and treasure were wasted.

In this sense it would be difficult to Trump to continue with "bastard neoliberalism" both in foreign policy and domestically and betray his election promises because they reflected real problems facing the USA and are the cornerstone of his political support.

Also in this case neocons establishment will simply get rid of him one way or the other. I hope that he understand this danger and will avoid trimming Social Security.

Returning to Democratic Party betrayal of interests of labour, Krugman hissy fit signifies that he does not understand the current political situation. Neoliberal wing of Democratic Party is now bankrupt both morally and politically. Trump election was the last nail into Bill Clinton political legacy coffin.

Now we returned to essentially the same political process that took place after the Great Depression, with much weaker political leaders, this time. So this is the time for stronger, more interventionist in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy. If Trump does not understand this he is probably doomed and will not last long.

That's why I think Trump inspired far right renaissance will continue and the political role of military might dramatically increase. And politically Trump is the hostage of this renaissance. Flint appointment in this sense is just the first swallow of increased role of military leaders in government.

[Dec 21, 2016] Globalization and Sovietization of America by Vladimir Brovkin

Notable quotes:
"... Democracy is inevitably going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs to search cheaper means of production worldwide. ..."
"... In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. ..."
"... To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money. ..."
"... American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America. The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society with devastating results. ..."
"... The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism, liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that are killing the USA. ..."
"... Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing. ..."
"... Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives in Marrakech, Morocco. ..."
"... This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization, what you're likely to face is major capital flight. ..."
Dec 21, 2016 | www.unz.com
In his election campaign Donald Trump has identified several key themes that defined American malaise. He pointed to capital flight, bad trade deals, illegal immigration, and corruption of the government and of the press. What is missing in Trump's diagnosis though is an explanation of this crisis. What are the causes of American decline or as Ross Pero used to say: Let's look under the hood.

Most of the challenges America faces today have to do with two processes we call Globalization and Sovietization. By Globalization we mean a process of externalizing American business thanks to the doctrine of Free trade which has been up to now the Gospel of the establishment. By Sovietization we mean a process of slow expansion of the role of the government in economy, education, business, military, press, virtually any and every aspect of politics and society.

Let us start with Globalization.

Dani Rodrick ( The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy) has argued that it is impossible to have democracy and globalization at the same time. Democracy is inevitably going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs to search cheaper means of production worldwide.

In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. For fifty years economists have been preaching Free trade, meaning that free unimpeded, no tariffs trade is good for America. And it was in the 1950s, 60s and 1970s that American products were cheaper or better than those overseas. Beginning with the 1970s, the process reversed. Globalization enriched the capitalists and impoverished the rest of Americans. To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money.

American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America. The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society with devastating results.

The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism, liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that are killing the USA.

Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.

To fight Globalization Donald Trump announced in his agenda to drop or renegotiate NAFTA and TPP. That is a step in the right direction. However, this will not be easy. There are powerful vested interests in making money overseas that will put up great resistance to America first policy. They have powerful lobbies and votes in the Congress and it is by far not certain if Trump will succeed in overcoming their opposition.

Another step along these lines of fighting Globalization is the proposed building of the Wall on Mexican border. That too may or may not work. Powerful agricultural interests in California have a vested interest in easy and cheap labor force made up of illegal migrants. If their supply is cut off they are going to hike up the prices on agricultural goods that may lead to inflation or higher consumer prices for the American workers.

... ... ...

The Military: Americans are told they have a best military in the world. In fact, it is not the best but the most expensive one in the world. According to the National priorities Project, in fiscal 2015 the military spending amounted to 54% of the discretionary spending in the amount of 598.5 billion dollars . Of those almost 200 billion dollars goes for operations and maintenance, 135 billion for military personnel and 90 billion for procurement (see Here is How the US Military Spends its Billions )

American military industrial complex spends more that the next seven runners up combined. It is a Sovietized, bureaucratic structure that exists and thrives on internal deals behind closed doors, procurement process closed to public scrutiny, wasted funds on consultants, kickbacks, and outrageous prices for military hardware. Specific investigations of fraud do not surface too often. Yet for example, DoD Inspector General reported:

material internal control weakness that affect the safeguarding of assets, proper use of funds, and impair the prevention of and identification of fraud, waste and abuse. Source: "FY 2010 DoD Agencywide Agency Financial Report (vid. p.32)" (PDF). US Department of Defense. Retrieved 7 January 2011, cited in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-20

Why is it that an F35 fighter jet should cost 135 million apiece and the Russian SU 35 that can do similar things is sold for 35 million dollars and produced for 15 million? The answer is that the Congress operates on a principle that any price the military asks is good enough. The entire system of military procurement has to be scrapped. It is a source of billions of stolen and wasted dollars. The Pentagon budget of half a trillion a year is a drain on the economy that is unsustainable, and what you get is not worth the money. The military industrial complex in America does not deliver the best equipment or security it is supposed to.(on this see: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/cutting-waste-isnt-enough-curb-pentagon-spending-18640 )

Donald Trump was the first to his credit who raised the issue: Do we need all these bases overseas? Do they really enhance American security? Or are they a waste of money for the benefit of other countries who take America for a free ride. Why indeed should the US pay for the defense of Japan? Is Japan a poor country that cannot afford to defend itself? Defense commitments like those expose America to unnecessary confrontations and risk of war over issues that have nothing to do with America's interests. Is it worth it to fight China over some uninhabitable islands that Japan claims? (See discussion: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/should-the-us-continue-guarantee-the-security-wealthy-states-17720 )

Similarly, Trump is the first one to raise the question: What is the purpose of NATO? ( see discussion of NATO utility: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-president-trump-renegotiate-the-nato-treaty-18647 ) Yes the Liberal pro-Clinton media answer is: to defend Europe from Russian aggression. But really what aggression? If the Russians wanted to they could have taken Kiev in a day two years ago. Instead, they put up with the most virulently hostile regime in Kiev. Let us ask ourselves would we have put up with a virulently anti-American regime in Mexico, a regime that would have announced its intention to conclude a military alliance with China or Russia? Were we not ready to go to nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba? If we would not have accepted such a regime in Mexico, why do we complain that the Russians took action against the new regime in Ukraine. Oh yes, they took Crimea. But the population there is Russian, and until 1954 it was Russian territory and after Ukrainian independence the Russians did not raise the issue of Crimea as Ukrainian territory and paid rent for their naval base there The Russians took it over only when a hostile regime clamoring for NATO membership settled in Kiev. Does that constitute Russian aggression or actually Russian limited response to a hostile act? (see on this Steven Cohen: http://eastwestaccord.com/podcast-stephen-f-cohen-talks-russia-israel-middle-east-diplomacy-steele-unger/ ) As I have argued elsewhere Putin has been under tremendous pressure to act more decisively against the neo-Nazis in Kiev. (see Vlad Brovkin: On Russian Assertiveness in Foreign Policy. ( http://eastwestaccord.com/?s=brovkin&submit=Search )

With a little bit of patience and good will a compromise is possible on Ukraine through Minsk accords. Moreover, Ukraine is not in NATO and as long as it is not admitted to NATO, a deal with the Russians on Ukraine is feasible. Just like so many other pro-American governments, Ukraine wants to milk Uncle Sam for what it is worth. They expect to be paid for being anti/Russian. (See discussion on need of enemy: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/does-america-need-enemy-18106 ) Would it not be a better policy to let Ukraine know that they are on their own: no more subsidies, no more payments? Mend your relations with Russia yourselves. Then peace would immediately prevail.

If we admit that there is no Russian aggression and that this myth was propagated by the Neo/Cons with the specific purpose to return to the paradigm of the cold war, i.e. more money for the military industrial complex, if we start thinking boldly as Trump has begun, we should say to the Europeans: go ahead, build your own European army to allay your fears of the Russians. Europe is strong enough, rich enough and united enough to take care of its defense without American assistance. (See discussion of Trumps agenda: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/course-correction-18062 )

So, if Trump restructures procurement mess, reduces the number of military bases overseas, and invests in high tech research and development for the military on the basis of real competition, hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved and the defense capability of the country would increase.

... ... ...

Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives in Marrakech, Morocco.

Mao Cheng Ji says: December 21, 2016 at 8:43 am GMT • 200 Words

This is a bit too much, Volodya. Maybe you should've taken one subject – globalization, for example – and stop there.

This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization, what you're likely to face is major capital flight.

You might be able to make neoliberal globalization work for you (for your population, that is), like Germany and the Scandinavians do, but that's a struggle, constant struggle. And it's a competition; it will have to be done at the expense of other nations (see Greece, Portugal, Central (eastern) Europe). And having an anti-neoliberal president is not enough; this would require a major change, almost a U turn, in the whole governing philosophy. Forget the sanctity of 'free market', start worshiping the new god: national interest

animalogic says: December 21, 2016 at 10:14 am GMT • 400 Words

What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An article you can get your teeth into.
On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what he calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods (yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime & corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone & how does this circus resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of gross negligence & corruption ?

I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions against friend & for alike.

The author does go off against welfare well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite gets the connection between globalisation & welfare .He also legitimately goes after tertiary education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.

The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)

• Replies: @Randal I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points you agree with.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator, a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them, get things done the way they want to see them done.

As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organizational strengths and weaknesses, degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.

A more interesting question might be - how really different are these big government variants from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done the way they want them to be done?

Miro23 says: December 21, 2016 at 11:06 am GMT • 300 Words

An excellent article. The points that resonated the most were:

For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.

This is an enormously difficult problem that will take years to resolve, and it will need a rethink of education from the ground up + the political will to fight the heart of Cultural Bolshevism and the inevitable 24/7 Media assault.

Drain the swamp in Washington: ban the lobbyists, make it a crime to lobby for private interest in a public place, restructure procurement, introduce real competition, restore capitalism, phase out any government subsidies to Universities, force them to compete for students, force hospitals to compete for patients. Cut cut cut expenditure everywhere possible, including welfare.

Banning lobbyists should be possible but draining the rest of the swamp looks really complicated. Each area would need to be examined from the ground up from a value for money – efficiency viewpoint. It doesn't matter which philosophy each one is run on – good value healthcare is desirable whichever system produces it.

Could we have ever imagined in our worst dreams that a system of mass surveillance would be created and perfected in the USA. (see discussion on this in: Surveillance State, in http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/surveillance-state

This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).

• Replies: @Daniel Chieh
This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).

From Unz, I have learned that the US actually has a four-part government: the "Deep State" part which has no clear oversight from any of the other three branches.

anonymous says: December 21, 2016 at 5:22 pm GMT • 300 Words

To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money.

Another add-on contradiction, comrade, is that the selfsame capitalist class expect their host nation to defend their interests whenever threatened abroad. This entails using the resources derived from the masses to enforce this protection including using the little people as cannon fodder when deemed useful.

Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact.

Come now, do you really believe that all these politicians who have gone to these world-class schools don't know this? They simply don't care. They're working on behalf of the .1% who are their benefactors and who will make them rich. They did not go into politics to take vows of poverty. They just realize the need to placate the masses with speeches written by professional speechwriters, that's all.

Insofar as Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid goes, those are the most democratic institutions of all. It's money spent on ourselves, internally, with money being cycled in and out at the grassroots level. Doctors, nurses, home-care providers, etc etc, all local people get a piece of the action unlike military spending which siphons money upwards to the upper classes.

I'd rather be employed in a government job than unemployed in the private sector. That's not the kind of "freedom" I'm searching for comrade.

Randal says: December 21, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT • 300 Words

@animalogic What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An article you can get your teeth into.

On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what he calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods (yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept... incoherent...& suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.

Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"

This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime & corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone...& how does this circus resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of gross negligence & corruption ?

I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions ...against friend & for alike.
The author does go off against welfare...well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite gets the connection between globalisation & welfare....He also legitimately goes after tertiary education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.

The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)

I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points you agree with.

But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical laws ?)

I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator, a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them, get things done the way they want to see them done.

As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organisational strengths and weaknesses, degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.

A more interesting question might be – how really different are these big government variants from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done the way they want them to be done?

[Dec 17, 2016] Responsibility for the current decline of middle class in the USA rests on neoliberals

Dec 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Tim Duy:

Responsibility : I have been puzzling over this from Paul Krugman :

Donald Trump won the electoral college at least in part by promising to bring coal jobs back to Appalachia and manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt. Neither promise can be honored – for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but to technological change. But a funny thing happens when people like me try to point that out: we get enraged responses from economists who feel an affinity for the working people of the afflicted regions – responses that assume that trying to do the numbers must reflect contempt for regional cultures, or something.

Is this the right narrative? I am no longer comfortable with this line:

for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but to technological change.

Try to place that line in context with this from Noah Smith:

Then, in the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S opened its markets to Chinese goods, first with Most Favored Nation trading status, and then by supporting China's accession to the WTO. The resulting competition from cheap Chinese goods contributed to vast inequality in the United States, reversing many of the employment gains of the 1990s and holding down U.S. wages. But this sacrifice on the part of 90% of the American populace enabled China to lift its enormous population out of abject poverty and become a middle-income country.

Was this "fair" trade? I think not. Let me suggest this narrative: Sometime during the Clinton Administration, it was decided that an economically strong China was good for both the globe and the U.S. Fair enough. To enable that outcome, U.S. policy deliberately sacrificed manufacturing workers on the theory that a.) the marginal global benefit from the job gain to a Chinese worker exceeded the marginal global cost from a lost US manufacturing job, b.) the U.S. was shifting toward a service sector economy anyway and needed to reposition its workforce accordingly and c.) the transition costs of shifting workers across sectors in the U.S. were minimal.

As a consequence – and through a succession of administrations – the US tolerated implicit subsidies of Chinese industries, including national industrial policy designed to strip production from the US.

And then there was the currency manipulation. I am always shocked when international economists claim "fair trade," pretending that the financial side of the international accounts is irrelevant. As if that wasn't a big, fat thumb on the scale. Sure, "currency manipulation" is running the other way these days. After, of course, a portion of manufacturing was absorbed overseas. After the damage is done.

Yes, technological change is happening. But the impact, and the costs, were certainly accelerated by U.S. policy.

It was a great plan. On paper, at least. And I would argue that in fact points a and b above were correct.

But point c. Point c was a bad call. Point c was a disastrous call. Point c helped deliver Donald Trump to the Oval Office. To be sure, the FBI played its role, as did the Russians. But even allowing for the poor choice of Hilary Clinton as the Democratic nominee (the lack of contact with rural and semi-rural voters blinded the Democrats to the deep animosity toward their candidate), it should never have come to this.

The transition costs were not minimal.

Consider this from the New York Times :

As the opioid epidemic sweeps through rural America, an ever-greater number of drug-dependent newborns are straining hospital neonatal units and draining precious medical resources.

The problem has grown more quickly than realized and shows no signs of abating, researchers reported on Monday. Their study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, concludes for the first time that the increase in drug-dependent newborns has been disproportionately larger in rural areas.

The latest causalities in the opioid epidemic are newborns.

The transition costs were not minimal.

My take is that "fair trade" as practiced since the late 1990s created another disenfranchised class of citizens. As if we hadn't done enough of that already. Then we weaponized those newly disenfranchised citizens with the rhetoric of identity politics. That's coming back to bite us. We didn't really need a white nationalist movement, did we?

Now comes the big challenge: What can we do to make amends? Can we change the narrative? And here is where I agree with Paul Krugman:

Now, if we want to have a discussion of regional policies – an argument to the effect that my pessimism is unwarranted – fine. As someone who is generally a supporter of government activism, I'd actually like to be convinced that a judicious program of subsidies, relocating government departments, whatever, really can sustain communities whose traditional industry has eroded.

The damage done is largely irreversible. In medium-size regions, lower relative housing costs may help attract overflow from the east and west coast urban areas. And maybe a program of guaranteed jobs for small- to medium-size regions combined with relocation subsidies for very small-size regions could help. But it won't happen overnight, if ever. And even if you could reverse the patterns of trade – which wouldn't be easy given the intertwining of global supply chains – the winners wouldn't be the same current losers. Tough nut to crack.

Bottom Line: I don't know how to fix this either. But I don't absolve the policy community from their role in this disaster. I think you can easily tell a story that this was one big policy experiment gone terribly wrong.

[Dec 15, 2016] Putin Valday 2016 speeech

Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Vladimir Putin's Valdai Speech at the XIII Meeting (Final Plenary Session) of the Valdai International Discussion Club (Sochi, 27 October 2016)

As is his usual custom, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the final session of the annual Valdai International Discussion Club's 13th meeting, held this year in Sochi, before an audience that included the President of Finland Tarja Halonen and former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki. The theme for the 2016 meeting and its discussion forums was "The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow" which as Putin noted was very topical and relevant to current developments and trends in global politics, economic and social affairs.

Putin noted that the previous year's Valdai Club discussions centred on global problems and crises, in particular the ongoing wars in the Middle East; this fact gave him the opportunity to summarise global political developments over the past half-century, beginning with the United States' presumption of having won the Cold War and subsequently reshaping the international political, economic and social order to conform to its expectations based on neoliberal capitalist assumptions. To that end, the US and its allies across western Europe, North America and the western Pacific have co-operated in pressing economic and political restructuring including regime change in many parts of the world: in eastern Europe and the Balkans, in western Asia (particularly Afghanistan and Iraq) and in northern Africa (Libya). In achieving these goals, the West has either ignored at best or at worst exploited international political, military and economic structures, agencies and alliances to the detriment of these institutions' reputations and credibility around the world. The West also has not hesitated to dredge and drum up imaginary threats to the security of the world, most notably the threat of Russian aggression and desire to recreate the Soviet Union on former Soviet territories and beyond, the supposed Russian meddling in the US Presidential elections, and apparent Russian hacking and leaking of emails related to failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's conduct as US Secretary of State from 2008 to 2012.

After his observation of current world trends as they have developed since 1991, Putin queries what kind of future we face if political elites in Washington and elsewhere focus on non-existent problems and threats, or on problems of their own making, and ignore the very real issues and problems affecting ordinary people everywhere: issues of stability, security and sustainable economic development. The US alone has problems of police violence against minority groups, high levels of public and private debt measured in trillions of dollars, failing transport infrastructure across most states, massive unemployment that either goes undocumented or is deliberately under-reported, high prison incarceration rates and other problems and issues indicative of a highly dysfunctional society. In societies that are ostensibly liberal democracies where the public enjoys political freedoms, there is an ever-growing and vast gap between what people perceive as major problems needing solutions and the political establishment's perceptions of what the problems are, and all too often the public view and the elite view are at polar opposites. The result is that when referenda and elections are held, predictions and assurances of victory one way or another are smashed by actual results showing public preference for the other way, and polling organisations, corporate media with their self-styled "pundits" and "analysts" and governments are caught scrambling to make sense of what just happened.

Putin points out that the only way forward is for all countries to acknowledge and work together on the problems that challenge all humans today, the resolution of which should make the world more stable, more secure and more sustaining of human existence. Globalisation should not just benefit a small plutocratic elite but should be demonstrated in concrete ways to benefit all. Only by adhering to international law and legal arrangements, through the charter of the United Nations and its agencies, can all countries hope to achieve security and stability and achieve a better future for their peoples.

To this end, the sovereignty of Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen should be respected and the wars in those countries should be brought to an end, replaced by long-term plans and programs of economic and social reconstruction and development. Global economic development and progress that will reduce disparities between First World and Third World countries, eliminate notions of "winning" and "losing", and end grinding poverty and the problems that go with it should be a major priority. Economic co-operation should be mutually beneficial for all parties that engage in it.

Putin also briefly mentioned in passing the development of human potential and creativity, environmental protection and climate change, and global healthcare as important goals that all countries should strive for.

While there's not much in Putin's speech that he hasn't said before, what he says is typical of his worldview, the breadth and depth of his understanding of current world events (which very, very few Western politicians can match), and his preferred approach of nations working together on common problems and coming to solutions that benefit all and which don't advantage one party's interests to the detriment of others and their needs. Putin's approach is a typically pragmatic and cautious one, neutral with regards to political or economic ideology, but one focused on goals and results, and the best way and methods to achieve those goals.

One interesting aspect of Putin's speech comes near the end where he says that only a world with opportunities for everyone, with access to knowledge to all and many ways to realise creative potential, can be considered truly free. Putin's understanding of freedom would appear to be very different from what the West (and Americans in particular) understand to be "freedom", that is, being free of restraints on one's behaviour. Putin's understanding of freedom would be closer to what 20th-century Russian-born British philosopher Isaiah Berlin would consider to be "positive freedom", the freedom that comes with self-mastery, being able to think and behave freely and being able to choose the government of the society in which one lives.

The most outstanding point in Putin's speech, which unfortunately he does not elaborate on further, given the context of the venue, is the disconnect between the political establishment and the public in most developed countries, the role of the mass media industry in reducing or widening it, and the dangers that this disconnect poses to societies if it continues. If elites continue to pursue their own fantasies and lies, and neglect the needs of the public on whom they rely for support (yet abuse by diminishing their security through offshoring jobs, weakening and eliminating worker protection, privatising education, health and energy, and encouraging housing and other debt bubbles), the invisible bonds of society – what might collectively be called "the social contract" between the ruler and the ruled – will disintegrate and people may turn to violence or other extreme activities to get what they want.

An English-language transcript of the speech can be found at this link .

[Dec 09, 2016] Understanding Evil From Globalism To Pizzagate Zero Hedge

Dec 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

I have spent the better part of the last 10 years working diligently to investigate and relate information on economics and geopolitical discourse for the liberty movement. However, long before I delved into these subjects my primary interests of study were the human mind and the human "soul" (yes, I'm using a spiritual term).

My fascination with economics and sociopolitical events has always been rooted in the human element. That is to say, while economics is often treated as a mathematical and statistical field, it is also driven by psychology. To know the behavior of man is to know the future of all his endeavors, good or evil.

Evil is what we are specifically here to discuss. I have touched on the issue in various articles in the past including Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood , but with extreme tensions taking shape this year in light of the U.S. election as well as the exploding online community investigation of "Pizzagate," I am compelled to examine it once again.

I will not be grappling with this issue from a particularly religious perspective. Evil applies to everyone regardless of their belief system, or even their lack of belief. Evil is secular in its influence.

The first and most important thing to understand is this - evil is NOT simply a social or religious construct, it is an inherent element of the human psyche. Carl Gustav Jung was one of the few psychologists in history to dare write extensively on the issue of evil from a scientific perspective as well as a metaphysical perspective. I highly recommend a book of his collected works on this subject titled 'Jung On Evil', edited by Murray Stein, for those who are interested in a deeper view.

To summarize, Jung found that much of the foundations of human behavior are rooted in inborn psychological contents or "archetypes." Contrary to the position of Sigmund Freud, Jung argued that while our environment may affect our behavior to a certain extent, it does not make us who we are. Rather, we are born with our own individual personality and grow into our inherent characteristics over time. Jung also found that there are universally present elements of human psychology. That is to say, almost every human being on the planet shares certain truths and certain natural predilections.

The concepts of good and evil, moral and immoral, are present in us from birth and are mostly the same regardless of where we are born, what time in history we are born and to what culture we are born. Good and evil are shared subjective experiences. It is this observable psychological fact (among others) that leads me to believe in the idea of a creative design - a god. Again, though, elaborating on god is beyond the scope of this article.

To me, this should be rather comforting to people, even atheists. For if there is observable evidence of creative design, then it would follow that there may every well be a reason for all the trials and horrors that we experience as a species. Our lives, our failures and our accomplishments are not random and meaningless. We are striving toward something, whether we recognize it or not. It may be beyond our comprehension at this time, but it is there.

Evil does not exist in a vacuum; with evil there is always good, if one looks for it in the right places.

Most people are readily equipped to recognize evil when they see it directly. What they are not equipped for and must learn from environment is how to recognize evil disguised as righteousness. The most heinous acts in history are almost always presented as a moral obligation - a path towards some "greater good." Inherent conscience, though, IS the greater good, and any ideology that steps away from the boundaries of conscience will inevitably lead to disaster.

The concept of globalism is one of these ideologies that crosses the line of conscience and pontificates to us about a "superior method" of living. It relies on taboo, rather than moral compass, and there is a big difference between the two.

When we pursue a "greater good" as individuals or as a society, the means are just as vital as the ends. The ends NEVER justify the means. Never. For if we abandon our core principles and commit atrocities in the name of "peace," safety or survival, then we have forsaken the very things which make us worthy of peace and safety and survival. A monster that devours in the name of peace is still a monster.

Globalism tells us that the collective is more important than the individual, that the individual owes society a debt and that fealty to society in every respect is the payment for that debt. But inherent archetypes and conscience tell us differently. They tell us that society is only ever as healthy as the individuals within it, that society is only as free and vibrant as the participants. As the individual is demeaned and enslaved, the collective crumbles into mediocrity.

Globalism also tells us that humanity's greatest potential cannot be reached without collectivism and centralization. The assertion is that the more single-minded a society is in its pursuits the more likely it is to effectively achieve its goals. To this end, globalism seeks to erase all sovereignty. For now its proponents claim they only wish to remove nations and borders from the social equation, but such collectivism never stops there. Eventually, they will tell us that individualism represents another nefarious "border" that prevents the group from becoming fully realized.

At the heart of collectivism is the idea that human beings are "blank slates;" that we are born empty and are completely dependent on our environment in order to learn what is right and wrong and how to be good people or good citizens. The environment becomes the arbiter of decency, rather than conscience, and whoever controls the environment, by extension, becomes god.

If the masses are convinced of this narrative then moral relativity is only a short step away. It is the abandonment of inborn conscience that ultimately results in evil. In my view, this is exactly why the so called "elites" are pressing for globalism in the first place. Their end game is not just centralization of all power into a one world edifice, but the suppression and eradication of conscience, and thus, all that is good.

To see where this leads we must look at the behaviors of the elites themselves, which brings us to "Pizzagate."

The exposure by Wikileaks during the election cycle of what appear to be coded emails sent between John Podesta and friends has created a burning undercurrent in the alternative media. The emails consistently use odd and out of context "pizza" references, and independent investigations have discovered a wide array connections between political elites like Hillary Clinton and John Podesta to James Alefantis, the owner of a pizza parlor in Washington D.C. called Comet Ping Pong. Alefantis, for reasons that make little sense to me, is listed as number 49 on GQ's Most Powerful People In Washington list .

The assertion according to circumstantial evidence including the disturbing child and cannibalism artwork collections of the Podestas has been that Comet Ping Pong is somehow at the center of a child pedophilia network serving the politically connected. Both Comet Ping Pong and a pizza establishment two doors down called Besta Pizza use symbols in their logos and menus that are listed on the FBI's unclassified documentation on pedophilia symbolism , which does not help matters.

Some of the best documentation of the Pizzagate scandal that I have seen so far has been done by David Seaman, a former mainstream journalist gone rogue. Here is his YouTube page .

I do recommend everyone at least look at the evidence he and others present. I went into the issue rather skeptical, but was surprised by the sheer amount of weirdness and evidence regarding Comet Pizza. There is a problem with Pizzagate that is difficult to overcome, however; namely the fact that to my knowledge no victims have come forward. This is not to say there has been no crime, but anyone hoping to convince the general public of wrong-doing in this kind of scenario is going to have a very hard time without a victim to reference.

The problem is doubly difficult now that an armed man was arrested on the premises of Comet Ping Pong while "researching" the claims of child trafficking. Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will declare the very investigation "dangerous conspiracy theory." Whether this will persuade the public to ignore it, or compel them to look into it, remains to be seen.

I fully realize the amount of confusion surrounding Pizzagate and the assertions by some that it is a "pysop" designed to undermine the alternative media. This is a foolish notion, in my view. The mainstream media is dying, this is unavoidable. The alternative media is a network of sources based on the power of choice and cemented in the concept of investigative research. The reader participates in the alternative media by learning all available information and positions and deciding for himself what is the most valid conclusion, if there is any conclusion to be had. The mainstream media simply tells its readers what to think and feel based on cherry picked data.

The elites will never be able to deconstruct that kind of movement with something like a faked "pizzagate"; rather, they would be more inclined to try to co-opt and direct the alternative media as they do most institutions. And, if elitists are using Pizzagate as fodder to trick the alternative media into looking ridiculous, then why allow elitist run social media outlets like Facebook and Reddit to shut down discussion on the issue?

The reason I am more convinced than skeptical at this stage is because this has happened before; and in past scandals of pedophilia in Washington and other political hotbeds, some victims DID come forward.

I would first reference the events of the Franklin Scandal between 1988 and 1991. The Discovery Channel even produced a documentary on it complete with interviews of alleged child victims peddled to Washington elites for the purpose of favors and blackmail. Meant to air in 1994, the documentary was quashed before it was ever shown to the public. The only reason it can now be found is because an original copy was released without permission by parties unknown.

I would also reference the highly evidenced Westminster Pedophile Ring in the U.K. , in which the U.K. government lost or destroyed at least 114 related files related to the investigation.

Finally, it is disconcerting to me that the criminal enterprises of former Bear Sterns financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his "Lolita Express" are mainstream knowledge, yet the public remains largely oblivious. Bill Clinton is shown on flight logs to have flown on Epstein's private jet at least a 26 times; the same jet that he used to procure child victims as young as 12 to entertain celebrities and billionaires on his 72 acre island called "Little Saint James". The fact that Donald Trump was also close friends with Epstein should raise some eyebrows - funny how the mainstream media attacked Trump on every cosmetic issue under the sun but for some reason backed away from pursuing the Epstein angle.

Where is the vast federal investigation into the people who frequented Epstein's wretched parties? There is none, and Epstein, though convicted of molesting a 14 year old girl and selling her into prostitution, was only slapped on the wrist with a 13 month sentence.

Accusations of pedophilia seem to follow the globalists and elitist politicians wherever they go. This does not surprise me. They often exhibit characteristics of narcissism and psychopathy, but their ideology of moral relativity is what would lead to such horrible crimes.

Evil often stems from people who are empty. When one abandons conscience, one also in many respects abandons empathy and love. Without these elements of our psyche there is no happiness. Without them, there is nothing left but desire and gluttony.

Narcissists in particular are prone to use other people as forms of entertainment and fulfillment without concern for their humanity. They can be vicious in nature, and when taken to the level of psychopathy, they are prone to target and abuse the most helpless of victims in order to generate a feeling of personal power.

Add in sexual addiction and aggression and narcissists become predatory in the extreme. Nothing ever truly satisfies them. When they grow tired of the normal, they quickly turn to the abnormal and eventually the criminal. I would say that pedophilia is a natural progression of the elitist mindset; for children are the easiest and most innocent victim source, not to mention the most aberrant and forbidden, and thus the most desirable for a psychopathic deviant embracing evil impulses.

Beyond this is the even more disturbing prospect of cultism. It is not that the globalists are simply evil as individuals; if that were the case then they would present far less of a threat. The greater terror is that they are also organized. When one confronts the problem of evil head on, one quickly realizes that evil is within us all. There will always be an internal battle in every individual. Organized evil, though, is in fact the ultimate danger, and it is organized evil that must be eradicated.

For organized evil to be defeated, there must be organized good. I believe the liberty movement in particular is that good; existing in early stages, not yet complete, but good none the less. Our championing of the non-aggression principle and individual liberty is conducive to respect for privacy, property and life. Conscience is a core tenet of the liberty ideal, and the exact counter to organized elitism based on moral relativity.

Recognize and take solace that though we live in dark times, and evil men roam free, we are also here. We are the proper response to evil, and we have been placed here at this time for a reason. Call it fate, call it destiny, call it coincidence, call it god, call it whatever you want, but the answer to evil is us.

  • None
  • Donald Trump
  • Private Jet
  • FBI
  • Washington D.C.
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Dec 8, 2016 10:15 PM
  • 35
  • Comment viewing options Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    AtATrESICI Dec 8, 2016 10:18 PM ,
    Wow
    eforce AtATrESICI Dec 8, 2016 10:24 PM ,
    "Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful."

    --The Protocols.

    peddling-fiction eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:29 PM ,
    This rabbit hole requires a little spiritual know-how but is very blunt and direct.

    It is about EVIL this time around here in our terrarium.

    Almost Solvent peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    Only one question matters.

    Is there a basement or not?

    peddling-fiction Almost Solvent Dec 8, 2016 10:40 PM ,
    and what are chicken lovers?

    For a laugh read some real fake encyclopedia entries here-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_ (conspiracy_theory)

    eforce peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:42 PM ,
    I should also point out those alledgedly behind The Protocols are not the people the article is referring ie: those people are typically found in any liberal establishment.
    Fed Supporter eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:55 PM ,
    #PizzaGate New Info 12/8/16: Pizzagate SHOOTER & BROTHER Exposed Via their INSTAGRAM

    CHAOS MAYHEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHTsMWUGVeE NO KIDDING THE #PizzaGate Shooter's (KID BROTHER) HAS AN INSTAGRAM ... WTF FUBAR
    the Internet has located the Shooter's younger Transgendered BROTHER the artist from COMET ping Pong Band Nights..
    Squid-puppets a... peddling-fiction Dec 8, 2016 10:44 PM ,
    A good article, but it fails to deliver on these key aspects of the matter:

    Everyone knows from the Godfather and its genre that there is a connection between loyalty, criminality and power: Once you witness someone engaging in a criminal act, you have leverage over them and that ensures their loyalty. But what follows from that - which healthy sane minds have trouble contemplating - is that the greater the criminality the greater the leverage, and that because murderous paedophilia places a person utterly beyond any prospect of redemption in decent society, there in NO GREATER LOYALTY than those desperate to avoid being outed. These must be the three corners of the triangle - Power:Loyalty:Depravity through which the evil eys views the world.

    I always beleived in an Illuminati of sorts, however they care to self identify. Until Pizzagate, I never understood that murderous paedophilia, luciferian in style to accentuate their own depravity, is THE KEY TO RULING THE EARTH

    And another thing. If pizzagate is 'fake news' then it it inconceivably elaborate - they'd have had to fake Epstein 2008, Silsby 2010, Breitbart 2011, the 2013 portugese release of podestaesque mccann suspects, as well as the current run of wikileaks and Alefantis' instagram account - which had an avatar photo of the 13 yr old lover of a roman emperor.

    Is that much fake news a possibility? Or has this smoke been blowing for years and we've all been too distracted to stop and look for fire?

    JacksNight eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    Happy Advent everyone! "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."

    Matthew 5:43-48

    PizzaGate/TwitterGate/RedditGate repost:

    PizzaGate Infographic:

    http://sli.mg/lwgIgH

    Archived reddit thread to fellow journalists which led to the banning of r/pizzagate:

    https://archive.fo/MrsGu

    Andrew Breitbart tweets before death adds fuel to online speculation of D.C. sex-trafficking ring:

    https://i.sli.mg/C9U1nQ.jpg

    The Pedophocracy by David McGowan – Bibliography included:

    http://www.whale.to/b/pedophocracy.html

    FBI Special Agent Ted Gunderson outlines satanic pedophile elements in the United States:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BplUD6kQYuU

    Evidence regarding international pedophile rings being protected by police and intelligence agencies:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1cm0t3/original_research_the_mountain_of_evidence_for_a/

    // //
    Draybin Defferc... eforce Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    What floors me about the whole pizzagate thing is the evil staring us right in the face. And then to realize that the libtards don't even believe in evil at all, only "mental illness"!
    Umh Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    Lesson #1: Do not waste your time figuring some things out. Things like evil people are probably beyond a decent persons ability to understand and let's be honest I don't want to feel any sympathy for them anyway.
    peddling-fiction Umh Dec 8, 2016 10:30 PM ,
    Invest some time if you want to understand what is going on> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/hiddenevil/hiddenevil.htm
    Uwantsun Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    PIZZAGATE IS REAL. All else is intrigue.
    peddling-fiction Uwantsun Dec 8, 2016 10:34 PM ,
    PIZZAGATE

    Why does this artist paint this-> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyS0-oIUQAAJ7e8.jpg

    freddymercury Dec 8, 2016 10:22 PM ,
    The 'devil' is in the details
    Armadillo Bandit freddymercury Dec 8, 2016 10:33 PM ,
    Good subject to show your wit on.
    conraddobler Dec 8, 2016 10:35 PM ,
    True liberty does not exist and will never exist if the oxygen in the room is owned and rented back to you.

    Soul Glow Dec 8, 2016 10:33 PM ,
    The best thing about Pizzagate is that it vindicates Breitbart's tweets before he died about Podesta being a pedophile.

    https://i.sli.mg/C9U1nQ.jpg

    peddling-fiction Soul Glow Dec 8, 2016 10:38 PM ,
    May he rest in peace. No fear.
    JTimchenko Dec 8, 2016 10:39 PM ,
    Lots of evil going on... but people ought not to be nuts enough to go into some pizza joint with a gun firing just because rumors are flying.
    Soul Glow JTimchenko Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    I'm all for gold manipulation. Leaves more time for me to buy it!

    ;)

    Neighbour Dec 8, 2016 10:37 PM ,
    Man knows Good and Evil, which is the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Man does not know God-Yet!

    When we are brought low, then we will know God, inwhich he will offer to us The Tree of Life.

    Keep your eyes open and ears tuned...our world is spinning faster and more violently then ever.

    cherry picker Neighbour Dec 8, 2016 10:54 PM ,
    The deeds of humans bring this out.

    This recent election illustrates how evil works.

    Read a book years ago by Dr. Karl Menninger, a psychiatrist, titled 'Whatever happened to Sin?'

    In it he talks of murder and that it is not a natural thing for man to do,. However, when the burden of guilt is spread over many shoulders and government condones the action, it becomes easier to bear.

    When observing the results, such as soldiers returning from war, unstable mentally, it is evident that evil has occured. It has been decades since I read the book, so the words I wrote may not be verbatim.

    dark pools of soros Dec 8, 2016 10:37 PM ,
    Good article.. must be fake

    ebworthen Dec 8, 2016 10:39 PM ,
    Wall Street, Washington, the FED, and the Kleptoligarchy are evil; Satanic.

    Was there a question in there somewhere?

    quax Dec 8, 2016 10:41 PM ,
    Unlike victimless Pizzagate a victim aledged to have been raped by Trump at the age of 13 did come forward, but this has been all but ignored here.
    kuwa mzuri quax Dec 8, 2016 10:50 PM ,
    You're saying raped, tortured, snuffed and maybe eaten child victims haven't come forward?

    You've got a point, then.

    stant Dec 8, 2016 10:41 PM ,
    Peak evil is hear , forget peak oil , peak debt etc
    Armadillo Bandit Dec 8, 2016 10:42 PM ,
    Lurked ZH for years, just started reading the comments. This is worse than Reddit's echo chamber. Bible quotes? 3 guys 1 hammer on liveleak has more productive comments. Why not mention methods you've used to help people reach their own conclusion about Pizzagate?
    Handful of Dust Dec 8, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    I had two slices of pizza for dinner. I had to try not to think of the poor children walking innocently about the store who may at any moment fall victim to a pedo. My gf said pizza places all over now need to keep a keen eye out for the Posdesta Brothers and their Gang after all the stuff that has come out from WikiLeaks and other sources about them.

    I notice the Podesta Brothers are now in hiding.

    Shameful.

    flaminratzazz Dec 8, 2016 10:51 PM ,
    The bible says God created evil and loosed it on us. The correct reading of Genesis 4;1 is from the dead sea scrolls stating :

    "And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan] , and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord."

    So in Isaiah 45:7 we have this:

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things .

    So my research shows evil was "grafted" into humans through the unholy alliance and 2 seedline of people resulted.

    US and THEM

    you can see it in their eyes

    kuwa mzuri Dec 8, 2016 10:54 PM ,
    Good article but an exception: evil doesn't reside in all of us, sin does. Evil is the expression of wanton and intentional deception, injury, degradation, and destruction and rarely self-recognizes or admits to God as supreme. It may be DNA encoded. Sociopathy certainly is.

    But you're so right about the organized nature of it all, and for thousands of years. The newly formed EU didn't advertise itself as the New Babylonia for nothing on publicty posters, heralding the coming age of one tongue out of many and fashioning its parliament building after the Tower of Bablyon:

    http://nteb-mudflowermedia.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/eur...

    Secret societies are cannibalizing us, and themselves, but members won't know till it's too late that they'll also be eaten fairly early on. Of all "people", they should know those in the pyramid capstone won't have enough elbow room if they let in every Tom, Dick and Harry Mason.

    HRH Feant Dec 8, 2016 10:47 PM ,
    I am sympatico with Brandon. I have always had similar interests, about the soul, about ethics, about human behavior.

    The reality is that evil is extant in other human beings. The thought that your property manager is going to piss in your OJ or fuck their BFF in your bed is abhorrent to most people, but not all. There was an article this week about a married couple that had concerns about their rental unit manager. And what did they find? He was fucking his BFF (yes, of course it was another dude) in their bed. The good news is they got it on video and moved. The bad news? This kind of attitude is rampant. People don't give a shit about other people. They think the rules don't apply to them. That they are special. The result is renting from some asshat that fucks in your bed or pisses in your OJ. Or parents that wonder why little Johnny or little Janie never move out of the house and are stoned and play video games all day.

    Evil exists, in varying forms. Sadly too many people continue to make excuses for not only bad behavior but evil behavior. I don't think that way and I don't live my life that way but I am fully aware of all the morons stumbling through the world that do.

    Ms No Dec 8, 2016 10:50 PM ,
    I think people are misunderstanding the setup theory. Nobody believes, at least I hope not, that all of this art and bizarre behavior on the part of these freaks was staged for the purposes of taking down the last of our free media, but rather, they just took advantage of a situation where they knew people were making accusations that couldn't be sufficiently backed up or even prosecuted, and yet caused proven or contrived damages to people. If this is the case, their intention, with the help of intelligence agencies , is to frame alt-media for starting vigilante violence and the destruction of innocent people's lives through promoting defamation against others.

    I have no doubt that our entire system is riddled with pedophilia and likely much worse. They have also been getting away with this forever, so when we go for the takedown we better have our ducks in a row. To do otherwise will just give these sickos complete immunity and more decades will pass with them continuing to prey on our children. Not only is this at stake but the fate of all the children of this nation is at stake if we lose our media. We are in very dangerous and treacherous times. When you go toe to toe with the professional trade crafters you have to play smart or they will have you every time.

    Once people have had enough exposure to NPDs or psychopaths you will vibe them after a while. I imagine this is likely the case for anyone who has worked as a trader, finance, politics, big commodity booms are bad, etc. We have all encountered them somewhere. People should pay attention to how they feel (yeah I know, people hate that word) when they are around people. I have to pretend that I don't notice them because it is so apparent to me and immediately.

    The last time I picked one out at work, a few months later the creepy bastard walked past me at night during a -20 blizzard, with next to no visibility, knowing that I had an hour drive, and told me in super spooky whisper.. "Don't hit a deer on your way home now." I found out later that a bunch of horses had mysteriously died in his care and a bunch of other things that confirmed my suspicions. I had a long battle with him so I eventually got to understand him pretty well. I didn't have to hear the guy state a single sentence or watch any body language, I just knew immediately because I could feel his malevolence and threat in my stomach where we have a large nerve cluster. Pay attention and you will know. Also their eye contact is all wrong and too intense.

    Aussiekiwi Dec 8, 2016 10:55 PM ,
    Globalism, is designed to make you poorer slowly over decades by allowing wages and conditions to be for ever slowly reduced under the guise of free market competition to funnel wealth ever upwards to the 1%.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Backlash Against Trade Deals: The End of US Led Economic Globalisation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
    "... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
    "... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
    "... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
    "... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
    "... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
    "... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
    "... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
    "... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
    "... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
    "... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
    "... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
    "... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
    "... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
    "... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
    "... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
    "... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
    "... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
    "... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
    "... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
    "... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
    "... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
    "... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
    "... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
    "... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
    "... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
    "... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
    "... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
    "... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
    "... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
    "... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
    "... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
    "... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
    "... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline

    There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America, Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the European Union.

    President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to back the deal.

    Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

    The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.

    But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January 2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality. Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.

    But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.

    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:

    1. the intellectual property provisions,
    2. the restrictions on regulatory practices
    3. the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

    All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations

    For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.

    This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.

    There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established players.

    The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.

    All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal" treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors, rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.

    If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

    So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

    human , September 22, 2016 at 10:14 am

    his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    "just _after_ the November Presidential election"

    Uahsenaa , September 22, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted, pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties, but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it up!

    allan , September 22, 2016 at 11:30 am

    On a related note:

    U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers [WSJ]

    A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.

    The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when they are following mandates of a foreign government.

    "I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.

    Wellstone's Ghost , September 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and simple.

    RPDC , September 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

    Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)

    Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!

    We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.

    Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .

    Quanka , September 23, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.

    different clue , September 24, 2016 at 1:00 am

    Really? Well . . . might as well vote for Clinton then.

    First Woman President!
    Feminism!
    Liberation!

    TedWa , September 22, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.

    a different chris , September 22, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    >only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.

    At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World countries . assuming there are any left.

    oh , September 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers with foreign visa workers.

    But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their insurance company (GEICO, etc.).

    I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty, the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc., etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke), but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future!

    http://www.brettonwoods.org
    http://www.group30.org

    Arthur J , September 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.

    Carla , September 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.

    According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge governments over investment disputes.

    In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."

    http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/transcanada_complains_nafta_sues_us_15_bn_keystone_xl_rejection/

    Six states have since joined that federal law suit.

    Kris Alman , September 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm

    It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.

    Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.

    The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
    "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."

    That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.

    A plot twist!

    Vietnam will not include ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the agenda for its next parliament session. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/1087705/vietnam-delays-tpp-vote So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Vatch , September 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade".

    hemeantwell , September 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy."

    Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project!

    ChrisFromGeorgia , September 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves.

    Funny how little things change over the centuries.

    Brad , September 22, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.

    "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.

    Minnie Mouse , September 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    When America writes the rules of the global economy the global economy destroys America.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 22, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".

    Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada and Mexico.

    different clue , September 23, 2016 at 1:40 am

    Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".

    Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really get Free Trade killed and destroyed.

    Chauncey Gardiner , September 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?

    KYrocky , September 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.

    At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else after she left. Or face criminal charges.

    Yeah. Nothing secret about that.

    Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!

    Spencer , September 22, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.

    So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).

    In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start, trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.

    Praedor , September 23, 2016 at 10:30 am

    I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements when this is the result?

    Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Democratic Party Presidential Platform of 1996 – On Immigration

    Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
    "... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
    "... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    What follows is from Today's Democratic Party: Meeting America's Challenges, Protecting America's Values , a.k.a., the 1996 Democratic Party Platform. This is the section on immigration. I took the liberty of bolding pieces I found interesting.

    Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship , and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.

    We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape, and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and truly call America their home.

    Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.

    President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.

    However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.

    Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries. We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be held legally responsible for supporting them.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value - the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years. ..."
    "... IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China ..."
    "... It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    Dante5 1d ago
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value - the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army.

    If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China -- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict.

    It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Fareed Zakaria Is Confused on Trade and the TPP

    Notable quotes:
    "... The real problem is the Chinese do not believe in economic profits, just market rates of return on invested capital which to be honest is only about 2-5% depending on risk. ..."
    Jul 20, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
    July 20, 2015
    anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    What we find the most interesting is that the AIIB founders didn't ask member countries to approve an expansion of either the World Bank or the ADB. Instead, they opted for a new organization altogether.
    Why? The problem is institutional legitimacy arising from issues of power and governance :

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz

    [ Why? Because when all is said and done the United States wants to be able to control the Asian Development Bank, the IMF and World Bank and use them to in turn "control" countries that it wishes to be subject to the US but especially to control China as the New York Times editorial board made clear today in supporting Japanese militarism. *

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/opinion/japan-wrestles-with-its-pacifism.html ]

    anne -> anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz

    [ Unless the word "official" suffices as an excuse, of course United States and British policy makers in particular dispute the need for more government supported infrastructure funding. Amartya Sen and Vijay Prashad have made this entirely clear for India. *

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/opinion/why-india-trails-china.html ]

    mulp -> anne :

    The real problem is the Chinese do not believe in economic profits, just market rates of return on invested capital which to be honest is only about 2-5% depending on risk.

    Americans demand monopoly profits and ROIC so high that the price of capital assets rapidly inflates.

    Thus China's high speed rail plans are evil because China is advocating high volumes of HSR construction that costs decline by economies of scale leading to the replacement cost of any existing rail line being lower than original cost so the result is capital depreciation lower the price of assets, tangible and intangible, and the frantic pace of creating jobs and building more capital - more rail - eliminates any monopoly power of any rail system, thereby forcing revenues down to costs with the recovery of investment cost stretched to decades, and ROIC forced toward zero.

    And it's that policy of investing to eliminate profits that drives conservatives insane. They scream, "it is bankrupt because those hundred year lifetime assets are not paying for themselves and generating stock market gains in seven years!"

    Its like banking was from circa 1930 to 1980! It is like utility regulation was from 1930 to 1980! How can wealth be created when monopoly power is thwarted?!?

    Just imagine how devastating if China uses the AIIB to build a rail network speeding goods between China and the tip of Africa and every place in between! Highly destructive of wealth.

    anne -> mulp :

    Interesting argument that I will carefully think through and argue with in turn. Nice, nice comment.

    anne -> mulp :

    Terrific comment, which should be further developed; I am thinking.

    anne -> mulp :

    Though I want to smooth the writing and terminology, I completely agree. Again, a terrific thoroughly enlightening comment. ]

    anne :

    And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards :.

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz

    [ Surely the IMF and the like are responsible for the "explosive" 38 year growth in real per capita Gross Domestic Product and 35 year growth in total factor productivity from Mexico, neighbor to the United States, to the Philippines, to Kenya : ]

    anne -> anne :

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1pbp

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, India, Brazil and South Africa, 1976-2014

    (Percent change)


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1pbq

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, India, Brazil and South Africa, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne -> anne :

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=RZD

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, India, Brazil and South Africa, 1976-2011


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=VJj

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, India, Brazil and South Africa, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne -> anne :

    Even supposing analysts short of an Amartya Sen wish to be judicious in actually looking to the data of the last 38 years, as even Sen has found there is a price for arguing about the obvious importance of soft (social welfare spending) and hard institutional infrastructure spending in China:


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=15Ie

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and Mexico, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1tO2

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and Philippines, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1tO3

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and Kenya, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne :

    And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards :.

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1qyT

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, United States and
    United Kingdom, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=VJf

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
    United States and United Kingdom, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards :.

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1tiq

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States, United
    Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Germany and China, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=197l

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for United
    States, United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Germany and China,
    1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    What we find the most interesting is that the AIIB founders didn't ask member countries to approve an expansion of either the World Bank or the ADB. Instead, they opted for a new organization altogether.

    Why? The problem is institutional legitimacy arising from issues of power and governance :

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1qsO

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=10zf

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
    Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards :.

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1qzW

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Sweden, Denmark, Norway,
    Finland and China, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1qzY

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Sweden,
    Denmark, Norway, Finland and China, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards :.

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1qE2

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Ireland, Portugal, Spain,
    Italy, Greece and China, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1qE5

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Ireland,
    Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and China, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards :.

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1pco

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, Japan and Korea, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=VYR

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, Japan and Korea, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    kthomas :

    yawn

    anne :

    Yawn

    [ When did the United States experience 38 years of 8.6% real per capita GDP growth yearly? How about the United Kingdom? How about any other country? I have just begun, go ahead choose another country to go with China. I am waiting. Go ahead. I will include the astonishing total factor productivity growth as well. ]

    anne :

    While most of the G20 nations, including the big European states, Australia, and South Korea, are among the founding members, the United States, Japan, and Canada are noticeably not :

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz

    [ I found it startling and discouraging that Greece virtually alone in Europe did not apply to be a founding member of the AIIB. ]

    anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards :.

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1q64

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, United Kingdom,
    Australia and Canada, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=10fa

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
    United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne -> anne :

    Yawn

    [ I am still waiting, choose a country to go with China. ]

    anne -> anne :

    No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :

    And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards :.

    -- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1tX6

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and China, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1tX8

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and China, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne -> anne :

    Yawn

    [ Still waiting, choose a country to go with China. ]

    Bruce Webb :

    As to why the AIIB decided to go alone (at least without the US) it may have something to do with a fact that I stumbled on in relation to the Greece crisis. I am sure that most people here knew the basic fact and perhaps appreciate the irony but I didn't know whether to weep or laugh outright.

    The U.S. only controls 17% of voting powers of the IMF. Why barely a sixth! Yet any positive decision requires an 85% vote. Meaning that in operational terms the U.S. might as well hold 51%.

    You see similar things with NATO. It's a partnership that has high officers rotating in from here or there. But which requires that the overall NATO Commander be an American.

    Nothing undemocratic or hegemonic here! Nope! Moving right along!

    anne -> Bruce Webb :

    The U.S. only controls 17% of voting powers of the IMF. Why barely a sixth! Yet any positive decision requires an 85% vote. Meaning that in operational terms the U.S. might as well hold 51%.

    You see similar things with NATO. It's a partnership that has high officers rotating in from here or there. But which requires that the overall NATO Commander be an American.

    Nothing undemocratic or hegemonic here! Nope! Moving right along!

    [ Perfect and important. ]

    anne -> Bruce Webb :

    I am sure that most people here knew the basic fact and perhaps appreciate the irony but I didn't know whether to weep or laugh outright :.

    [ No, in continually whining about the need for Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to be transparent and democratic the United States was making sure never ever to explain the historic lack of transparency and anti-democratic nature of the IMF and World Bank and Asian Development Bank. ]

    anne :

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1qtx

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Brazil, Argentina, Chile
    and China, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1qtr

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Brazil,
    Argentina, Chile and China, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne :

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1tYy

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, India and Turkey, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=181Y

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, India and Turkey, 1976-2011

    (Indexed to 1976)

    [Dec 05, 2016] The geopolitical reasons for TPP, from Americas point of view, are pretty clear. It is a preemptive move against future China dominance in the region

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bill Clinton: "The geopolitical reasons for [TPP], from America's point of view, are pretty clear. It's designed to make sure that the future of the Asia-Pacific region, economically, is not totally dominated by China" ..."
    "... " The full 40-page paper (PDF) [from the Global Development And Environment Institute at Tufts University] goes into the details [of projected economic gains from trade deals]. Along the way, it provides a highly critical analysis of the underlying econometric model used for almost all of the official studies of CETA, TPP and TTIP - the so-called "computable general equilibrium" (CGE) approach. In particular, the authors find that using the CGE model to analyze a potential trade deal effectively guarantees that there will be a positive outcome ("net welfare gains") because of its unrealistic assumptions" [ TechDirt ]. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Bill Clinton: "The geopolitical reasons for [TPP], from America's point of view, are pretty clear. It's designed to make sure that the future of the Asia-Pacific region, economically, is not totally dominated by China" [ CNBC ].

    "However, he stopped short [by about an inch, right?] of supporting the TPP. He added that his wife [who is running for President' has said provisions on currency manipulation must be enforced and measures put in place in the United States to address any labor market dislocations that result from trade deals." Oh. "Provisions enforced" sounds like executive authority, to me. And "measures put in place" sounds like a side deal. In other words, Bill Clinton just floated Hillary's trial balloon for passing TPP, if Obama can't get it done in the lame duck. Of course, if you parsed her words, you knew she wasn't lying , exactly .

    " The full 40-page paper (PDF) [from the Global Development And Environment Institute at Tufts University] goes into the details [of projected economic gains from trade deals]. Along the way, it provides a highly critical analysis of the underlying econometric model used for almost all of the official studies of CETA, TPP and TTIP - the so-called "computable general equilibrium" (CGE) approach. In particular, the authors find that using the CGE model to analyze a potential trade deal effectively guarantees that there will be a positive outcome ("net welfare gains") because of its unrealistic assumptions" [ TechDirt ].

    "Conservative lawmakers looking for a way to buck Donald Trump's populist message on trade may have gotten a little more cover with more than 30 conservative and libertarian groups sending a letter today to Congress expressing strong support for free trade" [ Politico ]. National Taxpayers Union, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks

    "France is set to arrive at the meeting with a proposal to suspend TTIP negotiations, our Pro Trade colleagues in Brussels report. But for the deal's supporters, there's hop'e: 'France will not win the day,' Alberto Mucci, Christian Oliver and Hans von der Burchard write. 'Britain [???], Italy, Spain, Poland, the Nordic countries and the Baltics will thwart any attempt to end the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in Bratislava'" [ Politico ].

    [Dec 05, 2016] Stiglitz Blasts Outrageous TPP as Obama Campaigns for Corporate-Friendly Deal Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the

    Notable quotes:
    "... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
    "... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."

    Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute, made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."

    His criticism comes as Obama aggressively campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even as resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.

    Echoing an argument made by Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."

    Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may, in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that are not in the national interest," he said.

    Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade."

    "The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone," he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."

    Stiglitz has previously spoken out against the TPP before, arguing that it "may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades;" that it would mean "if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars;" and previously said that the president's TPP push "is one of Obama's biggest mistakes."

    Stiglitz has also been advising the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team.

    Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts on working families.

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Tulsi Gabbard - Fighting for the people.

    Aug 01, 2016 | www.votetulsi.com

    We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with lower labor costs and standards.

    Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers, and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf) confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas, and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.

    There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U

    Watch: Tulsi restates the need for transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the House floor.

    [Dec 05, 2016] BuzzFeed Exposes Corporate Super Courts That Can Overrule Government

    Corporations are "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy illegitimate
    Notable quotes:
    "... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
    "... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
    "... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
    "... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | Back to (our) Future

    BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called "Secrets of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."

    Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special "corporate courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.

    The 2014 post "Corporate Courts - A Big Red Flag On "Trade" Agreements" explained the origin and rationale for these corporate courts:

    Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.

    Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers" and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they have "earned."

    To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic" from which they need special protection.

    "Trade" Deals Bypass Borders

    Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.

    Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

    Secrets of a Global Super Court

    BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world economy. These provisions set up "corporate courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries in the "trade" deals.

    Part One, "Inside The Global "Club" That Helps Executives Escape Their Crimes," describes, "A parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else, helps executives convicted of crimes escape punishment."

    In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive, and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."

    [. . .]

    Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation, bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.

    Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi, and the Russian oligarch known as "the Kremlin's banker."

    One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said, "You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit the jackpot."

    Part Two, "The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."

    Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.

    [. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers, meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national budgets and shake economies to the core.

    Part Three, "To Bankers, It's Not Just A Court System, It's A Gold Mine," exposes how "Financial companies have figured out how to turn a controversial global legal system to their own very profitable advantage."

    Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business: prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.

    The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances, would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.

    ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million. Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."

    David Dayen explains this last point, in "The Big Problem With The Trans-Pacific Partnership's Super Court That We're Not Talking About": "Financiers will use it to bet on lawsuits, while taxpayers foot the bill."

    But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

    Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases. And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker Media.

    Part Four of the great BuzzFeed series, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," is expected to be published later this week.

    PCCC Statement

    The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement on the ISDS provisions in TPP:

    "Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage. We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.

    "It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting political harm to Democrats with voters."

    [Dec 05, 2016] No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
    "... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Joe Hunter , August 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    " http://www.defenddemocracy.press/whole-game-containing-russisa-china/

    A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:

    1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
    2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
    3. Russia-China on the march.
    4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3."

    http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160829/1044733257/russia-china-game-brics.html

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).

    [Dec 05, 2016] In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: we have come too far , our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now.

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    L , August 26, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:

    In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant political capital.

    On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long, and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss of status and to further opposition.

    However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body, and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public, not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress itself.

    Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not "our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was not.

    What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good.

    When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national sovreignity, there is no contest.

    Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy, our nation, does.

    flora , August 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    +1

    grizziz , August 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Thank you for your comment. +1

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    "We've gone too far."

    Whaddaya mean, "we"?

    ambrit , August 26, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The imperial "We."
    I just had a soul corroding vision of H Clinton done up as Victoria Regina. Ouch!!! Go get the butter!

    Jim Haygood , August 26, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    In modern parlance, she's Victoria Rejayjay. :-0

    JohnnyGL , August 26, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Good comment .

    "What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good."

    Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten, piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad! Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct these absurd schemes like ISDS.

    abynormal , August 26, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a pissed off public. jmo tho')

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.

    Synoia , August 26, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    And his post-presidential money small .

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.

    My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.

    John Wright , August 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    The must preserve American credibility argument on the line again.

    Here is a quote from NYT's Nicholas Kristoff from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/opinion/kristof-reinforce-a-norm-in-syria.html

    "It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    Obama did back down.

    NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through bombing Syria.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    he's just another syncophantic punk .in a long line of syncophantic punks

    ..oh..that includes Kristof too

    RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation of countries

    We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    yeah but will he have to shave off his 'stache' ??

    Propertius , August 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Well said!

    HopeLB , August 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    Wonderful (and credible) assessment.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Framing Votes for TPP as the Surrender of National Sovereignty (i.e., Treason) naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
    "... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
    "... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Why the Proponents of TPP Are Traitors

    There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is a surrender of national sovereignty .

    National Defense

    This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into products intended for the jet" ( Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need to bring a lot of manufacturing home. From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :

    In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."

    Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.

    The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.

    And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.

    So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds; and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course, this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor. She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")

    ISDS

    The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases). Yves wrote :

    What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process (ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.

    (More from NC on the ISDS panels , the TPP clauses on ISDS , the "code of conduct" for lawyers before the ISDS, pending ISDS settlements , and the potential constitutional challenges to the ISDS system.)

    Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits" doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors. To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.

    The Political State of Play

    All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation. That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session, by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by Trump[1]).

    Passing TPP in the Lame Duck Session

    Obama is committed to passing TPP (and we might remember that the adminstration failed to pass the draft in Maui , then succeeded in Atlanta . And the House killed Fast Track once , before voting for it (after which the Senate easily passed it, and Obama signed it). So the TPP may be a "heavy lift," but that doesn't mean Obama can't accomplish it. Obama says :

    [OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles, there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.

    I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect to the actual agreement.

    So how would Obama "muddle through"? One way is to appeal to legislators who won't have to face voters again :

    So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

    Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

    So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

    (The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow. And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means! - there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text, so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])

    Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ( Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However, if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or, if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)

    Passing TPP after the Inaugural

    After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion of not hurting workers even better:

    Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets through.

    Finally, an even more radical proposal, again from a conservative source :

    What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal. Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support to get it through Congress.

    Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly, although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives, she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs," even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed ( her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions, bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote against the United States.

    Conclusion

    I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty. Here's a great slab of it :

    Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.

    Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.

    Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as "The Club" or "The Mafia."

    And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing - and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.

    This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    NOTE

    [1] Trump: "I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just looking at Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because I don't think we have any data to go on.

    [2] In-Depth News explains the mechanisms:

    To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be amended.

    He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.

    This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown to Congress members that their objectives have been met.

    In other words, side deals.

    [3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.

    [Dec 05, 2016] US Faces Major Setback As Europeans Revolt Against TTIP

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
    "... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
    "... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".

    The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states.

    In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also come under attack.

    US presidential candidate Donald Trump has promoted protectionist trade policies, while rival Hillary Clinton has also cast doubt on the TTIP deal. Congressional opposition has become steep. The lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have railed against free trade agreements as unfair to US companies and workers.

    These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances are really slim.

    silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM

    "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trump campaign is a similar to Brexit crusade by grassroots activists against big banks and global political insiders . by those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised

    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
    "... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    ...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and oddsmakers wrong as well.

    This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never staid campaign rallies.

    The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.

    Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking forward to Farage's speech.

    The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as "CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.

    Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton.

    "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it."

    "I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee. "It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Failure of Globalization and the Fourth Estate

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning. ..."
    "... Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better. ..."
    "... "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that. ..."
    "... The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets! ..."
    naked capitalism
    Free Trade," the banner of Globalization, has not only wrecked the world's economy, it has left Western Democracy in shambles. Europe edges ever closer to deflation. The Fed dare not increase interest rates, now poised at barely above zero. As China's stock market threatened collapse, China poured billions to prop it up. It's export machine is collapsing. Not once, but twice, it recently manipulated its currency to makes its goods cheaper on the world market. What is happening?

    The following two graphs tell most of the story. First, an overview of Free Trade.

    Deficit4-1024x420

    Capital fled from developed countries to undeveloped countries with slave-cheap labor, countries with no environmental standards, countries with no support for collective bargaining. Corporations, like Apple, set up shop in China and other undeveloped countries. Some, like China, manipulated its currency to make exported goods to the West even cheaper. Some, like China, gave preferential tax treatment to Western firm over indigenous firms. Economists cheered as corporate efficiency unsurprisingly rose. U.S. citizens became mere consumers.

    Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Financial Modernization Act, banks, now unconstrained, could peddle rigged financial services, offer insurance on its own investment products–in short, banks were free to play with everyone's money–and simply too big to fail. Credit was easy and breezy. If nasty Arabs bombed the Trade Center, why the solution was simple: Go to the shopping mall–and buy. That remarkable piece of advice is just what freedom has been all about.

    Next: China's export machine sputters.

    CAIXEN-1024x527

    China's problem is that there are not enough orders to keep the export machine going. There comes a time when industrialized nations simply run out of cash–I mean the little people run out of cash. CEOs and those just below them–along with slick Wall Street gauchos–made bundles on Free Trade, corporate capital that could set up shop in any impoverished nation in the world.. No worries about labor–dirt cheap–or environmental regulations–just bring your gas masks. At some point the Western consumer well was bound to run dry. Credit was exhausted; the little guy could not buy anymore. Free trade was on its last legs.

    So what did China do then? As its markets crashed, it tried to revive its export model, a model based on foreign firms exporting cheap goods to the West. China lowered its exchange rates, not once but twice. Then China tried to rescue the markets with cash infusion of billions. Still its market continued to crash. Manufacturing plants had closed–thousands of them. Free Trade and Globalization had run its course.

    And what has the Fed been doing? Why quantitative easy–increase the money supply and lower short term interest rates. Like China's latest currency manipulation, both were merely stop-gap measures. No one, least of all Obama and his corporate advisors, was ready to address corporate outsourcing that has cost millions of jobs. Prime the pump a little, but never address the real problem.

    The WTO sets the groundwork for trade among its member states. That groundwork is deeply flawed. Trade between impoverished third world countries and sophisticated first world economies is not merely a matter of regulating "dumping"-not allowing one country to flood the market with cheap goods-nor is it a matter of insuring that the each country does not favor its indigenous firms over foreign firms. Comparable labor and environmental standards are necessary. Does anyone think that a first world worker can compete with virtual slave labor? Does anyone think that a first world nation with excellent environmental regulations can compete with a third world nation that refuses to protect its environment?

    Only lately has Apple even mentioned that it might clean up its mess in China. The Apple miracle has been on the backs of the Chinese poor and abysmal environmental wreckage that is China.

    The WTO allows three forms of inequities-all of which encourage outsourcing: labor arbitrage, tax arbitrage, and environmental arbitrage. For a fuller explanation of these inequities and the "race to the bottom," see here.

    Of course now we have the mother of all Free Trade deals –the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)– carefully wrapped in a black box so that none of us can see what finally is in store for us. Nothing is ever "Free"–even trade. I suspect that China is becoming a bit too noxious and poisonous. It simply has to deal with its massive environmental problems. Time to move the game to less despoiled and maybe more impoverished countries. Meanwhile, newscasters are always careful to tout TPP.

    Fast Tracking is a con man's game. Do it so fast that the marks never have a chance to watch their wallets. In hiding negotiations from prying, public eyes, Obama, has given the con men a bigger edge: A screen to hide the corporations making deals. Their interest is in profits, not in public good.

    Consider the media. Our only defense is a strong independent media. At one time, newsrooms were not required to be profitable. Reporting the news was considered a community service. Corporate ownership provided the necessary funding for its newsrooms–and did not interfere.

    But the 70′s and 80′s corporate ownership required its newsrooms to be profitable. Slowly but surely, newsrooms focused on personality, entertainment, and wedge issues–always careful not to rock the corporate boat, always careful not to tread on governmental policy. Whoever thought that one major news service–Fox–would become a breeding ground for one particular party.

    But consider CNN: It organizes endless GOP debates; then spends hours dissecting them. Create the news; then sell it–and be sure to spin it in the direction you want.

    Are matters of substance ever discussed? When has a serious foreign policy debate ever been allowed occurred–without editorial interference from the media itself. When has trade and outsourcing been seriously discussed–other than by peripheral news media?

    Meanwhile, news media becomes more and more centralized. Murdoch now owns National Geographic!

    Now, thanks to Bush and Obama, we have the chilling effect of the NSA. Just whom does the NSA serve when it collects all of our digital information? Is it being used to ferret out the plans of those exercising their right of dissent? Is it being used to increase the profits of favored corporations? Why does it need all of your and my personal information–from bank accounts, to credit cards, to travel plans, to friends with whom we chat .Why is it afraid of us?


    jefemt, October 23, 2015 at 9:43 am

    As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning.

    If 'they' are failing, I'd hate to see success!

    Isn't it the un-collective WE who are failing?

    failing to organize,
    failing to come up with plausible, 90 degrees off present Lemming-to-Brink path alternative plans and policies,
    failing to agree on any of many plausible alternatives that might work

    Divided- for now- hopefully not conquered ..

    I gotta scoot and get back to Dancing with the Master Chefs

    allan, October 23, 2015 at 10:03 am

    Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better.

    Vatch, October 23, 2015 at 10:36 am

    Don't just watch the toxic sludge; respond to it with a letter to the editor (LTE) of the offending publication! For some of those toxic editorials, and contact information for LTEs, see:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/200pm-water-cooler-10162015.html#comment-2503316

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/trading-away-land-rights-tpp-investment-agreements-and-the-governance-of-land.html#comment-2502833

    A few of the editorials may now be obscured by paywalls or registration requirements, but most should still be visible. Let them know that we see through their nonsense!

    TedWa, October 23, 2015 at 10:38 am

    "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that.

    TG, October 23, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets!

    Pelham, October 23, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Even when newsrooms were more independent they probably would not, in general, have reported on free trade with any degree of skepticism. The recent disappearance of the old firewall between the news and corporate sides has made things worse, but at least since the "professionalization" of newsrooms that began to really take hold in the '60s, journalists have tended to identify far more with their sources in power than with their readers.

    There have, of course, been notable exceptions. But even these sometimes serve more to obscure the real day-to-day nature of journalism's fealty to the corporate world than to bring about any significant change.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Great Ponzi Scheme of the Global Economy

    www.counterpunch.org
    March 25, 2016

    CHRIS HEDGES: We're going to be discussing a great Ponzi scheme that not only defines not only the U.S. but the global economy, how we got there and where we're going. And with me to discuss this issue is the economist Michael Hudson, author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. A professor of economics who worked for many years on Wall Street, where you don't succeed if you don't grasp Marx's dictum that capitalism is about exploitation. And he is also, I should mention, the godson of Leon Trotsky.

    I want to open this discussion by reading a passage from your book, which I admire very much, which I think gets to the core of what you discuss. You write,

    "Adam Smith long ago remarked that profits often are highest in nations going fastest to ruin. There are many ways to create economic suicide on a national level. The major way through history has been through indebting the economy. Debt always expands to reach a point where it cannot be paid by a large swathe of the economy. This is the point where austerity is imposed and ownership of wealth polarizes between the One Percent and the 99 Percent. Today is not the first time this has occurred in history. But it is the first time that running into debt has occurred deliberately." Applauded. "As if most debtors can get rich by borrowing, not reduced to a condition of debt peonage."

    So let's start with the classical economists, who certainly understood this. They were reacting of course to feudalism. And what happened to the study of economics so that it became gamed by ideologues?

    HUDSON: The essence of classical economics was to reform industrial capitalism, to streamline it, and to free the European economies from the legacy of feudalism. The legacy of feudalism was landlords extracting land-rent, and living as a class that took income without producing anything. Also, banks that were not funding industry. The leading industrialists from James Watt, with his steam engine, to the railroads

    HEDGES: From your book you make the point that banks almost never funded industry.

    HUDSON: That's the point: They never have. By the time you got to Marx later in the 19th century, you had a discussion, largely in Germany, over how to make banks do something they did not do under feudalism. Right now we're having the economic surplus being drained not by the landlords but also by banks and bondholders.

    Adam Smith was very much against colonialism because that lead to wars, and wars led to public debt. He said the solution to prevent this financial class of bondholders burdening the economy by imposing more and more taxes on consumer goods every time they went to war was to finance wars on a pay-as-you-go basis. Instead of borrowing, you'd tax the people. Then, he thought, if everybody felt the burden of war in the form of paying taxes, they'd be against it. Well, it took all of the 19th century to fight for democracy and to extend the vote so that instead of landlords controlling Parliament and its law-making and tax system through the House of Lords, you'd extend the vote to labor, to women and everybody. The theory was that society as a whole would vote in its self-interest. It would vote for the 99 Percent, not for the One Percent.

    By the time Marx wrote in the 1870s, he could see what was happening in Germany. German banks were trying to make money in conjunction with the government, by lending to heavy industry, largely to the military-industrial complex.

    HEDGES: This was Bismarck's kind of social – I don't know what we'd call it. It was a form of capitalist socialism

    HUDSON: They called it State Capitalism. There was a long discussion by Engels, saying, wait a minute. We're for Socialism. State Capitalism isn't what we mean by socialism. There are two kinds of state-oriented–.

    HEDGES: I'm going to interject that there was a kind of brilliance behind Bismarck's policy because he created state pensions, he provided health benefits, and he directed banking toward industry, toward the industrialization of Germany which, as you point out, was very different in Britain and the United States.

    HUDSON: German banking was so successful that by the time World War I broke out, there were discussions in English economic journals worrying that Germany and the Axis powers were going to win because their banks were more suited to fund industry. Without industry you can't have really a military. But British banks only lent for foreign trade and for speculation. Their stock market was a hit-and-run operation. They wanted quick in-and-out profits, while German banks didn't insist that their clients pay as much in dividends. German banks owned stocks as well as bonds, and there was much more of a mutual partnership.

    That's what most of the 19th century imagined was going to happen – that the world was on the way to socializing banking. And toward moving capitalism beyond the feudal level, getting rid of the landlord class, getting rid of the rent, getting rid of interest. It was going to be labor and capital, profits and wages, with profits being reinvested in more capital. You'd have an expansion of technology. By the early twentieth century most futurists imagined that we'd be living in a leisure economy by now.

    HEDGES: Including Karl Marx.

    HUDSON: That's right. A ten-hour workweek. To Marx, socialism was to be an outgrowth of the reformed state of capitalism, as seemed likely at the time – if labor organized in its self-interest.

    HEDGES: Isn't what happened in large part because of the defeat of Germany in World War I? But also, because we took the understanding of economists like Adam Smith and maybe Keynes. I don't know who you would blame for this, whether Ricardo or others, but we created a fictitious economic theory to praise a rentier or rent-derived, interest-derived capitalism that countered productive forces within the economy. Perhaps you can address that.

    HUDSON: Here's what happened. Marx traumatized classical economics by taking the concepts of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill and others, and pushing them to their logical conclusion. 2KillingTheHost_Cover_ruleProgressive capitalist advocates – Ricardian socialists such as John Stuart Mill – wanted to tax away the land or nationalize it. Marx wanted governments to take over heavy industry and build infrastructure to provide low-cost and ultimately free basic services. This was traumatizing the landlord class and the One Percent. And they fought back. They wanted to make everything part of "the market," which functioned on credit supplied by them and paid rent to them.

    None of the classical economists imagined how the feudal interests – these great vested interests that had all the land and money – actually would fight back and succeed. They thought that the future was going to belong to capital and labor. But by the late 19th century, certainly in America, people like John Bates Clark came out with a completely different theory, rejecting the classical economics of Adam Smith, the Physiocrats and John Stuart Mill.

    HEDGES: Physiocrats are, you've tried to explain, the enlightened French economists.

    HUDSON: The common denominator among all these classical economists was the distinction between earned income and unearned income. Unearned income was rent and interest. Earned incomes were wages and profits. But John Bates Clark came and said that there's no such thing as unearned income. He said that the landlord actually earns his rent by taking the effort to provide a house and land to renters, while banks provide credit to earn their interest. Every kind of income is thus "earned," and everybody earns their income. So everybody who accumulates wealth, by definition, according to his formulas, get rich by adding to what is now called Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    HEDGES: One of the points you make in Killing the Host which I liked was that in almost all cases, those who had the capacity to make money parasitically off interest and rent had either – if you go back to the origins – looted and seized the land by force, or inherited it.

    HUDSON: That's correct. In other words, their income is unearned. The result of this anti-classical revolution you had just before World War I was that today, almost all the economic growth in the last decade has gone to the One Percent. It's gone to Wall Street, to real estate

    HEDGES: But you blame this on what you call Junk Economics.

    HUDSON: Junk Economics is the anti-classical reaction.

    HEDGES: Explain a little bit how, in essence, it's a fictitious form of measuring the economy.

    HUDSON: Well, some time ago I went to a bank, a block away from here – a Chase Manhattan bank – and I took out money from the teller. As I turned around and took a few steps, there were two pickpockets. One pushed me over and the other grabbed the money and ran out. The guard stood there and saw it. So I asked for the money back. I said, look, I was robbed in your bank, right inside. And they said, "Well, we don't arm our guards because if they shot someone, the thief could sue us and we don't want that." They gave me an equivalent amount of money back.

    Well, imagine if you count all this crime, all the money that's taken, as an addition to GDP. Because now the crook has provided the service of not stabbing me. Or suppose somebody's held up at an ATM machine and the robber says, "Your money or your life." You say, "Okay, here's my money." The crook has given you the choice of your life. In a way that's how the Gross National Product accounts are put up. It's not so different from how Wall Street extracts money from the economy. Then also you have landlords extracting

    HEDGES: Let's go back. They're extracting money from the economy by debt peonage. By raising

    HUDSON: By not playing a productive role, basically.

    HEDGES: Right. So it's credit card interest, mortgage interest, car loans, student loans. That's how they make their funds.

    HUDSON: That's right. Money is not a factor of production. But in order to have access to credit, in order to get money, in order to get an education, you have to pay the banks. At New York University here, for instance, they have Citibank. I think Citibank people were on the board of directors at NYU. You get the students, when they come here, to start at the local bank. And once you are in a bank and have monthly funds taken out of your account for electric utilities, or whatever, it's very cumbersome to change.

    So basically you have what the classical economists called the rentier class. The class that lives on economic rents. Landlords, monopolists charging more, and the banks. If you have a pharmaceutical company that raises the price of a drug from $12 a shot to $200 all of a sudden, their profits go up. Their increased price for the drug is counted in the national income accounts as if the economy is producing more. So all this presumed economic growth that has all been taken by the One Percent in the last ten years, and people say the economy is growing. But the economy isn't growing

    HEDGES: Because it's not reinvested.

    HUDSON: That's right. It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate.

    HEDGES: And why is it important, as I think you point out in your book, that economic theory counts this rentier income as productive income? Explain why that's important.

    HUDSON: If you're a rentier, you want to say that you earned your income by

    HEDGES: We're talking about Goldman Sachs, by the way.

    HUDSON: Yes, Goldman Sachs. The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. The concept of productivity in America is income divided by labor. So if you're Goldman Sachs and you pay yourself $20 million a year in salary and bonuses, you're considered to have added $20 million to GDP, and that's enormously productive. So we're talking in a tautology. We're talking with circular reasoning here.

    So the issue is whether Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and predatory pharmaceutical firms, actually add "product" or whether they're just exploiting other people. That's why I used the word parasitism in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's much more complicated. The parasite can't simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn't realize the parasite's there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host's brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.

    That's basically what Wall Street has done. It depicts itself as part of the economy. Not as a wrapping around it, not as external to it, but actually the part that's helping the body grow, and that actually is responsible for most of the growth. But in fact it's the parasite that is taking over the growth.

    The result is an inversion of classical economics. It turns Adam Smith upside down. It says what the classical economists said was unproductive – parasitism – actually is the real economy. And that the parasites are labor and industry that get in the way of what the parasite wants – which is to reproduce itself, not help the host, that is, labor and capital.

    HEDGES: And then the classical economists like Adam Smith were quite clear that unless that rentier income, you know, the money made by things like hedge funds, was heavily taxed and put back into the economy, the economy would ultimately go into a kind of tailspin. And I think the example of that, which you point out in your book, is what's happened in terms of large corporations with stock dividends and buybacks. And maybe you can explain that.

    HUDSON: There's an idea in superficial textbooks and the public media that if companies make a large profit, they make it by being productive. And with

    HEDGES: Which is still in textbooks, isn't it?

    HUDSON: Yes. And also that if a stock price goes up, you're just capitalizing the profits – and the stock price reflects the productive role of the company. But that's not what's been happening in the last ten years. Just in the last two years, 92 percent of corporate profits in America have been spent either on buying back their own stock, or paid out as dividends to raise the price of the stock.

    HEDGES: Explain why they do this.

    HUDSON: About 15 years ago at Harvard, Professor Jensen said that the way to ensure that corporations are run most efficiently is to make the managers increase the price of the stock. So if you give the managers stock options, and you pay them not according to how much they're producing or making the company bigger, or expanding production, but the price of the stock, then you'll have the corporation run efficiently, financial style.

    So the corporate managers find there are two ways that they can increase the price of the stock. The first thing is to cut back long-term investment, and use the money instead to buy back their own stock. But when you buy your own stock, that means you're not putting the money into capital formation. You're not building new factories. You're not hiring more labor. You can actually increase the stock price by firing labor.

    HEDGES: That strategy only works temporarily.

    HUDSON: Temporarily. By using the income from past investments just to buy back stock, fire the labor force if you can, and work it more intensively. Pay it out as dividends. That basically is the corporate raider's model. You use the money to pay off the junk bond holders at high interest. And of course, this gets the company in trouble after a while, because there is no new investment.

    So markets shrink. You then go to the labor unions and say, gee, this company's near bankruptcy, and we don't want to have to fire you. The way that you can keep your job is if we downgrade your pensions. Instead of giving you what we promised, the defined benefit pension, we'll turn it into a defined contribution plan. You know what you pay every month, but you don't know what's going to come out. Or, you wipe out the pension fund, push it on to the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, and use the money that you were going to pay for pensions to pay stock dividends. By then the whole economy is turning down. It's hollowed out. It shrinks and collapses. But by that time the managers will have left the company. They will have taken their bonuses and salaries and run.

    HEDGES: I want to read this quote from your book, written by David Harvey, in A Brief History of Neoliberalism, and have you comment on it.

    "The main substantive achievement of neoliberalism has been to redistribute rather than to generate wealth and income. [By] 'accumulation by dispossession' I mean the commodification and privatization of land, and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; conversion of various forms of property rights (common collective state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights; suppression of rights to the commons; colonial, neocolonial, and the imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating at all, the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. To this list of mechanisms, we may now add a raft of techniques such as the extraction of rents from patents, and intellectual property rights (such as the diminution or erasure of various forms of common property rights, such as state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education, health care) one through a generation or more of class struggle. The proposal to privatize all state pension rights, pioneered in Chile under the dictatorship is, for example, one of the cherished objectives of the Republicans in the US."

    This explains the denouement. The final end result you speak about in your book is, in essence, allowing what you call the rentier or the speculative class to cannibalize the entire society until it collapses.

    HUDSON: A property right is not a factor of production. Look at what happened in Chicago, the city where I grew up. Chicago didn't want to raise taxes on real estate, especially on its expensive commercial real estate. So its budget ran a deficit. They needed money to pay the bondholders, so they sold off the parking rights to have meters – you know, along the curbs. The result is that they sold to Goldman Sachs 75 years of the right to put up parking meters. So now the cost of living and doing business in Chicago is raised by having to pay the parking meters. If Chicago is going to have a parade and block off traffic, it has to pay Goldman Sachs what the firm would have made if the streets wouldn't have been closed off for a parade. All of a sudden it's much more expensive to live in Chicago because of this.

    But this added expense of having to pay parking rights to Goldman Sachs – to pay out interest to its bondholders – is counted as an increase in GDP, because you've created more product simply by charging more. If you sell off a road, a government or local road, and you put up a toll booth and make it into a toll road, all of a sudden GDP goes up.

    If you go to war abroad, and you spend more money on the military-industrial complex, all this is counted as increased production. None of this is really part of the production system of the capital and labor building more factories and producing more things that people need to live and do business. All of this is overhead. But there's no distinction between wealth and overhead.

    Failing to draw that distinction means that the host doesn't realize that there is a parasite there. The host economy, the industrial economy, doesn't realize what the industrialists realized in the 19th century: If you want to be an efficient economy and be low-priced and under-sell competitors, you have to cut your prices by having the public sector provide roads freely. Medical care freely. Education freely.

    If you charge for all of these, you get to the point that the U.S. economy is in today. What if American factory workers were to get all of their consumer goods for nothing. All their food, transportation, clothing, furniture, everything for nothing. They still couldn't compete with Asians or other producers, because they have to pay up to 43% of their income for rent or mortgage interest, 10% or more of their income for student loans, credit card debt. 15% of their paycheck is automatic withholding to pay Social Security, to cut taxes on the rich or to pay for medical care.

    So Americans built into the economy all this overhead. There's no distinction between growth and overhead. It's all made America so high-priced that we're priced out of the market, regardless of what trade policy we have.

    HEDGES: We should add that under this predatory form of economics, you game the system. So you privatize pension funds, you force them into the stock market, an overinflated stock market. But because of the way companies go public, it's the hedge fund managers who profit. And it's those citizens whose retirement savings are tied to the stock market who lose. Maybe we can just conclude by talking about how the system is fixed, not only in terms of burdening the citizen with debt peonage, but by forcing them into the market to fleece them again.

    HUDSON: Well, we talk about an innovation economy as if that makes money. Suppose you have an innovation and a company goes public. They go to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks to underwrite the stock to issue it at $40 a share. What's considered a successful float is when, immediately, Goldman and the others will go to their insiders and tell them to buy this stock and make a quick killing. A "successful" flotation doubles the price in one day, so that at the end of the day the stock's selling for $80.

    HEDGES: They have the option to buy it before anyone else, knowing that by the end of the day it'll be inflated, and then they sell it off.

    HUDSON: That's exactly right.

    HEDGES: So the pension funds come in and buy it at an inflated price, and then it goes back down.

    HUDSON: It may go back down, or it may be that the company just was shortchanged from the very beginning. The important thing is that the Wall Street underwriting firm, and the speculators it rounds up, get more in a single day than all the years it took to put the company together. The company gets $40. And the banks and their crony speculators also get $40.

    So basically you have the financial sector ending up with much more of the gains. The name of the game if you're on Wall Street isn't profits. It's capital gains. And that's something that wasn't even part of classical economics. They didn't anticipate that the price of assets would go up for any other reason than earning more money and capitalizing on income. But what you have had in the last 50 years – really since World War II – has been asset-price inflation. Most middle-class families have gotten the wealth that they've got since 1945 not really by saving what they've earned by working, but by the price of their house going up. They've benefited by the price of the house. And they think that that's made them rich and the whole economy rich.

    The reason the price of housing has gone up is that a house is worth whatever a bank is going to lend against it. If banks made easier and easier credit, lower down payments, then you're going to have a financial bubble. And now, you have real estate having gone up as high as it can. I don't think it can take more than 43% of somebody's income to buy it. But now, imagine if you're joining the labor force. You're not going to be able to buy a house at today's prices, putting down a little bit of your money, and then somehow end up getting rich just on the house investment. All of this money you pay the bank is now going to be subtracted from the amount of money that you have available to spend on goods and services.

    So we've turned the post-war economy that made America prosperous and rich inside out. Somehow most people believed they could get rich by going into debt to borrow assets that were going to rise in price. But you can't get rich, ultimately, by going into debt. In the end the creditors always win. That's why every society since Sumer and Babylonia have had to either cancel the debts, or you come to a society like Rome that didn't cancel the debts, and then you have a dark age. Everything collapses.

    [Dec 05, 2016] A Protectionist Moment?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Paul Krugman:
    A Protectionist Moment? : ... if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ...

    But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics ( protectionism causes depressions !), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that...

    Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

    So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.

    Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

    But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including TPP, which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

    cawley : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 03:47 AM
    Again, just because automation has been a major factor in job loss doesn't mean "off shoring" (using the term broadly and perhaps somewhat inaccurately) is not a factor.

    The "free" trade deals suck. They are correctly diagnosed as part of the problem.

    What would you propose to fix the problems caused by automation?

    jonny bakho -> cawley... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:25 AM
    Automation frees labor to do more productive and less onerous tasks. We should expand our solar production and our mass transit. We need to start re-engineering our urban areas. This will not bring back the number of jobs it would take to make cities like Flint thrive once again.

    Flint and Detroit have severe economic problems because they were mismanaged by road building and suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s. Money that should have been spent on maintaining and improving urban infrastructure was instead plowed into suburban development that is not dense enough to sustain the infrastructure required to support it. People moved to the suburbs, abandoned the built infrastructure of the cities and kissed them goodbye.

    Big roads polluted the cities with lead, noise, diesel particles and ozone and smog. Stroads created pedestrian kill zones making urban areas, unwalkable, unpleasant- an urban blights to drive through rather than destinations to drive to.

    Government subsidized the white flight to the suburbs that has left both the suburbs and the urban cores with too low revenue to infrastructure ratio. The inner suburbs have aged into net losers, their infrastructure must be subsidized. Big Roads were built on the Big Idea that people would drive to the city to work and play and then drive home. That Big idea has a big problem. Urban areas are only sustainable when they have a high resident density. The future of cities like Flint and Detroit will be tearing out the roads and replacing them with streets and houses and renewing the housing stock that has been abandoned. It needs to be done by infill, revitalizing inner neighborhoods and working outward. Cities like Portland have managed to protect much of their core, but even they are challenged by demands for suburban sprawl.

    Slash and burn development, creating new suburbs and abandoning the old is not a sustainable model. Not only should we put people to work replacing the Flint lead pipes, but much of the city should be rebuilt from the inside out. Flint is the leading edge of this problem that requires fundamental changes in our built environment to fix. I recommend studying Flint as an object lesson of what bad development policy could do to all of our cities.

    http://www.flintexpats.com

    jonny bakho -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:29 AM
    An Interview with Frank Popper about Shrinking Cities, Buffalo Commons, and the Future of Flint

    How does America's approach shrinking cities compare to the rest of the world?

    I think the American way is to do nothing until it's too late, then throw everything at it and improvise and hope everything works. And somehow, insofar as the country's still here, it has worked. But the European or the Japanese way would involve much more thought, much more foresight, much more central planning, and much less improvising. They would implement a more, shall we say, sustained effort. The American way is different. Europeans have wondered for years and years why cities like Detroit or Cleveland are left to rot on the vine. There's a lot of this French hauteur when they ask "How'd you let this happen?"

    Do shrinking cities have any advantages over agricultural regions as they face declining populations?

    The urban areas have this huge advantage over all these larger American regions that are going through this. They have actual governments with real jurisdiction. Corrupt as Detroit or Philadelphia or Camden may be, they have actual governments that are supposed to be in charge of them. Who's in charge of western Kansas? Who's in charge of the Great Plains? Who is in charge of the lower Mississippi Delta or central Appalachia? All they've got are these distant federal agencies whose past performance is not exactly encouraging.

    Why wasn't there a greater outcry as the agricultural economy and the industrial economy collapsed?

    One reason for the rest of the country not to care is that there's no shortage of the consumer goods that these places once produced. All this decline of agriculture doesn't mean we're running out of food. We've got food coming out of our ears. Likewise, Flint has suffered through all this, but it's not like it's hard to buy a car in this country. It's not as if Flint can behave like a child and say "I'm going to hold my nose and stop you from getting cars until you do the right thing." Flint died and you can get zero A.P.R. financing. Western Kansas is on its last legs and, gee, cereal is cheaper than ever.

    In some sense that's the genius of capitalism - it's heartless. But if you look at the local results and the cultural results and the environmental results you shake your head. But I don't see America getting away from what I would call a little sarcastically the "wisdom" of the market. I don't think it's going to change.

    So is there any large-scale economic fallout from these monumental changes?

    Probably not, and it hurts to say so. And the only way I can feel good about saying that is to immediately point to the non-economic losses, the cultural losses. The losses of ways of life. The notion of the factory worker working for his or her children. The notion of the farmer working to build up the country and supply the rest of the world with food. We're losing distinctive ways of life. When we lose that we lose something important, but it's not like The Wall Street Journal cares. And I feel uncomfortable saying that. From a purely economic point of view, it's just the price of getting more efficient. It's a classic example of Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction, which is no fun if you're on the destruction end.

    Does the decline of cities like Flint mirror the death of the middle class in the United States?

    I think it's more the decline of the lower-middle class in the United States. Even when those jobs in the auto factories paid very high wages they were still for socially lower-middle-class people. I think there was always the notion in immigrant families and working-class families who worked in those situations that the current generation would work hard so that the children could go off and not have to do those kind of jobs. And when those jobs paid well that was a perfectly reasonable ambition. It's the cutting off of that ambition that really hurts now. The same thing has been true on farms and ranches in rural parts of the united states.

    http://www.flintexpats.com/2010/05/interview-with-frank-popper-about.html

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:45 AM
    It is a much different thing to be small minded about trade than it is to be large minded about everything else. The short story that it is all about automation and not trade will always get a bad reception because it is small minded. When you add in the large minded story about everything else then it becomes something entirely different from the short story. We all agree with you about everything else. You are wrong about globalization though. Both financialization and globalization suck and even if we paper over them with tax and transfer then they will still suck. One must forget what it is to be a created equal human to miss that. Have you never felt the job of accomplishment? Does not pride and self-confidence matter in your life?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    "Have you never felt the joY of accomplishment?"

    [Apparently I have "jobs" on the mind even though I no longer have one nor need one in the least.]

    ken melvin -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:49 AM
    America's first course of action is denial; then, we pretend that things are different than the seem a lot.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to ken melvin... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:39 AM
    Priceless!
    DrDick -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:52 AM
    While automation is part of the story, offshoring is just as important. Even when there is not net loss in the numbers of jobs in aggregate, there is significant loss in better paying jobs in manufacturing. It is important to look at the distributional effects within countries, as well as between them

    http://www.statisticbrain.com/outsourcing-statistics-by-country/

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0ahUKEwjj9OK1xrbLAhUG92MKHbveBAgQFghhMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wto.org%2Fenglish%2Fres_e%2Fbooksp_e%2Fglob_soc_sus_e_chap1_e.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHRBtLPlhJsKMg5PfxSlUIgOsFuwA&cad=rja

    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2014/07/30/94864/offshoring-work-is-taking-a-toll-on-the-u-s-economy/

    Julio -> cawley... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:24 AM
    "off shoring"

    [The trending term is "tossing it over the Wall".]

    Chris G : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 03:58 AM
    Legislatively, what would it take to withdraw from the WTO? NAFTA? Other trade agreements?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Chris G ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:52 AM
    It would probably be cheaper and easier to just fix them. We don't need to withdraw from trade. We just need to fix the terms of trade that cause large trade deficits and cross border capital flows and also fix the FOREX system rigging.
    JohnH -> Chris G ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:10 AM
    What would it take to ignore trade agreements? They shouldn't be any more difficult to ignore than the Geneva Conventions, which the US routinely flaunts.
    Richard A. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:30 AM
    In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import. The two are tied together. Suppressing imports means we export less.

    What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages. It doesn't uniformly lower the price level but rather lowers the cost of goods that are capable of being traded internationally. It lowers the price on those goods that are disproportionately purchased by those with low incomes.

    Free trade causes a progressive decline in the price level while protectionism causes a regressive increase in the price level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:56 AM
    Are you saying that free trade lowers the cost of rice in India and China and raises the cost of cell phones and autos in the US?
    pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:48 AM
    Funny rebuttal! Bhagwati probably has a model that says the opposite! But then he grew up in India and should one day get a Nobel Prize for his contributions to international economics.
    pgl -> Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    "What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages."

    Which price? Whose wages? Look up Stopler-Samuelson ... a 1941 classic which I suspect Greg Mankiw has never bothered to learn.

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:54 AM
    People don't need good wages, they can buy cheap Chinese stuff at WalMart.
    JohnH -> Richard A.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:14 AM
    "In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import." One would think. However, experience shows that that's not the case.

    Capital flows from overseas investments help balance the books. When that doesn't work, the US simply prints money to be held by foreign CBs.

    ken melvin : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 04:53 AM
    Our media needs to copy France 24, ... and have real debates about real issues. What we get is along the lines of ignoring the problem then attacking any effort to correct. for example, the media stayed away from the healthcare crisis, too complicated, but damn they are good at criticizing.
    JohnH -> ken melvin... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:16 AM
    France 24 promotes neocon-style jingoism...even worse than Big Media in America.

    I hope they're better on domestic social policy.

    Tom Palley : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:08 AM
    A seriously shameful article. Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.

    Now, the establishment has what it wanted and the effects have been disastrous for those not in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.

    At this stage, comes insult to injury. Establishment economists (like Mr. Krugman) can reinvent themselves with "brilliant new studies" showing the costs and damage of globalization. They pay no professional costs for the grievous injuries inflicted; there is no mention of the fact that critical outsider economists have been predicting and writing about these injuries and were right; and they blithely say we must stay the course because we are locked-in and have few options.

    Forgive me while I puke.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:44 AM
    Bless you my son.

    I don't think that they think that we weebles have memories.

    Peter K. -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:13 AM
    "I don't think that they think that we weebles have memories."

    They insult our intelligence and wonder why people get mad.

    pgl -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:51 AM
    Krugman is not Greg Mankiw. Most people who actually get international economics (Mankiw does not) are not of the free trade benefits all types. Paul Samuelson certainly does not buy into Mankiw's spin. Funny thing - Mankiw recently cited an excellent piece from Samuelson only to dishonestly suggest Samuelson did not believe in what he wrote.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:12 AM
    Why are we talking about Mankiw? You can't move the goalposts.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:40 AM
    Why are you mischaracterizing what Krugman has written? That's my point. Oh wait - you misrepresent what people write so you can "win" a "debate". Never mind. Please proceed with the serial dishonesty.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:55 AM
    "The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't."

    As Dean Baker says, we need to confront Walmart and Goldman Sachs at home, who like these policies, more than the Chinese.

    The Chinese want access to our consumer market. They'd also like if we did't invade countries like Iraq.

    "so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't"

    And what is that? Tear up trade deals? It is Krugman who is engaging in straw man arguments.

    DrDick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:02 AM
    Krugman does indeed misrepresent Sanders' positions on trade. Sander is not against trade, he merely insists on *Fair Trade*, which incorporates human rights and environmental protections. His opposition is to the kinds of deals, like NAFTA and TPP, which effectively gut those (a central element in Kruman's own critique of the latter).
    DrDick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    Krugman has definitely backed off his (much) earlier boosterism and publicly said so. This is an excellent piece by him, though it does rather downplay his earlier stances a bit. This is one of the things I especially like about him.
    Dan Kervick -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    I can get the idea that some people win, some people lose from liberalized trade. But what really bugs me about the neoliberal trade agenda is that it has been part of a larger set of economically conservative, laissez faire policies that have exacerbated the damages from trade rather than offsetting them.

    At the same time they were exposing US workers to greater competition from abroad and destroying and offshoring working class jobs via both trade and liberalized capital flows, the neoliberals were also doing things like "reinventing government" - that is, shrinking structural government spending and public investment - and ending welfare. They have done nothing serious about steering capital and job development efforts toward the communities devastated by the liberalization.

    The neoliberal position has seem to come down to "We can't make bourgeois progress without breaking a few working class eggs."

    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:41 AM
    I guess I'm not a neoliberal. Neither is Dani Rodrik. Nor is Paul Krugman.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:50 AM
    What does Dani Rodrik have to do with the above comments?
    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:51 AM
    Read his 1997 book. Excellent stuff.
    Julio -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:38 AM
    Great points, and a good line too.
    JohnH -> Tom Palley ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:22 AM
    Agreed! "Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.'

    Now he claims that he saw the light all along! "much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that..."

    You would be hard pressed to find any Krugman clips that cited any of those problems in the past. Far from being an impartial economist, he was always an avid booster of free trade, overlooking those very downsides that he suddenly decides to confess.

    Dan Kervick : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:11 AM
    As far as I know, Sanders has not proposed ripping up the existing trade deals. His information page on trade emphasizes (i) his opposition to these deals when they were first negotiated and enacted, and (ii) the principles he will apply to the consideration of future trade deals. Much of his argumentation concerning past deals is put forward to motivate his present opposition to TPP.

    http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/

    So Krugman's point about how difficult it would be diplomatically to "rip up" the existing trade deals seems like a red herring.

    Dan Kervick -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:29 AM
    Note also that Sanders connects his discussion of the harms of past trade policy to the Rebuild America Act. That is, his approach is forward facing. We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old working class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.
    jonny bakho -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:16 AM
    You could have said the same about the 1920s
    We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old agrarian class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.

    The march of progress:
    Mechanization of agriculture with displacement of large numbers of Ag workers.
    The rise of factory work and large numbers employed in manufacturing.
    Automation of Manufacturing with large displacement of workers engaged in manufacturing.
    What do we want our workers to do? This question must be answered at the highest level of society and requires much government facilitation. The absence of government facilitation is THE problem.

    Dan Kervick -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:23 AM
    Completely agree. Countries need economic strategies that go beyond, "let the markets sort it all out."
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    "...So Krugman's point about how difficult it would be diplomatically to "rip up" the existing trade deals seems like a red herring."

    [Win one for the kipper.]

    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:52 AM
    Memo to Paul Krugman - lead with the economics and stay with the economics. His need to get into the dirty business of politics dilutes what he ends up sensibly writes later on.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ""The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't."
    Chatham -> Dan Kervick... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:36 AM
    Yeah, it's pretty dishonest for Krugman to pretend that Sanders' position is "ripping up the trade agreements we already have" and then say Sanders is "engaged in a bit of a scam" because he can't do that. Sanders actual position (trying to stop new trade deals like the TPP) is something the president has a lot of influence over (they can veto the deal). Hard to tell what Krugman is doing here other than deliberately spreading misinformation.

    Also worth noting that he decides to compare Sanders' opposition to trade deals with Trump, and ignore the fact that Clinton has come out against the TPP as well .

    anne : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:26 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/

    March 9, 2016

    A Protectionist Moment?
    By Paul Krugman

    Busy with real life, but yes, I know what happened in the primaries yesterday. Triumph for Trump, and big upset for Sanders - although it's still very hard to see how he can catch Clinton. Anyway, a few thoughts, not about the horserace but about some deeper currents.

    The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties - Trump is trying to become America's Mussolini, Sanders at worst America's Michael Foot * - Trump has been tilling some of the same ground. So here's the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political traction?

    You do want to be careful about announcing a political moment, given how many such proclamations turn out to be ludicrous. Remember the libertarian moment? The reformocon moment? Still, a protectionist backlash, like an immigration backlash, is one of those things where the puzzle has been how long it was in coming. And maybe the time is now.

    The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't and can't.

    But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions! ** ), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that; I think I've always been clear that the gains from globalization aren't all that (here's a back-of-the-envelope on the gains from hyperglobalization *** - only part of which can be attributed to policy - that is less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation); and I think I've never assumed away the income distribution effects.

    Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, **** the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

    So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.

    Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

    But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including Trans-Pacific Partnership, which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

    ** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-mitt-hawley-fallacy/

    *** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/the-gains-from-hyperglobalization-wonkish/

    **** http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2016/03/trade_trump_and_downward_class059814.php

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:26 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot

    Michael Mackintosh Foot (1913 – 2010) was a British Labour Party politician and man of letters who was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1945 to 1955 and from 1960 until 1992. He was Deputy Leader of the Labour Party from 1976 to 1980, and later the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition from 1980 to 1983.

    Associated with the left of the Labour Party for most of his career, Foot was an ardent supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and British withdrawal from the European Economic Community. He was appointed to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Employment under Harold Wilson in 1974, and he later served as Leader of the House of Commons under James Callaghan. A passionate orator, he led Labour through the 1983 general election, when the party obtained its lowest share of the vote at a general election since 1918 and the fewest parliamentary seats it had had at any time since before 1945.

    pgl -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:53 AM
    Foot sounds like he was a good leader of the Labour Party.
    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:27 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-mitt-hawley-fallacy/

    March 4, 2016

    The Mitt-Hawley Fallacy
    By Paul Krugman

    There was so much wrong with Mitt Romney's Trump-is-a-disaster-whom-I-will-support-in-the-general * speech that it may seem odd to call him out for bad international macroeconomics. But this is a pet peeve of mine, in an area where I really, truly know what I'm talking about. So here goes.

    In warning about Trumponomics, Romney declared:

    "If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America."

    After all, doesn't everyone know that protectionism causes recessions? Actually, no. There are reasons to be against protectionism, but that's not one of them.

    Think about the arithmetic (which has a well-known liberal bias). Total final spending on domestically produced goods and services is

    Total domestic spending + Exports – Imports = GDP

    Now suppose we have a trade war. This will cut exports, which other things equal depresses the economy. But it will also cut imports, which other things equal is expansionary. For the world as a whole, the cuts in exports and imports will by definition be equal, so as far as world demand is concerned, trade wars are a wash.

    OK, I'm sure some people will start shouting "Krugman says protectionism does no harm." But no: protectionism in general should reduce efficiency, and hence the economy's potential output. But that's not at all the same as saying that it causes recessions.

    But didn't the Smoot-Hawley tariff cause the Great Depression? No. There's no evidence at all that it did. Yes, trade fell a lot between 1929 and 1933, but that was almost entirely a consequence of the Depression, not a cause. (Trade actually fell faster ** during the early stages of the 2008 Great Recession than it did after 1929.) And while trade barriers were higher in the 1930s than before, this was partly a response to the Depression, partly a consequence of deflation, which made specific tariffs (i.e. tariffs that are stated in dollars per unit, not as a percentage of value) loom larger.

    Again, not the thing most people will remember about Romney's speech. But, you know, protectionism was the only reason he gave for believing that Trump would cause a recession, which I think is kind of telling: the GOP's supposedly well-informed, responsible adult, trying to save the party, can't get basic economics right at the one place where economics is central to his argument.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/mitt-romney-speech.html

    ** http://www.voxeu.org/article/tale-two-depressions-what-do-new-data-tell-us-february-2010-update

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:28 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/the-gains-from-hyperglobalization-wonkish/

    October 1, 2013

    The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)
    By Paul Krugman

    Still taking kind of an emotional vacation from current political madness. Following up on my skeptical post on worries about slowing trade growth, * I wondered what a state-of-the-art model would say.

    The natural model to use, at least for me, is Eaton-Kortum, ** which is a very ingenious approach to thinking about multilateral trade flows. The basic model is Ricardian - wine and cloth and labor productivity and all that - except that there are many goods and many countries, transportation costs, and countries are assumed to gain productivity in any particular industry through a random process. They make some funny assumptions about distributions - hey, that's kind of the price of entry for this kind of work - and in return get a tractable model that yields gravity-type equations for international trade flows. This is a good thing, because gravity models *** of trade - purely empirical exercises, with no real theory behind them - are known to work pretty well.

    Their model also yields a simple expression for the welfare gains from trade:

    Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)

    where A is national productivity and theta is a parameter of their assumed random process (don't ask); they suggest that theta=4 provides the best match to available data.

    Now, what I wanted to do was apply this to the rapid growth of trade that has taken place since around 1990, what Subramanian **** calls "hyperglobalization". According to Subramanian's estimates, overall trade in goods and services has risen from about 19 percent of world GDP in the early 1990s to 33 percent now, bringing us to a level of integration that really is historically unprecedented.

    There are some conceptual difficulties with using this rise directly in the Eaton-Kortum framework, because much of it has taken the form of trade in intermediate goods, and the framework isn't designed to handle that. Still, let me ignore that, and plug Subramanian's numbers into the equation above; I get a 4.9 percent rise in real incomes due to increased globalization.

    That's by no means small change, but it's only a fairly small fraction of global growth. The Maddison database ***** gives us a 45 percent rise in global GDP per capita over the same period, so this calculation suggests that rising trade was responsible for around 10 percent of overall global growth. My guess is that most people who imagine themselves well-informed would give a bigger number.

    By the way, for those critical of globalization, let me hasten to concede that by its nature the Eaton-Kortum model doesn't let us talk about income distribution, and it also makes no room for the possible role of globalization in causing secular stagnation. ******

    Still, I thought this was an interesting calculation to make - which may show more about my warped sense of what's interesting than it does about anything else.

    * http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/should-slowing-trade-growth-worry-us/

    ** http://www.nber.org/papers/w11764

    *** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

    **** http://www.gcf.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GCF_Subramanian-working-paper-3_-6.17.13.pdf

    ***** http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm

    ****** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/trade-and-secular-stagnation/

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:46 AM
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w11764

    November, 2005

    General Equilibrium Analysis of the Eaton-Kortum Model of International Trade
    By Fernando Alvarez and Robert E. Lucas

    We study a variation of the Eaton-Kortum model, a competitive, constant-returns-to-scale multicountry Ricardian model of trade. We establish existence and uniqueness of an equilibrium with balanced trade where each country imposes an import tariff. We analyze the determinants of the cross-country distribution of trade volumes, such as size, tariffs and distance, and compare a calibrated version of the model with data for the largest 60 economies. We use the calibrated model to estimate the gains of a world-wide trade elimination of tariffs, using the theory to explain the magnitude of the gains as well as the differential effect arising from cross-country differences in pre-liberalization of tariffs levels and country size.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:46 AM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

    The gravity model of international trade in international economics, similar to other gravity models in social science, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes (often using GDP measurements) and distance between two units. The model was first used by Jan Tinbergen in 1962.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:47 AM
    http://www.gcf.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GCF_Subramanian-working-paper-3_-6.17.13.pdf

    June, 2013

    The Hyperglobalization of Trade and Its Future
    By Arvind Subramanian and Martin Kessler

    Abstract

    The open, rules-based trading system has delivered immense benefits-for the world, for individual countries, and for average citizens in these countries. It can continue to do so, helping today's low-income countries make the transition to middle-income status. Three challenges must be met to preserve this system. Rich countries must sustain the social consensus in favor of open markets and globalization at a time of considerable economic uncertainty and weakness; China and other middle-income countries must remain open; and mega-regionalism must be prevented from leading to discrimination and trade conflicts. Collective action should help strengthen the institutional underpinnings of globalization. The world should move beyond the Doha Round dead to more meaningful multilateral negotiations to address emerging challenges, including possible threats from new mega-regional agreements. The rising powers, especially China, will have a key role to play in resuscitating multilateralism.

    anne -> anne... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)

    [ Help! What does this mean in words? ]

    Peter K. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
    "Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins"

    That was never the conventional case for trade. Plus it's kind of odd that you have to add "plus have the government redistribute" to the case your making.

    Tom Pally above is correct. Krugman has been on the wrong side of this issue. He's gotten better, but the timing is he's gotten better as the Democratic Party has moved to the left and pushed back against corporate trade deals. Even Hillary came out late against Obama's TPP.

    Sanders has nothing about ripping up trade deals. He has said he won't do any more.

    As cawley predicted, once Sanders won Michigan, Krugman started hitting him again at his blog. With cheap shots I might add. He's ruining his brand.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:41 AM
    'A Protectionist Moment?'

    So for Krugman, no doing corporate trade deals means you're "protectionist?"

    It's a fair trade moment. As Dean Baker points out, corporate trade deals are protectionist:

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/tell-morning-edition-it-s-not-free-trade-folks

    Tell Morning Edition: It's Not "Free Trade" Folks
    by Dean Baker
    Published: 10 March 2016

    Hey, can an experienced doctor from Germany show up and start practicing in New York next week? Since the answer is no, we can say that we don't have free trade. It's not an immigration issue, if the doctor wants to work in a restaurant kitchen, she would probably get away with it. We have protectionist measures that limit the number of foreign doctors in order to keep their pay high. These protectionist measures have actually been strengthened in the last two decades.

    We also have strengthened patent and copyright protections, making drugs and other affected items far more expensive. These protections are also forms of protectionism.

    This is why Morning Edition seriously misled its listeners in an interview with ice cream barons Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield over their support of Senator Bernie Sanders. The interviewer repeatedly referred to "free trade" agreements and Sanders' opposition to them. While these deals are all called "free trade" deals to make them sound more palatable ("selective protectionism to redistribute income upward" doesn't sound very appealing), that doesn't mean they are actually about free trade. Morning Edition should not have used the term employed by promoters to push their trade agenda.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:57 AM
    This has been Dean Baker's excellent theme for a very long time. And if you actually paid attention to what Krugman said about TPP - he agreed with Dean's excellent points. But do continue to set up straw man arguments so you can dishonestly attack Krugman.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:06 AM
    Some of us have memories. Like Tom Palley up above.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:42 AM
    Memories of things Krugman never wrote. In other words, very faulty memories.
    Julio -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:07 AM
    No. That is not a sign of a faulty memory, quite the contrary.

    Krugman writes column after column praising trade pacts and criticizing (rightly, I might add) the yahoos who object for the wrong reasons.
    But he omits a few salient facts like
    - the gains are small,
    - the government MUST intervene with redistribution for this to work socially,
    - there are no (or minimal) provisions for that requirement in the pacts.

    I would say his omissions speak volumes and are worth remembering.

    Syaloch -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:51 AM
    Krugman initially wrote a confused column about the TPP, treating it as a simple free trade deal which he said would have little impact because tariffs were already so low. But he did eventually look into the matter further and wound up agreeing with Baker's take.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    "That was never the conventional case for trade". Actually it was. Of course Greg Mankiw never got the memo so his free trade benefits all BS confuses a lot of people. Mankiw sucks at international trade.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:11 AM
    Actually it wasn't. I remember what Krugman and others wrote at the time about NAFTA and the WTO.

    https://uneasymoney com/2016/03/06/krugman-suffers-a-memory-lapse/

    David Glasner attacks Krugman from the right, but he doesn't whitewash the past as you do. He remembers Gore versus Perot:

    "Indeed, Romney didn't even mention the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but Krugman evidently forgot the classic exchange between Al Gore and the previous incarnation of protectionist populist outrage in an anti-establishment billionaire candidate for President:

    GORE I've heard Mr. Perot say in the past that, as the carpenters says, measure twice and cut once. We've measured twice on this. We have had a test of our theory and we've had a test of his theory. Over the last five years, Mexico's tariffs have begun to come down because they've made a unilateral decision to bring them down some, and as a result there has been a surge of exports from the United States into Mexico, creating an additional 400,000 jobs, and we can create hundreds of thousands of more if we continue this trend. We know this works. If it doesn't work, you know, we give six months notice and we're out of it. But we've also had a test of his theory.

    PEROT When?

    GORE In 1930, when the proposal by Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley was to raise tariffs across the board to protect our workers. And I brought some pictures, too.

    [Larry] KING You're saying Ross is a protectionist?

    GORE This is, this is a picture of Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley. They look like pretty good fellows. They sounded reasonable at the time; a lot of people believed them. The Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Protection Bill. He wants to raise tariffs on Mexico. They raised tariffs, and it was one of the principal causes, many economists say the principal cause, of the Great Depression in this country and around the world. Now, I framed this so you can put it on your wall if you want to.

    You can watch it here*

    * https://uneasymoney com/2016/02/17/competitive-devaluation-plus-monetary-expansion-does-create-a-free-lunch/

    jonny bakho -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:26 AM
    You obviously have not read Krugman. Here is from his 1997 Slate piece:

    But putting Greenspan (or his successor) into the picture restores much of the classical vision of the macroeconomy. Instead of an invisible hand pushing the economy toward full employment in some unspecified long run, we have the visible hand of the Fed pushing us toward its estimate of the noninflationary unemployment rate over the course of two or three years. To accomplish this, the board must raise or lower interest rates to bring savings and investment at that target unemployment rate in line with each other.

    And so all the paradoxes of thrift, widow's cruses, and so on become irrelevant. In particular, an increase in the savings rate will translate into higher investment after all, because the Fed will make sure that it does.

    To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable. Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things that way. For example, the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement was conducted almost entirely in terms of supposed job creation or destruction. The obvious (to me) point that the average unemployment rate over the next 10 years will be what the Fed wants it to be, regardless of the U.S.-Mexico trade balance, never made it into the public consciousness. (In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")

    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1996/10/economic_culture_wars.html

    pgl -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:44 AM
    Yes. But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality. He has important work do with his bash all things Krugman agenda. BTW - it is a riot that he cites Ross Perot on NAFTA. Perot has a self centered agenda there which Gore exposed. Never trust a corrupt business person whether it is Perot or Trump.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:42 AM
    Did you read what Al Gore said? He said nothing about the government redistributing the gains from NAFTA?
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:44 AM
    "But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality."

    We are talking about the reality of Krugman's past support for free trade agreements.

    You can't rewrite the past.

    jonny bakho -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:47 AM
    Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of the issues. He seems to think that Sanders is a font of economic wisdom who is not to be questioned. I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that the GOP has made out of Reagan.
    Peter K. -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:15 AM
    "Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of the issues."

    Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein. Like you I want full employment and rising wages. And like Krugman I am very much an internationalist. I want us to deal fairly with the rest of the world. We need to cooperate especially in the face of global warming.

    1. My first, best solution would be fiscal action. Like everyone else. I prefer Sanders's unicorn plan of $1 trillion over five years rather than Hillary's plan which is one quarter of the size. Her plan puts more pressure on the Fed and monetary policy.

    a. My preference would be to pay for it with Pigouvian taxes on the rich, corporations, and the financial sector.

    b. if not a, then deficit spending like Trudeau in Canada

    C. if the deficit hawks block that, then monetary-financing would be the way around them.

    2. close the trade deficit. Dean Baker and Bernstein have written about this a lot. Write currency agreements into trade deals. If we close the trade deficit and are at full employment, then we can import more from the rest of the world.

    3. If powerful interests block 1. and 2. then lean on monetary policy. Reduce the price of credit to boost demand. It works as a last resort.

    "I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that the GOP has made out of Reagan.'

    I haven't seen any evidence of this. It would be funny if the left made an old Jewish codger from Brooklyn into an icon. Feel the Bern!!!

    Sanders regularly points out it's not about him as President fixing everything, it's about creating a movement. It's about getting people involved. He can't do it by himself. Obama would say this too. Elizabeth Warren become popular by saying the same things Sanders is saying.

    Syaloch -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:19 PM
    The Compensation Principle certainly is part of standard Heckscher-Ohlin trade model, you can find it in any textbook:

    http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch60/T60-13.php

    However to say that the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the Compensation Principle isn't quite accurate. The conventional case has traditionally relied on the assertion that "we" are better off with trade since we could *theoretically* distribute the gains. However, free trade boosters never seem to get around to worrying about distributing the gains *in practice*. In practice, free trade is typically justified simply by the net aggregate gain, regardless of how these gains are distributed or who is hurt in the process.

    To my mind, before considering some trade liberalization deal we should FIRST agree to and implement the redistribution mechanisms and only then reduce barriers. Implementing trade deals in a backward, half-assed way as has typically been the case often makes "us" worse off than autarky.

    Peter K. -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:43 AM
    From Krugman's wikipedia article:

    "Krugman has at times advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial. He has ... likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against evolution via natural selection (1996),[167]

    167 167 http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

    "Ricardo's difficult idea". Web.mit.edu. 1996. Retrieved 2011-10-04.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:48 AM
    Wikipedia. Now there is an unimpeachable source!
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:17 AM
    what's your alternative?
    Julio -> jonny bakho... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:10 AM
    (In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")

    [Thanks to electoral politics, we're all fellow panelists now.]

    Peter K. -> Julio ... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:20 AM
    "To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable. Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things that way."

    As we've seen the Fed is overly fearful of inflation, so the Fed doesn't offset the trade deficit as quickly as it should. Instead we suffer hysteresis and reduction of potential output.

    Peter K. : , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:04 AM
    "The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious."

    Here Krugman is more honest. We're basically buying off the Chinese, etc. The cost for stopping this would be less cooperation from the Chinese, etc.

    This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:09 AM
    "This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites."

    You have Krugman confused with Greg Mankiw. Most real international economics (Mankiw is not one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism. Then again - putting forth the Mankiw uninformed spin is a prerequisite for being on Team Republican. Of course Republicans will go protectionist whenever it is politically expedient as in that temporary set of steel tariffs. Helped Bush-Cheney in 2004 and right after that - no tariffs. Funny how that worked.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:20 AM
    "Most real international economics (Mankiw is not one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism."

    Obama and others don't defend the TPP that way. Krugman and Hillary don't support the TPP but only because the politics has shifted since the 1990s.

    If Krugman wrote today as he did in the 1990s, he'd completely ruin his brand as liberal economist.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:22 AM
    Where is the "redistribution from government" in the TPP. There isn't any.

    Even the NAFTA side agreements on labor and the environment are toothless. The point of these corporate trade deals is to profit from the lower labor and environmental standards of poorer countries.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:46 AM
    And where did I say TPP was a good thing? I have slammed TPP. And I never said NAFTA included this compensation thing. Nor did Mark Kleiman.

    But do continue to misrepresent what I and others have said. It is what you do.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:12 AM
    Hat tip to my Econospeak colleague Sandwichman for noting this from Krugman:

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2013/06/paul-krugmans-sympathy-for-luddites.html

    Mark Thoma also noted this sympathy for the Luddites. But the professional Krugman haters have to deny he would write such things.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:17 AM
    The fact that you resort to calling me a professional Krugman hater means you're not interested in an actual debate about actual ideas. You've lost the debate and I'm not participating.

    One is not allowed to criticize Krugman lest one be labeled a professional Krugman hater?

    Your resort to name calling just weakens the case you're making.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 06:47 AM
    You of late have wasted so much space misrepresenting what Krugman has said. Maybe you don't hate him - maybe you just want to get his attention. For a date maybe. Lord - the troll in you is truly out of control.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:29 AM
    I have not misrepresented what Krugman has said.
    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 07:49 AM
    Who wrote?

    "This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists" as luddites."

    Did you even bother to read that link to what the Sandwichman posted? Didn't think so.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    Sandwichman's quote is from 2013. I'm talking about before that and especially in the 1990s.

    Sandwichman says the quote is notable because Krugman has changed his views. That proves my point.

    Did you read it?

    pgl -> Peter K.... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    Sandwichman may think Krugman changed his views but if one actually read what he has written over the years (as opposed to your cherry picking quotes), you might have noticed otherwise. But of course you want Krugman to look bad. It is what you do.
    Syaloch -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    Krugman's views have evolved quite a bit over the years. Can you envision today's Krugman singing the praises of cheap labor?

    http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/smokey.htm

    In Praise of Cheap Labor (1997)

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 09:25 AM
    Only recently he has begun to say that trade deals are part of diplomacy, like we're giving these countries something in order for them to cooperate.

    If we didn't do these trade deals, these countries would cooperate less.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , -1
    It's a legitimate point.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The conditions that produced and enabled Trump are the Democratic Party betrayal or working classes, especially its transformation into another wing of neoliberal party of the USA under Clinton. People now view a vote for Hillary as a vote for more of the same - increasing disparity in wealth and income.

    Sizeable numbers of Americans have seen wages decline in real terms for nearly 20 years. Many/most parents in many communities do not see a better future before them, or for their children.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule. ..."
    "... I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money. ..."
    "... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
    "... Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. ..."
    "... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
    "... Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope. ..."
    Aug 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Glenn 08.02.16 at 5:01 pm

    @William Meyer 08.02.16 at 4:41 pm

    Legislators affiliated with the duopoly parties should not write the rules governing the ballot access of third parties. This exclusionary rule making amounts to preserving a self-dealing duopoly. Elections are the interest of the people who vote and those elected should not be able to subvert the democratic process by acting as a cartel.

    Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule.

    Of course any meaningful change would require a voluntary diminishment of power of the duopoly that now has dictatorial control over ballot access, and who will prevent any Constitutional Amendment that would enhance the democratic nature of the process.

    bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 8:02 pm

    I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money.

    Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm

    "I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"

    My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income.

    This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition), and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency , they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.

    bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm

    I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.

    Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)

    Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.

    For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.

    bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:31 pm

    Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trump and the Transformation of Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... Journal of Democracy ..."
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | fpif.org
    Trump and the other illiberal populists have been benefiting from three overlapping backlashes.

    The first is cultural. Movements for civil liberties have been remarkably successful over the last 40 years. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community have secured important gains at a legal and cultural level. It is remarkable, for instance, how quickly same-sex marriage has become legal in more than 20 countries when no country recognized it before 2001.

    Resistance has always existed to these movements to expand the realm of civil liberties. But this backlash increasingly has a political face. Thus the rise of parties that challenge multiculturalism and immigration in Europe, the movements throughout Africa and Asia that support the majority over the minorities, and the Trump/Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party with their appeals to primarily white men.

    The second backlash is economic. The globalization of the economy has created a class of enormously wealthy individuals (in the financial, technology, and communications sectors). But globalization has left behind huge numbers of low-wage workers and those who have watched their jobs relocate to other countries.

    Illiberal populists have directed all that anger on the part of people left behind by the world economy at a series of targets: bankers who make billions, corporations that are constantly looking for even lower-wage workers, immigrants who "take away our jobs," and sometimes ethnic minorities who function as convenient scapegoats. The targets, in other words, include both the very powerful and the very weak.

    The third backlash, and perhaps the most consequential, is political. It's not just that people living in democracies are disgusted with their leaders and the parties they represent. Rather, as political scientists Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk write in the Journal of Democracy , "they have also become more cynical about the value of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy, and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives."

    Foa and Mounk are using 20 years of data collected from surveys of citizens in Western Europe and North America – the democracies with the greatest longevity. And they have found that support for illiberal alternatives is greater among the younger generation than the older one. In other countries outside Europe and North America, the disillusionment with democratic institutions often takes the form of a preference for a powerful leader who can break the rules if necessary to preserve order and stability – like Putin in Russia or Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt or Prayuth Chan-ocha in Thailand.

    These three backlashes – cultural, economic, political – are also anti-internationalist because international institutions have become associated with the promotion of civil liberties and human rights, the greater globalization of the economy, and the constraint of the sovereignty of nations (for instance, through the European Union or the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine).

    ... ... ....

    The current political order is coming apart. If we don't come up with a fair, Green, and internationalist alternative, the illiberal populists will keep winning. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The most powerful force in Presidential election 2016 is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics, especially among Democratic electorate

    Notable quotes:
    "... if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?" ..."
    "... Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal. ..."
    "... Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc. ..."
    "... But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. ..."
    "... There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal. ..."
    "... Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing. ..."
    "... There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down. ..."
    "... From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. ..."
    "... Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments. ..."
    "... That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    Rich Puchalsky 08.12.16 at 4:15 pm 683
    "Once again, if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?"

    You have to be willing to see neoliberalism as something different from conservatism to have the answer make any sense. John Quiggin has written a good deal here about a model of U.S. politics as being divided into left, neoliberal, and conservative. Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal.

    ... ... ...

    T 08.12.16 at 5:52 pm

    RP @683

    That's a bit of my point. I think Corey has defined the Republican tradition solely in response to the Southern Strategy that sees a line from Nixon (or Goldwater) to Trump. But that gets the economics wrong and the foreign policy too - the repub foreign policy view has not been consistent across administrations and Trump's economic pans (to the extent he has a plan) are antithetical to the Nixon – W tradition. I have viewed post-80 Dem administrations as neoliberals w/transfers and Repub as neoliberals w/o transfers.

    Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc.

    But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. Populists have nothing against gov't programs like SS and Medicare and were always for things like the TVA and infrastructure spending. Policies aimed at the poor and minorities not so much.

    bruce wilder 08.12.16 at 7:47 pm 689

    T @ 685: Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view.

    There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal.

    These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory. That is different.

    I am not a believer in "the fire next time". Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing.

    Nor will Sanders be back. His was a last New Deal coda. There may be second acts in American life, but there aren't 7th acts.

    If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering.<

    Michael Sullivan 08.12.16 at 8:06 pm 690

    Corey, you write: "It's not just that the Dems went after Nixon, it's also that Nixon had so few allies. People on the right were furious with him because they felt after this huge ratification that the country had moved to the right, Nixon was still governing as if the New Deal were the consensus. So when the time came, he had very few defenders, except for loyalists like Leonard Garment and G. Gordon Liddy. And Al Haig, God bless him."

    You've studied this more than I have, but this is at least somewhat at odds with my memory. I recall some prominent attackers of Nixon from the Republican party that were moderates, at least one of whom was essentially kicked out of the party for being too liberal in later years. There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down.

    To think that something similar would happen to Clinton (watergate like scandal) that would actually have a large portion of the left in support of impeachment, she would have to be as dirty as Nixon was, *and* the evidence to really put the screws to her would have to be out, as it was against Nixon during watergate.

    OTOH, my actual *hope* would be that a similar left-liberal sea change comparable to 1980 from the right would be plausible. I don't think a 1976-like interlude is plausible though, that would require the existence of a moderate republican with enough support within their own party to win the nomination. I suppose its possible that such a beast could come to exist if Trump loses a landslide, but most of the plausible candidates have already left or been kicked out of the party.

    From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. A comparable election from the other side would give republican centrists/moderates the ability to discredit and marginalize the right wing base. But unlike Democrats in 1972, there aren't any moderates left in the Republican party by my lights. I'm much more concerned that this will simply re-empower the hard-core conservatives with plausbly-deniable dog-whistle racism who are now the "moderates", and enable them to whitewash their history.

    Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not convinced that a landslide is possible without an appeal to Reagan/Bush republicans. I don't think we're going to see a meaningful turn toward a real left until Democrats can win a majority of statehouses and clean up the ridiculous gerrymandering.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.12.16 at 9:18 pm

    Val: "Similarly with your comments on "identity politics" where you could almost be seen by MRAs and white supremacists as an ally, from the tone of your rhetoric."

    That is 100% perfect Val. Insinuates that BW is a sort-of-ally of white supremacists - an infuriating insinuation. Does this insinuation based on a misreading of what he wrote. Completely resistant to any sort of suggestion that what she dishes out so expansively to others had better be something she should be willing to accept herself, or that she shouldn't do it. Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments.

    That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her - for people to jump in saying "Why are you being hostile to women?" in response to people's response to her comment.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Yes, the System Is Rigged

    Notable quotes:
    "... More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille. ..."
    "... If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power. ..."
    "... Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home? ..."
    "... Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised. ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    "I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged," Donald Trump told voters in Ohio and Sean Hannity on Fox News. And that hit a nerve.

    "Dangerous," "toxic," came the recoil from the media.

    Trump is threatening to "delegitimize" the election results of 2016.

    Well, if that is what Trump is trying to do, he has no small point. For consider what 2016 promised and what it appears about to deliver.

    This longest of election cycles has rightly been called the Year of the Outsider. It was a year that saw a mighty surge of economic populism and patriotism, a year when a 74-year-old Socialist senator set primaries ablaze with mammoth crowds that dwarfed those of Hillary Clinton.

    It was the year that a non-politician, Donald Trump, swept Republican primaries in an historic turnout, with his nearest rival an ostracized maverick in his own Republican caucus, Senator Ted Cruz.

    More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille.

    But if it ends with a Clintonite restoration and a ratification of the same old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent about American democracy, something rotten in the state?

    If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power.

    It testifies to the character of Republican elites that some are seeking ways to carry out these instructions, though this would mean invalidating and aborting the democratic process that produced Trump.

    But what is a repudiated establishment doing issuing orders to anyone?

    Why is it not Middle America issuing the demands, rather than the other way around?

    Specifically, the Republican electorate should tell its discredited and rejected ruling class: If we cannot get rid of you at the ballot box, then tell us how, peacefully and democratically, we can be rid of you?

    You want Trump out? How do we get you out? The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their "Brexit," and declared independence of an arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change?

    Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home?

    Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised.

    By campaign's end, he had won the argument on trade, as Hillary Clinton was agreeing on TPP and confessing to second thoughts on NAFTA.

    But if TPP is revived at the insistence of the oligarchs of Wall Street, the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - backed by conscript editorial writers for newspapers that rely on ad dollars - what do elections really mean anymore?

    And if, as the polls show we might, we get Clinton - and TPP, and amnesty, and endless migrations of Third World peoples who consume more tax dollars than they generate, and who will soon swamp the Republicans' coalition - what was 2016 all about?

    Would this really be what a majority of Americans voted for in this most exciting of presidential races?

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," said John F. Kennedy.

    The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of social revolution in America, and President Nixon, by ending the draft and ending the Vietnam war, presided over what one columnist called the "cooling of America."

    But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to be a bad moon rising.

    And the new protesters in the streets will not be overprivileged children from Ivy League campuses.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Dec 05, 2016] Neoliberalism has only exacerbated falling living standards

    Notable quotes:
    "... the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder. ..."
    "... the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming, and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually lead to war as all war is eventually for resources. ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Sally Snyder , August 5, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Here is an article that explains the key reason why economic growth will be slow for the foreseeable future:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-baby-bust-and-its-impact-on.html

    No matter what central banks do, their actions will not be able to create the same level of economic growth that we have become used to over the past seven decades.

    JEHR , August 5, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    Economic growth does not come from the central banks; if government sought to provide the basics for all its citizens, including health care, education, a home, and proper food and all the infrastructure needed to give people the basics, then you could have something akin to "growth" while at the same time making life more pleasant for the less fortunate. There seems to be no definition of economic growth that includes everyone.

    David , August 5, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    This seems a very elaborate way of stating a simple problem, that can be summarised in three points.

    And that's about it.

    jgordon , August 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Neoliberalism has only exacerbated falling living standards. Living standards would be falling even without it, albeit more gradually.

    Neoliberalism itself may even be nothing more than a standard type response of species that have expanded beyond the capacity of their environment to support them. What we see as an evil ideology is only the expression of a mechanism that apportions declining resources to the elites, like shutting shutting down the periphery so the core can survive as in hypothermia.

    I Lost at Jeopardy , August 5, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    I really don't have problem with this. Let the financial sector run the world into the ground and get it over with.

    In defference to a great many knowledgable commentors here that work in the FIRE sector, I don't want to create a damning screed on the cost of servicing money, but at some point even the most considered opinions have to acknowledge that that finance is flooded with *talent* which creates a number of problems; one being a waste of intellect and education in a field that doesn't offer much of a return when viewed in an egalitarian sense, secondly; as the field grows due to, the technical advances, the rise in globilization, and the security a financial occuptaion offers in an advanced first world country nowadays, it requires substantially more income to be devoted to it's function.

    This income has to be derived somewhere, and the required sacrifices on every facet of a global economy to bolster positions and maintain asset prices has precipitated this decline in the well being of peoples not plugged-in to the consumer capitalist regime and dogma.

    Something has to give here, and I honestly couldn't care about your 401k or home resale value, you did this to yourself as much as those day-traders who got clobbered in the dot-com crash.

    nothing but the truth , August 6, 2016 at 11:46 am

    the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder.

    the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming, and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually lead to war as all war is eventually for resources.

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Trans-Pacific Partnership Permanent Lock In The Obama Agenda For 40% Of The Global Economy

    Oct 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    We have just witnessed one of the most significant steps toward a one world economic system that we have ever seen. Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been completed, and if approved it will create the largest trading bloc on the planet. But this is not just a trade agreement. In this treaty, Barack Obama has thrown in all sorts of things that he never would have been able to get through Congress otherwise. And once this treaty is approved, it will be exceedingly difficult to ever make changes to it. So essentially what is happening is that the Obama agenda is being permanently locked in for 40 percent of the global economy.

    The United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam all intend to sign on to this insidious plan. Collectively, these nations have a total population of about 800 million people and a combined GDP of approximately 28 trillion dollars.

    Of course Barack Obama is assuring all of us that this treaty is going to be wonderful for everyone

    In hailing the agreement, Obama said, "Congress and the American people will have months to read every word" before he signs the deal that he described as a win for all sides.

    "If we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help more American workers compete and win," Obama said.

    Sadly, just like with every other "free trade" agreement that the U.S. has entered into since World War II, the exact opposite is what will actually happen. Our trade deficit will get even larger, and we will see even more jobs and even more businesses go overseas.

    But the mainstream media will never tell you this. Instead, they are just falling all over themselves as they heap praise on this new trade pact. Just check out a couple of the headlines that we saw on Monday…

    Overseas it is a different story. Many journalists over there fully recognize that this treaty greatly benefits many of the big corporations that played a key role in drafting it. For example, the following comes from a newspaper in Thailand

    You will hear much about the importance of the TPP for "free trade".

    The reality is that this is an agreement to manage its members' trade and investment relations - and to do so on behalf of each country's most powerful business lobbies.

    These sentiments were echoed in a piece that Zero Hedge posted on Monday

    Packaged as a gift to the American people that will renew industry and make us more competitive, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a Trojan horse. It's a coup by multinational corporations who want global subservience to their agenda. Buyer beware. Citizens beware.

    The gigantic corporations that dominate our economy don't care about the little guy. If they can save a few cents on the manufacturing of an item by moving production to Timbuktu they will do it.

    Over the past couple of decades, the United States has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing facilities and millions of good paying jobs due to these "free trade agreements". As we merge our economy with the economies of nations where it is legal to pay slave labor wages, it is inevitable that corporations will shift jobs to places where labor is much cheaper. Our economic infrastructure is being absolutely eviscerated in the process, and very few of our politicians seem to care.

    Once upon a time, the city of Detroit was the greatest manufacturing city on the planet and it had the highest per capita income in the entire nation. But today it is a rotting, decaying hellhole that the rest of the world laughs at. What has happened to the city of Detroit is happening to the entire nation as a whole, but our politicians just keep pushing us even farther down the road to oblivion.

    Just consider what has happened since NAFTA was implemented. In the year before NAFTA was approved, the United States actually had a trade surplus with Mexico and our trade deficit with Canada was only 29.6 billion dollars. But now things are very different. In one recent year, the U.S. had a combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada of 177 billion dollars.

    And these trade deficits are not just numbers. They represent real jobs that are being lost. It has been estimated that the U.S. economy loses approximately 9,000 jobs for every 1 billion dollars of goods that are imported from overseas, and one professor has estimated that cutting our trade deficit in half would create 5 million more jobs in the United States.

    Just yesterday, I wrote about how there are 102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now. Once upon a time, if you were honest, dependable and hard working it was easy to get a good paying job in this country. But now things are completely different.

    Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, only about 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

    Why aren't more people alarmed by numbers like this?

    And of course the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not just about "free trade". In one of my previous articles, I explained that Obama is using this as an opportunity to permanently impose much of his agenda on a large portion of the globe…

    It is basically a gigantic end run around Congress. Thanks to leaks, we have learned that so many of the things that Obama has deeply wanted for years are in this treaty. If adopted, this treaty will fundamentally change our laws regarding Internet freedom, healthcare, copyright and patent protection, food safety, environmental standards, civil liberties and so much more. This treaty includes many of the rules that alarmed Internet activists so much when SOPA was being debated, it would essentially ban all "Buy American" laws, it would give Wall Street banks much more freedom to trade risky derivatives and it would force even more domestic manufacturing offshore.

    The Republicans in Congress foolishly gave Obama fast track negotiating authority, and so Congress will not be able to change this treaty in any way. They will only have the opportunity for an up or down vote.

    I would love to see Congress reject this deal, but we all know that is extremely unlikely to happen. When big votes like this come up, immense pressure is put on key politicians. Yes, there are a few members of Congress that still have backbones, but most of them are absolutely spineless. When push comes to shove, the globalist agenda always seems to advance.

    Meanwhile, the mainstream media will be telling the American people about all of the wonderful things that this new treaty will do for them. You would think that after how badly past "free trade" treaties have turned out that we would learn something, but somehow that never seems to happen.

    The agenda of the globalists is moving forward, and very few Americans seem to care.

    HedgeAccordingly

    CIA Insider: China is About to End the Dollar

    two hoots

    Bill Clinton on signing NAFTA:

    First of all, because NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.

    Freddie

    Many of those NeoCon Bibi lovers and Jonathan Pollard conservatives love TPP and H1B Ted Cruz. Ted is also a Goldman Sachs boy.

    Squids_In

    That giant sucking sound just got gianter.

    MrTouchdown

    Probably, but here's a thought:

    It might be a blowing sound of all things USA deflating down (in USD terms) to what they are actually worth when compared to the rest of the world. For example, a GM assembly line worker will make what an assembly line worker in Vietnam makes.

    This will, of course, panic Old Yellen, who will promptly fill her diaper and begin subsidizing wages with Quantitative Pleasing (QP1).

    Buckaroo Banzai

    If this gets through congress, the Republican Party better not bother asking for my vote ever again.

    Chupacabra-322

    Vote? You seem to think "voting" will actually influence actions / Globalists plans which have been decades in the making amoungst thse Criminal Pure Evil Lucerferian Psychopaths hell bent on Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination.

    Yea, keep voting. I'll be out hunting down these Evil doers like the dogs that they are.

    Buckaroo Banzai

    I have no illusions regarding the efficacy of voting. It is indeed a waste of time.

    What I said was, they better not dare even ASK for my vote.

    Ignatius

    Doesn't matter. Diebold is so good at counting that you don't even need to show up at the polls anymore. It's like a miracle of modern technology.

    Peter Pan

    Did the article say 40%?

    I imagine they meant 40% of whatever is left after we all go to hell in a hand basket.

    Great day for the multinationals and in particular the pharmaceutical companies.

    [Dec 04, 2016] UK election Who really governs Britain

    But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
    Notable quotes:
    "... But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control. ..."
    "... In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries. ..."
    "... Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000. ..."
    "... On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene. ..."
    "... That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans. ..."
    May 04, 2015 | CNN.com

    Once upon a time, national elections were -- or seemed to be -- overwhelmingly domestic affairs, affecting only the peoples of the countries taking part in them. If that was ever true, it is so no longer. Angela Merkel negotiates with Greece's government with Germany's voters looming in the background. David Cameron currently fights an election campaign in the UK holding fast to the belief that a false move on his part regarding Britain's relationship with the EU could cost his Conservative Party seats, votes and possibly the entire election.

    Britain provides a good illustration of a general proposition. It used to be claimed, plausibly, that "all politics is local." In 2015, electoral politics may still be mostly local, but the post-electoral business of government is anything but local. There is a misfit between the two. Voters are mainly swayed by domestic issues. Vote-seeking politicians campaign accordingly. But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.

    Anyone viewing the UK election campaign from afar could be forgiven for thinking that British voters and politicians alike imagined they were living on some kind of self-sufficient sea-girt island. The opinion polls indicate that a large majority of voters are preoccupied -- politically as well as in other ways -- with their own financial situation, tax rates, welfare spending and the future of the National Health Service. Immigration is an issue for many voters, but mostly in domestic terms (and often as a surrogate for generalized discontent with Britain's political class). The fact that migrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere make a positive net contribution to both the UK's economy and its social services scarcely features in the campaign.

    ... ... ...

    After polling day, all that will change -- probably to millions of voters' dismay. One American presidential candidate famously said that politicians campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. Politicians in democracies, not just in Britain, campaign as though they can move mountains, then find that most mountains are hard or impossible to move.

    In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries.

    Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000.

    The UK's courts are also far more active than they were. The British parliament in 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law, and British judges have determinedly enforced those rights. During the 1970s, they had already been handed responsibility for enforcing the full range of EU law within the UK.

    Also, Britain's judges have, on their own initiative, exercised increasingly frequently their long-standing power of "judicial review," invalidating ministerial decisions that violated due process or seemed to them to be wholly unreasonable. Devolution of substantial powers to semi-independent governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has also meant that the jurisdiction of many so-called UK government ministers is effectively confined to the purely English component part.

    On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene.

    The heirs of Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, Britain's political leaders are understandably still tempted to talk big. But their effective real-world influence is small. No wonder a lot of voters in Britain feel they are being conned.

    ItsJustTim

    That's globalization. And it won't go away, even if you vote nationalist. The issues are increasingly international, while the voters still have a mostly local perspective. That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans.

    [Dec 04, 2016] James Pinkerton Globalism Hits a Brick Wall Now, What Will Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Do

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Guardian ..."
    "... it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point. ..."
    "... An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . ..."
    "... Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see how she will sell us out on TPP ..."
    "... What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do. President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | Breitbart
    On the surface, it appears that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for all their mutual antipathy, are united on one big issue: opposition to new trade deals. Here's a recent headline in The Guardian: "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat: a pivotal moment for the world's economic future."

    And the subhead continues in that vein:

    Never before have both main presidential candidates broken so completely with Washington orthodoxy on globalization, even as the White House refuses to give up. The problem, however, goes much deeper than trade deals.

    In the above quote, we can note the deliberate use of the loaded word, "problem." As in, it's a problem that free trade is unpopular-a problem, perhaps, that the MSM can fix. Yet in the meantime, the newspaper sighed, the two biggest trade deals on the horizon, the well-known Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the lesser-known Trans Atlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP), aimed at further linking the U.S. and European Union (EU), are both in jeopardy.

    Indeed, if TPP isn't doing well, TTIP might be dead: Here's an August 28 headline from the Deutsche Welle news service quoting Sigmar Gabriel, the No. 2 in the Berlin government: "Germany's Vice Chancellor Gabriel: US-EU trade talks 'have failed.'"

    So now we must ask broader questions: What does this mean for trade treaties overall? And what are the implications for globalism?

    More specifically, we can ask: Are we sure that the two main White House hopefuls, Clinton and Trump, are truly sincere in their opposition to those deals? After all, as has been widely reported, President Obama still has plans to push TPP through to enactment in the "lame duck" session of Congress after the November elections. Of course, Obama wouldn't seek to do that if the president-elect opposed it-or would he?

    Yet on August 30, Politico reminded its Beltway readership, "How Trump or Clinton could kill Pacific trade deal." In other words, even if Obama were to move TPP forward in his last two months in office, the 45th president could still block its implementation in 2017 and beyond. If, that is, she or he really wanted to.

    Indeed, as we think about Clinton and Trump, we realize that there's "opposition" that's for show and there's opposition that's for real.

    Still, given what's been said on the presidential campaign trail this year, it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point.

    2. The Free Trade Orthodoxy

    It's poignant that the headline, "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat", lamenting the decay of free trade, appeared in The Guardian. Until recently, the newspaper was known as The Manchester Guardian, as in Manchester, England. And Manchester is not only a big city, population 2.5 million, it is also a city with a fabled past: You see, Manchester was the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, which transformed England and the world. It was that city that helped create the free trade orthodoxy that is now crumbling.

    Yes, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Manchester was the leading manufacturing city in the world, especially for textiles. It was known as "Cottonopolis."

    Indeed, back then, Manchester was so much more efficient and effective at mass production that it led the world in exports. That is, it could produce its goods at such low cost that it could send them across vast oceans and still undercut local producers on price and quality.

    Over time, this economic reality congealed into a school of thought: As Manchester grew rich from exports, its business leaders easily found economists, journalists, and propagandists who would help advance their cause in the press and among the intelligentsia.

    The resulting school of thought became known, in the 19th century, as "Manchester Liberalism." And so, to this day, long after Manchester has lost its economic preeminence to rivals elsewhere in the world, the phrase "Manchester Liberalism" is a well-known in the history of economics, bespeaking ardent support for free markets and free trade.

    More recently, the hub for free-trade enthusiasm has been the United States. In particular, the University of Chicago, home to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, became free trade's academic citadel; hence the "Chicago School" has displaced Manchesterism.

    And just as it made sense for Manchester Liberalism to exalt free trade and exports when Manchester and England were on top, so, too, did the Chicago School exalt free trade when the U.S. was unquestionably the top dog.

    So back in the 40s and 50s, when the rest of the world was either bombed flat or still under the yoke of colonialism, it made perfect sense that the U.S., as the only intact industrial power, would celebrate industrial exports: We were Number One, and it was perfectly rational to make the most of that first-place status. And if scribblers and scholars could help make the case for this new status quo, well, bring 'em aboard. Thus the Chicago School gained ascendancy in the late 20th century. And of course, the Chicagoans drew inspiration from a period even earlier than Manchesterism,

    3. On the Origins of the Orthodoxy: Adam Smith and David Ricardo

    The beginnings of an intellectually rigorous discussion of trade can be traced to 1776, when Adam Smith published his famous work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

    One passage in that volume considers how individuals might optimize their own production and consumption:

    It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.

    Smith is right, of course; everyone should always be calculating, however informally, whether or not it's cheaper to make it at home or buy it from someone else.

    We can quickly see: If each family must make its own clothes and grow its own food, it's likely to be worse off than if it can buy its necessities from a large-scale producer. Why? Because, to be blunt about it, most of us don't really know how to make clothes and grow food, and it's expensive and difficult-if not downright impossible-to learn how. So we can conclude that self-sufficiency, however rustic and charming, is almost always a recipe for poverty.

    Smith had a better idea: specialization. That is, people would specialize in one line of work, gain skills, earn more money, and then use that money in the marketplace, buying what they needed from other kinds of specialists.

    Moreover, the even better news, in Smith's mind, was that this kind of specialization came naturally to people-that is, if they were free to scheme out their own advancement. As Smith argued, the ideal system would allow "every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice."

    That is, men (and women) would do that which they did best, and then they would all come together in the free marketplace-each person being inspired to do better, thanks to, as Smith so memorably put it, the "invisible hand." Thus Smith articulated a key insight that undergirds the whole of modern economics-and, of course, modern-day prosperity.

    A few decades later, in the early 19th century, Smith's pioneering work was expanded upon by another remarkable British economist, David Ricardo.

    Ricardo's big idea built on Smithian specialization; Ricardo called it "comparative advantage." That is, just as each individual should do what he or she does best, so should each country.

    In Ricardo's well-known illustration, he explained that the warm and sunny climate of Portugal made that country ideal for growing the grapes needed for wine, while the factories of England made that country ideal for spinning the fibers needed for apparel and other finished fabrics.

    Thus, in Ricardo's view, we could see the makings of a beautiful economic friendship: The Portuguese would utilize their comparative advantage (climate) and export their surplus wine to England, while the English would utilize their comparative advantage (manufacturing) and export apparel to Portugal. Thus each would benefit from the exchange of efficiently-produced products, as each export paid for the other.

    Furthermore, in Ricardo's telling, if tariffs and other barriers were eliminated, then both countries, Portugal and England, would enjoy the maximum free-trading win-win.

    Actually, in point of fact-and Ricardo knew this-the relationship was much more of a win for England, because manufacture is more lucrative than agriculture. That is, a factory in Manchester could crank out garments a lot faster than a vineyard in Portugal could ferment wine.

    And as we all know, the richer, stronger countries are industrial, not agricultural. Food is essential-and alcohol is pleasurable-but the real money is made in making things. After all, crops can be grown easily enough in many places, and so prices stay low. By contrast, manufacturing requires a lot of know-how and a huge upfront investment. Yet with enough powerful manufacturing, a nation is always guaranteed to be able to afford to import food. And also, it can make military weapons, and so, if necessary, take foreign food and croplands by force.

    We can also observe that Ricardo, smart fellow that he was, nevertheless was describing the economy at a certain point in time-the era of horse-drawn carriages and sailing ships. Ricardo realized that transportation was, in fact, a key business variable. He wrote that it was possible for a company to seek economic advantage by moving a factory from one part of England to another. And yet in his view, writing from the perspective of the year 1817, it was impossible to imagine moving a factory from England to another country:

    It would not follow that capital and population would necessarily move from England to Holland, or Spain, or Russia.

    Why this presumed immobility of capital and people? Because, from Ricardo's early 19th-century perspective, transportation was inevitably slow and creaky; he didn't foresee steamships and airplanes. In his day, relying on the technology of the time, it wasn't realistic to think that factories, and their workers, could relocate from one country to another.

    Moreover, in Ricardo's era, many countries were actively hostile to industrialization, because change would upset the aristocratic rhythms of the old order. That is, industrialization could turn docile or fatalistic peasants, spread out thinly across the countryside, into angry and self-aware proletarians, concentrated in the big cities-and that was a formula for unrest, even revolution.

    Indeed, it was not until the 20th century that every country-including China, a great civilization, long asleep under decadent imperial misrule-figured out that it had no choice other than to industrialize.

    So we can see that the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, enduringly powerful as they have been, were nonetheless products of their time-that is, a time when England mostly had the advantages of industrialism to itself. In particular, Ricardo's celebration of comparative advantage can be seen as an artifact of his own era, when England enjoyed a massive first-mover advantage in the industrial-export game.

    Smith died in 1790, and Ricardo died in 1823; a lot has changed since then. And yet the two economists were so lucid in their writings that their work is studied and admired to this day.

    Unfortunately, we can also observe that their ideas have been frozen in a kind of intellectual amber; even in the 21st century, free trade and old-fashioned comparative advantage are unquestioningly regarded as the keys to the wealth of nations-at least in the U.S.-even if they are so no longer.

    4. Nationalist Alternatives to Free Trade Orthodoxy

    As we have seen, Smith and Ricardo were pushing an idea, free trade, that was advantageous to Britain.

    So perhaps not surprisingly, rival countries-notably the United States and Germany-soon developed different ideas. Leaders in Washington, D.C., and Berlin didn't want their respective nations to be mere dependent receptacles for English goods; they wanted real independence. And so they wanted factories of their own.

    In the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton, the visionary American patriot, could see that both economic wealth and military power flowed from domestic industry. As the nation's first Treasury Secretary, he persuaded President George Washington and the Congress to support a system of protective tariffs and "internal improvements" (what today we would call infrastructure) to foster US manufacturing and exporting.

    And in the 19th century, Germany, under the much heavier-handed leadership of Otto von Bismarck, had the same idea: Make a concerted effort to make the nation stronger.

    In both countries, this industrial policymaking succeeded. So whereas at the beginning of the 19th century, England had led the world in steel production, by the beginning of the 20th century century, the U.S. and Germany had moved well ahead. Yes, the "invisible hand" of individual self-interest is always a powerful economic force, but sometimes, the "visible hand" of national purpose, animated by patriotism, is even more powerful.

    Thus by 1914, at the onset of World War One, we could see the results of the Smith/Ricardo model, on the one hand, and the Hamilton/Bismarck model, on the other. All three countries-Britain, the US, and Germany, were rich-but only the latter two had genuine industrial mojo. Indeed, during World War One, English weakness became glaringly apparent in the 1915 shell crisis-as in, artillery shells. It was only the massive importing of made-in-USA ammunition that saved Britain from looming defeat.

    Yet as always, times change, as do economic circumstances, as do prevailing ideas.

    As we have seen, at the end of World War II, the U.S. was the only industrial power left standing. And so it made sense for America to shift from a policy of Hamiltonian protection to a policy of Smith-Ricardian export-minded free trade. Indeed, beginning in around 1945, both major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, solidly embraced the new line: The U.S. would be the factory for the world.

    Yet if times, circumstances, and ideas change, they can always change again.

    5. The Contemporary Crack-Up

    As we have seen, in the 19th century, not every country wanted to be on the passive receiving end of England's exports. And this was true, too, in the 20th century; Japan, notably, had its own ideas.

    If Japan had followed the Ricardian doctrine of comparative advantage, it would have focused on exporting rice and tuna. Instead, by dint of hard work, ingenuity, and more than a little national strategizing, Japan grew itself into a great and prosperous industrial power. Its exports, we might note, were such high-value-adds as automobiles and electronics, not mere crops and fish.

    Moreover, according to the same theory of comparative advantage, South Korea should have been exporting parasols and kimchi, and China should have settled for exporting fortune cookies and pandas.

    Yet as the South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang has chronicled, these Asian nations resolved, in their no-nonsense neo-Confucian way, to launch state-guided private industries-and the theory of comparative advantage be damned.

    Yes, their efforts violated Western economic orthodoxy, but as the philosopher Kant once observed, the actual proves the possible. Indeed, today, as we all know, the Asian tigers are among the richest and fastest-growing economies in the world.

    Leading them all, of course, is China. As the economic historian Michael Lind recounted recently,

    China is not only the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), but also the world's largest manufacturing nation-producing 52 percent of color televisions, 75 percent of mobile phones and 87 percent of the world's personal computers. The Chinese automobile industry is the world's largest, twice the size of America's. China leads the world in foreign exchange reserves. The United States is the main trading partner for seventy-six countries. China is the main trading partner for 124.

    In particular, we might pause over one item in that impressive litany: China makes 87 percent of the world's personal computers.

    Indeed, if it's true, as ZDNet reports, that the Chinese have built "backdoors" into almost all the electronic equipment that they sell-that is to say, the equipment that we buy-then we can assume that we face a serious military challenge, as well as a serious economic challenge.

    Yes, it's a safe bet that the People's Liberation Army has a good handle on our defense establishment, especially now that the Pentagon has fully equipped itself with Chinese-made iPhones and iPads.

    Of course, we can safely predict that Defense Department bureaucrats will always say that there's nothing to worry about, that they have the potential hacking/sabotage matter under control (although just to be sure, the Pentagon might say, give us more money).

    Yet we might note that this is the same defense establishment that couldn't keep track of lone internal rogues such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Therefore, should we really believe that this same DOD knows how to stop the determined efforts of a nation of 1.3 billion people, seeking to hack machines-machines that they made in the first place?

    Yes, the single strongest argument against the blind application of free- trade dogma is the doctrine of self defense. That is, all the wealth in the world doesn't matter if you're conquered. Even Adam Smith understood that; as he wrote, "Defense . . . is of much more importance than opulence."

    Yet today we can readily see: If we are grossly dependent on China for vital wares, then we can't be truly independent of China. In fact, we should be downright fearful.

    Still, despite these deep strategic threats, directly the result of careless importing, the Smith-Ricardo orthodoxy remains powerful, even hegemonistic-at least in the English-speaking world.

    Why is this so? Yes, economists are typically seen as cold and nerdy, even bloodless, and yet, in fact, they are actual human beings. And as such, they are susceptible to the giddy-happy feeling that comes from the hope of building a new utopia, the dream of ushering in an era of world harmony, based on untrammeled international trade. Indeed, this woozy idealism among economists goes way back; it was the British free trader Richard Cobden who declared in 1857,

    Free trade is God's diplomacy. There is no other certain way of uniting people in the bonds of peace.

    And lo, so many wars later, many economists still believe that.

    Indeed, economists today are still monolithically pro-fee trade; a recent survey of economists found that 83 percent supported eliminating all tariffs and other barriers; just 10 percent disagreed.

    We might further note that others, too, in the financial and intellectual elite are fully on board the free-trade train, including most corporate officers and their lobbyists, journalists, academics, and, of course, the mostly for-hire think-tankers.

    To be sure, there are always exceptions: As that Guardian article, the one lamenting the sharp decrease in support for free trade as a "problem," noted, not all of corporate America is on board, particularly those companies in the manufacturing sector:

    Ford openly opposes TPP because it fears the deal does nothing to stop Japan manipulating its currency at the expense of US rivals.

    Indeed, we might note that the same Guardian story included an even more cautionary note, asserting that support for free trade, overall, is remarkably rickety:

    Some suggest a "bicycle theory" of trade deals: that the international bandwagon has to keep rolling forward or else it all wobbles and falls down.

    So what has happened? How could virtually the entire elite be united in enthusiasm for free trade, and yet, even so, the free trade juggernaut is no steadier than a mere two-wheeled bike? Moreover, free traders will ask: Why aren't the leaders leading? More to the point, why aren't the followers following?

    To answer those questions, we might start by noting the four-decade phenomenon of wage stagnation-that's taken a toll on support for free trade. But of course, it's in the heartland that wages have been stagnating; by contrast, incomes for the bicoastal elites have been soaring.

    We might also note that some expert predictions have been way off, thus undermining confidence in their expertise. Remember, this spring, when all the experts were saying that the United Kingdom would fall into recession, or worse, if it voted to leave the EU? Well, just the other day came this New York Post headline: "Brexit actually boosting the UK economy."

    Thus from the Wall Street-ish perspective of the urban chattering classes, things are going well-so what's the problem?

    Yet the folks on Main Street have known a different story. They have seen, with their own eyes, what has happened to them, and no fusillade of op-eds or think-tank monographs will persuade them to change their mind.

    So we can see that there's been a standoff: Wall Street vs. Main Street; nor is this the first time this has happened.

    However, because the two parties have been so united on the issues of trade and globalization-the "Uniparty," it's sometimes called-the folks in the boonies have had no political alternative. And as they say, the only power you have in this world is the power of an alternative. And so, lacking an alternative, the working/middle class has just had to accept its fate.

    Indeed, it has been a bitter fate, particularly bitter in the former industrial heartland. In a 2013 paper, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) came to some startling conclusions:

    Growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent-or by roughly $1,800-for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year college degree.

    The paper added, "One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China."

    Continuing, EPI found that even as trade with low-wage countries caused a decrease in the incomes for lower-end workers, it had caused an increase in the incomes of high-end workers-so no wonder the high-end thinks globalism in great.

    To be sure, some in the elite are bothered by what's been happening. Peggy Noonan, writing earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal-a piece that must have raised the hackles of her doctrinaire colleagues-put the matter succinctly: There's a wide, and widening, gap between the "protected" and the "unprotected":

    The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

    Of course, Noonan was alluding to the Trump candidacy-and also to the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Those two insurgents, in different parties, have been propelled by the pushing from all the unprotected folks across America.

    We might pause to note that free traders have arguments which undoubtedly deserve a fuller airing. Okay. However, we can still see the limits. For example, the familiar gambit of outsourcing jobs to China, or Mexico-or 50 other countries-and calling that "free trade" is now socially unacceptable, and politically unsustainable.

    Still, the broader vision of planetary freedom, including the free flow of peoples and their ideas, is always enormously appealing. The United States, as well as the world, undoubtedly benefits from competition, from social and economic mobility-and yes, from new blood.

    As Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, notes, "77 percent of the full-time graduate students in electrical engineering and 71 percent in computer science at U.S. universities are international students." That's a statistic that should give every American pause to ask: Why aren't we producing more engineers here at home?

    Moreover, Reuters reported in 2012 that 44 percent of all Silicon Valley startups were founded by at least one immigrant, and a 2016 study found that more than half of all billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. No doubt some will challenge the methodology of these studies, and that's fine; it's an important national debate in which all Americans might engage.

    We can say, with admiration, that Silicon Valley is the latest Manchester; as such, it's a powerful magnet for the best and the brightest from overseas, and from a purely dollars-and-cents point of view, there's a lot to be said for welcoming them.

    So yes, it would be nice if we could retain this international mobility that benefits the U.S.-but only if the economic benefits can be broadly shared, and patriotic assimilation of immigrants can be truly achieved, such that all Americans can feel good about welcoming newcomers.

    The further enrichment of Silicon Valley won't do much good for the country unless those riches are somehow widely shared. In fact, amidst the ongoing outsourcing of mass-production jobs, total employment in such boomtowns as San Francisco and San Jose has barely budged. That is, new software billionaires are being minted every day, but their workforces tend to be tiny-or located overseas. If that past pattern is the future pattern, well, something will have to give.

    We can say: If America is to be one nation-something Mitt "47 percent" Romney never worried about, although it cost him in the end-then we will have to figure out a way to turn the genius of the few into good jobs for the many. The goal isn't socialism, or anything like that; instead, the goal is the widespread distribution of private property, facilitated, by conscious national economic development, as I argued at the tail end of this piece.

    If we can't, or won't, find a way to expand private ownership nationwide, then the populist upsurges of the Trump and Sanders campaigns will be remembered as mere overtures to a starkly divergent future.

    6. Clinton and Trump Say They Are Trade Hawks: But Are They Sincere?

    So now we come to a mega-question for 2016: How should we judge the sincerity of the two major-party candidates, Clinton or Trump, when they affirm their opposition to TPP? And how do we assess their attitude toward globalization, including immigration, overall?

    The future is, of course, unknown, but we can make a couple of points.

    First, it is true that many have questioned the sincerity of Hillary's new anti-TPP stance, especially given the presence of such prominent free-traders as vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and presidential transition-planning chief Ken Salazar. Moreover, there's also Hillary's own decades-long association with open-borders immigration policies, as well as past support for such trade bills as NAFTA, PNTR, and, of course, TPP. And oh yes, there's the Clinton Foundation, that global laundromat for every overseas fortune; most of those billionaires are globalists par excellence-would a President Hillary really cross them?

    Second, since there's still no way to see inside another person's mind, the best we can do is look for external clues-by which we mean, external pressures. And so we might ask a basic question: Would the 45th president, whoever she or he is, feel compelled by those external pressures to keep their stated commitment to the voters? Or would they feel that they owe more to their elite friends, allies, and benefactors?

    As we have seen, Clinton has long chosen to surround herself with free traders and globalists. Moreover, she has raised money from virtually every bicoastal billionaire in America.

    So we must wonder: Will a new President Clinton really betray her own class-all those Davos Men and Davos Women-for the sake of middle-class folks she has never met, except maybe on a rope line? Would Clinton 45, who has spent her life courting the powerful, really stick her neck out for unnamed strangers-who never gave a dime to the Clinton Foundation?

    Okay, so what to make of Trump? He, too, is a fat-cat-even more of fat-cat, in fact, than Clinton. And yet for more than a year now, he has based his campaign on opposition to globalism in all its forms; it's been the basis of his campaign-indeed, the basis of his base. And his campaign policy advisers are emphatic. According to Politico, as recently as August 30, Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro reiterated Trump's opposition to TPP, declaring,

    Any deal must increase the GDP growth rate, reduce the trade deficit, and strengthen the manufacturing base.

    So, were Trump to win the White House, he would come in with a much more solid anti-globalist mandate.

    Thus we can ask: Would a President Trump really cross his own populist-nationalist base by going over to the other side-to the globalists who voted, and donated, against him? If he did-if he repudiated his central platform plank-he would implode his presidency, the way that Bush 41 imploded his presidency in 1990 when he went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

    Surely Trump remembers that moment of political calamity well, and so surely, whatever mistakes he might make, he won't make that one.

    To be sure, the future is unknowable. However, as we have seen, the past, both recent and historical, is rich with valuable clues.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Democrat Tom Coyne : Trump Challenging Institutional Elites in Both Parties

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess. ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Tom Coyne, a lifelong Democrat and the mayor of Brook Park, Ohio, spoke about his endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Matt Boyle.

    Coyne said:

    The parties are blurred. What's the difference? They say the same things in different tones. At the end of the day, they accomplish nothing. Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess.

    Regarding the GOP establishment's so-called Never Trumpers, Coyne stated, "If it's their expertise that people are relying upon as to advice to vote, people should go the opposite."

    Coyne has been described as "a blue-collar populist, blunt and politically incorrect":

    In an interview last week, Coyne said that Democrats and Republicans have failed the city through inaction and bad trade policies, key themes Trump often trumpets.

    "He understands us," Coyne said of Trump. "He is saying what we feel, and therefore, let him shake the bedevils out of everyone in the canyons of Washington D.C. The American people are responding to him."

    Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

    [Dec 04, 2016] In Trump We Trust E Pluribus Awesome! Ann Coulter

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class. ..."
    "... He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning middle class will have to prosper along with investors ..."
    "... Trump that really "gets" the idea that the economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages ..."
    "... Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us: ..."
    "... The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote. ..."
    "... American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago. ..."
    "... Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar! ..."
    "... Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. ..."
    "... The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade." ..."
    "... The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country." ..."
    "... Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class) tax-sheltered, than do the WMC. ..."
    "... Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.amazon.com

    Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class.

    Frank A. Lewes

    No pandering! The essence of Trump in personality and issues , August 23, 2016

    Ms. Coulter explains the journey of myself and so many other voters into Trump's camp. It captures the essence of Trump as a personality and Trump on the issues. If I had to sum Ms. Coulter's view of the reason for Trump's success in two words, I'd say "No Pandering!" I've heard many people, including a Liberal tell me, "Trump says what needs to be said."

    I've voted Republican in every election going back to Reagan in 1980, except for 2012 when I supported President Obama's re-election. I've either voted for, or financially supported many "Establishment Republicans" like Mitt Romney and John McCain in 2008. I've also supported some Conservative ones like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. In this election I'd been planning to vote for Jeb Bush, a superb governor when I lived in Florida.

    Then Trump announced his candidacy. I had seen hints of that happening as far back as 2012. In my Amazon reviews in 2012 I said that many voters weren't pleased with Obama or the Republican Establishment. So the question became: "Who do you vote for if you don't favor the agendas of either party's legacy candidates?" In November 2013 I commented on the book DOUBLE DOWN: GAME CHANGE 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heileman:

    =====
    Mr. Trump occupies an important place in the political spectrum --- that of being a Republican Populist.

    He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning middle class will have to prosper along with investors, who are recovering our fortunes in the stock market.

    IMO whichever party nominates a candidate like Trump that really "gets" the idea that the economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages, will be the party that rises to dominance.

    Mr. Trump, despite his flakiness, at least understood that essential fact of American economic life.

    November 7, 2013
    =====

    Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us:

    =====
    The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote.

    when the GOP wins an election, there is no corresponding "win" for the unemployed blue-collar voter in North Carolina. He still loses his job to a foreign worker or a closed manufacturing plant, his kids are still boxed out of college by affirmative action for immigrants, his community is still plagued with high taxes and high crime brought in with all that cheap foreign labor.

    There's no question but that the country is heading toward being Brazil. One doesn't have to agree with the reason to see that the very rich have gotten much richer, placing them well beyond the concerns of ordinary people, and the middle class is disappearing. America doesn't make anything anymore, except Hollywood movies and Facebook. At the same time, we're importing a huge peasant class, which is impoverishing what remains of the middle class, whose taxes support cheap labor for the rich.

    With Trump, Americans finally have the opportunity to vote for something that's popular.

    =====

    That explains how Trump won my vote --- and held on to it through a myriad of early blunders and controversies that almost made me switch my support to other candidates.

    I'm no "xenophobe isolationist" stereotype. My first employer was an immigrant from Eastern Europe. What I learned working for him launched me on my successful career. I've developed and sold computer systems to subsidiaries of American companies in Europe and Asia. My business partners have been English and Canadian immigrants. My family are all foreign-born Hispanics. Three of my college roommates were from Ecuador, Germany, and Syria.

    BECAUSE of this international experience I agree with the issues of trade and immigration that Ms. Coulter talks about that have prompted Trump's rising popularity.

    First, there is the false promise that free trade with low-wage countries would "create millions of high-paying jobs for American workers, who will be busy making high-value products for export." NAFTA was signed in 1994. GATT with China was signed in 2001. Since then we've signed free trade with 20 countries. It was said that besides creating jobs for Americans, that free trade would prosper the global economy. In truth the opposite happened:

    American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago.

    We ran trade SURPLUSES with Mexico until 1994, when NAFTA was signed. The very next year the surplus turned to deficit, now $60 billion a year. Given that each American worker produces an average of $64,000 in value per year, that is a loss of 937,000 American jobs to Mexico alone. The problem is A) that Mexicans are not wealthy enough to be able to afford much in the way of American-made product and B) there isn't much in the way of American-made product left to buy, since so much of former American-made product is now made in Mexico or China.

    Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar!

    Thus, free trade, except with a few fair-trading countries like Canada, Australia, and possibly Britain, has been a losing proposition. Is it coincidence that our economy has weakened with each trade deal we have signed? Our peak year of labor force participation was 1999. Then we had the Y2K collapse and the Great Recession, followed by the weakest "recovery" since WWII? As Trump would say, free trade has been a "disaster."

    Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. Ms. Coulter says:

    =====
    The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade."
    =====

    Then there is immigration. My wife, son, and extended family legally immigrated to the USA from Latin America. The first family members were recruited by our government during the labor shortage of the Korean War. Some fought for the United States in Korea. Some of their children fought for us in Vietnam, and some grandchildren are fighting in the Middle East. Most have become successful professionals and business owners. They came here LEGALLY, some waiting in queue for up to 12 years. They were supported by the family already in America until they were on their feet.

    Illegal immigration has been less happy. Illegals are here because the Democrats want new voters and the Republicans want cheap labor. Contrary to business propaganda, illegals cost Americans their jobs. A colleague just old me, "My son returned home from California after five years, because he couldn't get construction work any longer. All those jobs are now done off the books by illegals."

    It's the same in technology. Even while our high-tech companies are laying off 260,000 American employees in 2016 alone, they are banging the drums to expand the importation of FOREIGN tech workers from 85,000 to 195,000 to replace the Americans they let go. Although the H1-B program is billed as bringing in only the most exceptional, high-value foreign engineers, in truth most visas are issued to replace American workers with young foreigners of mediocre ability who'll work for much less money than the American family bread-winners they replaced.

    Both parties express their "reverse racism" against the White Middle Class. Democrats don't like them because they tend to vote Republican. The Republican Establishment doesn't like them because they cost more to employ than overseas workers and illegal aliens. According to them the WMC is too technologically out of date and overpaid to allow our benighted business leaders to "compete internationally."

    Ms. Coulter says "Americans are homesick" for our country that is being lost to illegal immigration and the removal of our livelihoods overseas. We are sick of Republican and Democrat Party hidden agendas, reverse-racism, and economic genocide against the American people. That's why the Establishment candidates who started out so theoretically strong, like Jeb Bush, collapsed like waterlogged houses of cards when they met Donald Trump. As Ms. Coulter explains, Trump knows their hidden agendas, and knows they are working against the best interests of the American Middle Class.

    Coulter keeps coming back to Mr. Trump's "Alpha Male" personality that speaks to Americans as nation without pandering to specific voter identity groups. She contrasts his style to the self-serving "Republican (Establishment) Brain Trust that is mostly composed of comfortable, well-paid mediocrities who, by getting a gig in politics, earn salaries higher than a capitalist system would ever value their talents." She explains what she sees as the idiocy of those Republican Establishment political consultants who wrecked the campaigns of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz by micromanaging with pandering.

    She says the Republican Establishment lost because it served itself --- becoming wealthy by serving the moneyed interests of Wall Street. Trump won because he is speaking to the disfranchised American Middle Class who loves our country, is proud of our traditions, and believes that Americans have as much right to feed our families through gainful employment as do overseas workers and illegal aliens.

    "I am YOUR voice," says Trump to the Middle Class that until now has been ignored and even sneered at by both parties' establishments.

    I've given an overview of the book here. The real delight is in the details, told as only Anne Coulter can tell them. I've quoted a few snippets of her words, that relate most specifically to my views on Trump and the issues. I wish there were space to quote many more. Alas, you'll need to read the book to glean them all!

    Frank A. Lewes
    Bruce, I would also add that the Republican Establishment chose not to represent the interests of the White Middle Class on trade, immigration, and other issues that matter to us. They chose to represent the narrow interests of:

    1. The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country."

    2. Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class) tax-sheltered, than do the WMC.

    The Republican Establishment is in a snit because Trump beat them by picking up the WMC votes that the Establishment abandoned. What would have happened if Trump had not come on the scene? The probable result is that the Establishment would have nominated a ticket of Jeb Bush and John Kasich. These candidates had much to recommend them as popular governors of key swing states. But they would have gone into the election fighting the campaign with Republican Establishment issues that only matter to the 1%. They would have lost much of the WMC vote that ultimately rallied around Trump, while gaining no more than the usual 6% of minorities who vote Republican. It would have resulted in a severe loss for the Republican Party, perhaps making it the minority party for the rest of the century.

    Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold.

    Frank A. Lewes
    It's funny how White Men are supposed to be angry. But I've never seen any White men:

    1. Running amok, looting and burning down their neighborhood, shooting police and other "angry White men." There were 50 people shot in Chicago last weekend alone. How many of those do you think were "angry white men?" Hint: they were every color EXCEPT white.

    2. Running around complaining that they aren't allowed into the other gender's bathroom, then when they barge their way in there complain about being sexually assaulted. No, it's only "angry females" (of any ethnicity) who barge their way into the men's room and then complain that somebody in there offended them.

    Those "angry white men" are as legendary as "Bigfoot." They are alleged to exist everywhere, but are never seen. Maybe that's because they mostly hang out in the quiet neighborhoods of cookie-cutter homes in suburbia, go to the lake or bar-be-que on weekends, and take their allotment of Viagra in hopes of occassionally "getting lucky" with their wives. If they're "angry" then at least they don't take their angry frustrations out on others, as so many other militant, "in-your-face" activist groups do!

    [Dec 04, 2016] Michael Hudson 2016 Is Wall Street and the Corporate Sector (Clinton) vs. the Populists (Trump)

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful. ..."
    "... (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out) ..."
    "... Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot. ..."
    "... You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire ..."
    "... Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ. Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power. ..."
    "... What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples: Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party) ..."
    "... What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures. ..."
    "... Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it? ..."
    "... Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist? ..."
    "... Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. ..."
    "... The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama. ..."
    "... The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action. ..."
    "... If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that. ..."
    "... The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood. ..."
    "... The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland. ..."
    Jul 24, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Brindle, July 24, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful.

    abynormal , July 24, 2016 at 4:51 am

    for all the run around Hillary, Trump's chosen circle of allies are Wall Street and Austerity enablers. actually, Trump chaos could boost the enablers as easily as Hillary's direct mongering. War is Money low hanging fruit in this cash strapped era and either directly or indirectly neither candidate will disappoint.
    So I Ask Myself which candidate will the majority manage sustainability while assembling to create different outcomes? (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out)

    Norb , July 24, 2016 at 10:54 am

    War is only good for the profiteers when it can be undertaken in another territory. Bringing the chaos home cannot be good for business. Endless calls for confidence and stability in markets must reflect the fact that disorder effects more business that the few corporations that benefit directly from spreading chaos. A split in the business community seems to be underway or at least a possible leverage point to bring about positive change.
    Even the splits in the political class reflect this. Those that benefit from spreading chaos are loosing strength because they have lost control of where that chaos takes place and who is directly effected from its implementation. Blowback and collateral damage are finally registering.

    Plenue , July 24, 2016 at 6:32 am

    Trump may be a disaster. Clinton will be a disaster. One of these two will win. I won't vote for either, but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd take Trump. He's certainly not a fascist (I think it was either Vice or Vox that had an article where they asked a bunch of historians of fascism if he was, the answer was a resounding no), he's a populist in the Andrew Jackson style. If nothing else Trump will (probably) not start WW3 with Russia.

    cm , July 24, 2016 at 11:28 am

    And war with Russia doesn't depend just on Hillary, it depends on us in Western Europe agreeing with it.

    A laughable proposition. The official US policy, as you may recall, is fuck the EU .

    Where was Europe when we toppled the Ukrainian govt? Get back to me when you can actually spend 2% GDP on your military. At the moment you can't even control your illegal immigrants.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 24, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    The political parties that survive display adaptability, and ideological consistency isn't a requirement for that. Look at the party of Lincoln. Or look at the party of FDR.

    If the Democrats decapitate the Republican party by bringing in the Kagans of this world and Republican suburbanites in swing states, then the Republicans will go where the votes are; the Iron Law of Institutions will drive them to do it, and the purge of the party after Trump will open the positions in the party for people with that goal.

    In a way, what we're seeing now is what should have happened to the Republicans in 2008. The Democrats had the Republicans down on the ground with Obama's boot on their neck. The Republicans had organized and lost a disastrous war, they had lost the legislative and executive branches, they were completely discredited ideologically, and they were thoroughly discredited in the political class and in the press.

    Instead, Obama, with his strategy of bipartisanship - good faith or not - gave them a hand up, dusted them off, and let them right back in the game, by treating them as a legitimate opposition party. So the Republican day of reckoning was postponed. We got various bids for power by factions - the Tea Party, now the Liberty Caucus - but none of them came anywhere near taking real power, despite (click-driven money-raising) Democrat hysteria.

    And now the day of reckoning has arrived. Trump went through the hollow institutional shell of the Republican Party like the German panzers through the French in 1939. And here we are!

    (Needless to say, anybody - ***cough*** Ted Cruz ***cough*** - yammering about "conservative principles" is part of the problem, dead weight, part of the dead past.) I don't know if the Republicans can remake themselves after Trump; what he's doing is necessary for that, but may not be sufficient.

    Steve C , July 24, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Republicans won Congress and the states because the Democrats handed them to them on a silver platter. To Obama and his fan club meaningful power is a hot potato, to be discarded as soon as plausible.

    Older & Wiser , July 24, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot.

    Pro-Sanders folks, blacks, and hispanics will mostly vote for Trump.
    Having Gov. Pence on the ticket, core Republicans and the silent majority will vote for Trump.
    Women deep inside know Trump will help their true interests better than the Clinton-Obama rinse repeat
    Young people, sick and tired of the current obviously rigged system, will vote for change.

    You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire
    Even Michael Moore gets it

    cm , July 24, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Trump has intimated that he is not going to deal with the nuts and bolts of government, that will be Pence's job.

    Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ.

    Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power.

    John k , July 24, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Minorities will benefit at least as much as whites with infrastructure spending, which trump says he wants to do It would make him popular, which he likes, why not believe him? And if pres he would be able to get enough rep votes to get it passed. No chance with Hillary, who anyway would rather spend on wars, which are mostly fought by minorities.

    What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples:
    Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party)

    What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures.

    Uahsenaa , July 24, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    I'm saying you have a much better chance to pressure Clinton

    Sorry, but this argues from facts not in evidence and closely resembles the Correct the Record troll line (now substantiated through the Wikileaks dump) that Clinton "has to be elected" because she is at least responsive to progressive concerns.

    Except she isn't, and the degree to which the DNC clearly has been trying to pander to disillusioned Republicans and the amount of bile they spew every time they lament how HRC has had to "veer left" shows quite conclusively to my mind that, in fact, the opposite of what you say is true.

    Also, when NAFTA was being debated in the '90s, the Clintons showed themselves to be remarkably unresponsive both to the concerns of organized labor (who opposed it) as well as the majority of the members of their own party, who voted against it. NAFTA was passed only with a majority of Republican votes.

    I have no way of knowing whether you're a troll or sincerely believe this, but either way, it needs to be pointed out that the historical record actually contradicts your premise. If you do really believe this, try not to be so easily taken in by crafty rhetoric.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 8:19 am

    BTW, I'll take Trump's record as a husband over HRC's record as a wife. He loves a woman, then they break up, and he finds another one. This is not unusual in the US. Hillary, OTOH, "stood by her man" through multiple publicly humiliating infidelities, including having to settle out of court for more than $800,000, and rape charges. No problem with her if her husband was flying many times on the "Lolita Express" with a child molester. Could be she had no idea where her "loved one" was at the time. Do they in fact sleep in the same bed, or even live in the same house? I don't know.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 7:12 am

    RE: calling Donald Trump a "sociopath"-this is another one of those words that is thrown around carelessly, like "nazi" and "fascist". In the Psychology Today article "How to Spot a Sociopath", they list 16 key behavioral characteristics. I can't see them in Trump-you could make a case for a few of them, but not all. For example: "failure to follow any life plan", "sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated", "poor judgment and failure to learn by experience", "incapacity for love"-–you can't reasonably attach these characteristics to The Donald, who, indeed, has a more impressive and loving progeny than any other prez candidate I can think of.

    edmondo , July 24, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it?

    HBE , July 24, 2016 at 11:06 am

    "I have a sense of international identity as well: we are all brothers and sisters."

    Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist?

    "And not everyone feels the same way, but for most voters there is either a strong tribal loyalty (Dem or Repub) or a weaker sense of "us" guiding the voter on that day.
    Mad as I am about the Blue Dogs, I strongly identify with the Dems."

    So you recognize you are a tribalist, and assume all the baggage and irrationality that tribalism often fosters, but instead of addressing your tribalism you embrace it. What you seem to be saying (to me)is that we should leave critical thinking at the door and become dem tribalists like you.

    "But the Repubs and Dems see Wall Street issues through different cultural prisms. Republican are more reflexively pro-business. It matters."

    Hillary Clinton's biggest donors are Wallstreet and her dem. Husband destroyed glass-steagall. Trump wants to reinstate glass-steagall, so who is more business friendly again?

    "He is racist, and so he knows how to push ugly buttons."

    This identity politics trope is getting so old. Both are racist just in different ways, Trump says in your face racist things, which ensure the injustice cannot be ignored, where hillary has and does support racist policies, that use stealth racism to incrementaly increase the misery of minorities, while allowing the majority to pretend it's not happening.

    "First, he will govern with the Republicans. Republican judges, TPP, military spending, environmental rollbacks, etc. Trump will not overrule Repubs in Congress."

    These are literally hillarys policies not trumps.
    Trump: anti TPP, stop foreign interventions, close bases use money for infrastructure.
    Hillary :Pro TPP, more interventions and military spending

    "And no, no great Left populist party will ride to the rescue. The populist tradition (identity) is mostly rightwing and racist in our society.
    People do not change political identity like their clothes. The left tradition in the US, such as it is, is in the Dem party."

    So what you are saying is quit being stupid, populism is bad and you should vote for hillarys neoliberalism. The democrats were once left so even if they are no longer left, we must continue to support them if another party or candidate that is to the left isn't a democrat? Your logic hurts my head.

    Arnold Babar , July 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. Those who haven't realized that, or worse, who shill for them are willfully ignorant, amoral, or unethical. The fact that that includes a large chunk of the population doesn't change that. I don't vote for criminals.

    sunny129 , July 24, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    DNC is no different than RNC!

    The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama.

    I hate Hillary more than Trump. I want to protest at the Establishment, which at this represented by Hillary.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/dnc-email-leak-wikileaks/index.html

    John k , July 24, 2016 at 11:13 am

    Populism (support for popular issues) is, well, popular.

    Fascism (support for corps and military adventures) is, at least after our ME adventures, unpopular.

    Commenters are expressing support for the person expressing popular views, such as infrastructure spending, and expressing little support for the candidate they believe is most fascist.

    Btw, Most on this site are liberals, few are reps, so to support him they have had to buck some of their long held antipathy regarding reps.

    EndOfTheWorld , July 24, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Right, what is changing with Trump is the Republicans are going back to, say, the Eisenhower era, when Ike started the interstate highway system, a socialist program if there ever was one.

    local to oakland , July 24, 2016 at 10:48 am

    This article by Mckay Coppins was illuminating I thought.
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-the-haters-made-trump?utm_term=.sm0BPXq0g#.qnzvzj8aP

    It shows some of his history in a fairly sympathetic light.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 24, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    It's a good article; this is a general observation. Sorry!

    "Hate" seems to be a continuing Democrat meme, and heck, who can be for hate? So it makes sense rhetorically, but in policy terms it's about as sensible as being against @ssh0les (since as the good book says, ye have the @ssh0les always with you). So we're really looking at virtue signaling as a mode of reinforcing tribalism, and to be taken seriously only for that reason. If you look at the political class writing about the working class - modulo writers like Chris Arnade - the hate is plain as day, though it's covered up with the rhetoric of meritocracy, taking care of losers, etc.

    Strategic hate management is a great concept. It's like hate can never be created or destroyed, and is there as a resource to be mined or extracted. The Clinton campaign is doing a great job of strategic hate management right now, by linking Putin and Trump, capitalizing on all the good work done in the press over the last year or so.

    Pat , July 24, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    For years we have been told that government should be run like a business. In truth that statement was used as a cudgel to avoid having the government provide any kind of a safety net to its citizenry because there was little or no profit in it for the people who think that government largess should only be for them.

    Here's the thing, if government had been run like a business, we the people would own huge portions of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Chase today. We wouldn't have bailed them out without an equity stake in them. Most cities would have a share of the gate for every stadium that was built. And rather than paying nothing to the community Walmart would have been paying a share of their profits (much as those have dropped over the years).

    I do not like Trump's business, but he truly does approach his brand and his relationships as a business. When he says he doesn't like the trade deals because they are bad business and bad deals he is correct. IF the well being of the United states and his populace are what you are interested in regarding trade deals, ours are failures. Now most of us here know that was not the point of the trade deals. They have been a spectacular success for many of our largest businesses and richest people, but for America as a whole they have increased our trade deficit and devastated our job base. When he says he won't go there, this is one I believe him on.

    I also believe him on NATO and on the whole Russian thing. Why, because of the same reasons I believe him on Trade. They are not winners for America as a whole. They are bad deals. Europe is NOT living up to their contractual agreement regarding NATO. For someone who is a believer in getting the better of the deal that is downright disgusting. And he sees no benefit in getting into a war with Russia. The whole reserve currency thing vs. nukes is not going to work for him as a cost benefit analysis of doing it. He is not going to front this because it is a business loser.

    We truly have the worst choices from the main parties in my lifetime. There are many reasons Trump is a bad candidate. But on these two, he is far more credible and on the better side of things than the Democratic nominee. And on the few where she might reasonably considered to have a better position, unfortunately I do not for a moment believe her to be doing more than giving lip service based on both her record and her character.

    GF , July 24, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    This article from Talking Points Memo was pointed to by PK in his Twitter feed today. It has some interesting background on Trump's Russian connections:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

    tegnost , July 24, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    Is it your opinion that to have globalisation we must marginalize russia to the extent that they realize they can't have utopia and make the practical choice of allowing finance capitalism to guide them to realistic incrementally achieved debt bondage?

    DarkMatters , July 24, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    World turned upside down.

    The Democratic Party has been inching further and further to the right. Bernie tried to arrest this drift, but his internal populist rebellion was successfully thwarted by party elite corruption. The Democratic position is now so far to the right that the Republicans will marginalize themselves if they try to keep to the right of the Democrats.

    But, despite party loyalty or PC slogans, the Democrat's rightward position is now so obvious that it can be longer disguised by spin. The Trump campaign has demonstrated, the best electoral strategy for the Republican Party is to leapfrog leftward and campaign from a less corporate position. This has given space for the re-evaluation of party positions that Trump is enunciating, and the result is that the Trump is running to the
    left of Hillary. How weird is this?

    DarkMatters , July 24, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    I meant to use right and left to refer generally to elite vs popular. The issue is too big to discuss without some simplification, and I'm sorry it has distracted from the main issue. On the face of it, judging from the primaries, the Republican candidates who represented continued rightward drift were rejected. (Indications are that the same thing happened in the Democratic Party, but party control was stronger there, and democratic primary numbers will never be known).

    The main point I was trying to make is that the Democratic party has been stretching credulity to the breaking point in claiming to be democratic in any sense, and finally the contradiction between their statements and actions has outpaced the capabilities of their propaganda. Their Orwellian program overextended itself. Popular recognition of the disparity has caused a kind of political "snap" that's initiated a radical reorganization of what used to be the party of the right (or corporations, or elites, or finance, or "your description here".)

    Besides confusion between which issues are right or left for Republicans or Democrats on the national level, internationally, the breakdown of popular trust in the elites, and the failure of their propaganda on that scale, is leading to a related worldwide distrust and rejection of elite policies. This distrust has been percolating in pockets for some time, but it seems it's now become so widespread that it's practically become a movement.

    I suspect, however, there's a Plan B for this situation to restore the proper order. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Norb , July 24, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action.

    If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that.

    Clintons arrogance is worse because the transcripts probably clearly show her secretly conspiring with bankers to screw the working people of this country. Trumps misdeeds effect his relationship to other elites while Clintons directly effect working people.

    Such a sorry state of affairs. When all that matters is the pursuit of money and profit, moving forward will be difficult and full of moral contradictions. Populism needs a new goal. The political machinery that gives us two pro-business hacks and an ineffectual third party has fundamentally failed.

    The business of America must be redefined, not somehow brought back to a mythical past greatness. Talk about insanity.

    John Wright , July 24, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Thanks for the mention of the Bob Herbert editorial.

    I found it by searching for your quoted statement at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html

    I was published Feb 26,2001

    Herbert has some advice for the Democrats.

    "Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing."

    "There's not much the Democrats can do about Mrs. Clinton. She's got a Senate seat for six years. But there is no need for the party to look to her for leadership. The Democrats need to regroup, re-establish their strong links to middle-class and working-class Americans, and move on."

    "You can't lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they've betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them."

    "As neither Clinton has the grace to retire from the scene, the Democrats have no choice but to turn their backs on them. It won't be easy, but the Democrats need to try. If they succeed they'll deserve the compliment Bill Clinton offered Gennifer Flowers after she lied under oath: "Good for you." "

    Amazing how the New York Times has "evolved" from Herbert's editorial stance of 15 years ago to their unified editorial/news support for HRC's candacy,

    In my view, it is not as if HRC has done anything to redeem herself in the intervening years.

    Herbert left the NY Times in 2011..

    Sound of the Suburbs , July 24, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    It takes liberals to create a refugee crisis.
    What country are we going to bomb back into the stone age this week?

    We are very squeamish about offensive language.
    We don't mind dropping bombs and ripping people apart with red hot shrapnel.
    We are liberals.

    Liberal sensibilities were on display in the film "Apocalypse Now".
    No writing four letter words on the side of aircraft.
    Napalm, white phosphorous and agent orange – no problem.

    Liberals are like the English upper class – outward sophistication hiding the psychopath underneath.
    They were renowned for their brutality towards slaves, the colonies and the English working class (men, women and children) but terribly sophisticated when with their own.

    Are you a bad language sort of person – Trump
    Or a liberal, psychopath, empire builder – Clinton

    The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood.

    Richard , July 24, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Lambert strether said: my view is that the democrat party cannot be saved, but it can be seized.
    Absolutely correct.
    That is why Trump must be elected. Only then through the broken remains of both Parties can the frangible Democrat Party be seized and restored.

    VietnamVet , July 24, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Dont blame the masses

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth. ..."
    "... Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China. ..."
    Aug 08, 2016 | www.bostonglobe.com
    Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth.
    Enrique Ferro's insight:
    Moments of change require adaptation, but the United States is not good at adapting. We are used to being in charge. This blinded us to the reality that as other countries began rising, our relative power would inevitably decline. Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China.

    [Dec 04, 2016] The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies

    This is downright sickening and the people who are voting for Hillary will not even care what will happen with the USA iif she is elected.
    By attacking Trump using "Khan gambit" she risks a violent backlash (And not only via Wikileaks, which already promised to release information about her before the elections)
    People also start to understand that she is like Trump. He destroyed several hundred American lifes by robbing them, exploiting their vanity (standard practice in the USA those days) via Trump University scam. She destroyed the whole country -- Libya and is complicit in killing Khaddafi (who, while not a nice guy, was keeping the country together and providing be highest standard of living in Africa for his people).
    In other words she is a monster and sociopath. He probably is a narcissist too. So there is no much phychological difference between them. And we need tight proportions to judge this situation if we are talking about Hillary vs Trump.
    As for people voting for Trump -- yes they will. I think if Hillary goes aganst Trump, the female neoliberal monster will be trumped. She has little chances even taking into account the level of brainwashing in the USA (which actually is close to those that existed in the USSR).
    Notable quotes:
    "... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
    "... U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s ..."
    "... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
    "... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
    "... "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor. ..."
    "... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
    "... " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
    "... The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck. ..."
    "... The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. ..."
    "... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. ..."
    "... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
    "... In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their ..."
    "... Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase. ..."
    "... Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories? ..."
    "... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
    "... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
    "... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
    "... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
    "... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
    "... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
    "... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
    "... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
    "... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
    "... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
    "... Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- ..."
    "... "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism? ..."
    "... Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption. ..."
    "... Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people. ..."
    "... The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy. ..."
    "... America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses. ..."
    "... Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.

    seanseamour, June 1, 2016 at 3:26 am

    We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises), to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.

    Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.

    What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent "un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America" barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.

    Praedor, June 1, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR) was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.

    In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging. There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent real people in favor of useless eater rich.

    Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity, and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    According to NPR's experts, many or most of those parties are "fascist". The fascist label is getting tossed around a LOT right now. It is slung at Trump, at UKIP, or any others. Fascist is what you call the opposition party to the right that you oppose. Now I don't call Trump a fascist. A buffoon, yes, even a charlatan (I still rather doubt he really originally thought he would become the GOP nominee. Perhaps I'm wrong but, like me, many seemed to think that he was pushing his "brand" – a term usage of which I HATE because it IS like we are all commodities or businesses rather than PEOPLE – and that he would drop by the wayside and profit from his publicity).

    Be that as it may, NPR and Co were discussing the rise of fascist/neofascist parties and wondering why there were doing so well. Easy answer: neoliberalism + refugee hoards = what you see in Europe.

    I've also blamed a large part of today's gun violence in the USA on the fruits of neoliberalism. Why? Same reason that ugly right-wing groups (fascist or not) are gaining ground around the Western world. Neoliberalism destroys societies. It destroys the connections within societies (the USA in this case). Because we have guns handy, the result is mass shootings and flashes of murder-suicides. This didn't happen BEFORE neoliberalism got its hooks into American society. The guns were there, always have been (when I was a teen I recall seeing gun mags advertising various "assault weapons" for sale this was BEFORE Reagan and this was BEFORE mass shootings, etc). Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism. Neoliberalism steals your job security, your healthcare security, your home, your retirement security, your ability to provide for your family, your ability to send your kids to college, your ability to BUY FOOD. Neoliberalism means you don't get to work for a company for 20 years and then see the company pay you back for that long, good service with a pension. You'll be lucky to hold a job at any company from month-to-month now and FORGET about benefits! Healthcare? Going by the wayside too. Workers in the past felt a bond with each other, especially within a company. Neoliberalism has turned all workers against each other because they have to fight to gain any of the scraps being tossed out by the rich overlords. You can't work TOGETHER to gain mutual benefit, you need to fight each other in a zero sum game. For ME to win you have to lose. You are a commodity. A disposable and irrelevant widget. THAT combines with guns (that have always been available!) and you get desperate acting out: mass shootings, murder suicides, etc.

    WorldBLee , June 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    There are actual fascist parties in Europe. To name a few in one country I've followed, Ukraine, there's Right Sector, Svoboda, and others, and that's just one country. I don't think anyone calls UKIP fascist.

    John Zelnicker , June 3, 2016 at 12:24 am

    @Praedor – Your comment that Yves posted and this one are excellent. One of the most succinct statements of neoliberalism and its worst effects that I have seen.

    As to the cause of recent mass gun violence, I think you have truly nailed it. If one thinks at all about the ways in which the middle class and lower have been squeezed and abused, it's no wonder that a few of them would turn to violence. It's the same despair and frustration that leads to higher suicide rates, higher rates of opiate addiction and even decreased life expectancy.

    Jacob , June 3, 2016 at 11:35 am

    "Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism."

    Easy availability of guns was seen as a serious problem long before the advent of neoliberalism. For one example of articles about this, see U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s . Other examples include 1920s and 1930s gangster and mob violence that were a consequence of Prohibition (of alcohol). While gun violence per-capita might be increasing, the population is far larger today, and the news media select incidents of violence to make them seem like they're happening everywhere and that everyone needs to be afraid. That, of course, instills a sense of insecurity and fear into the public mind; thus, a fearful public want a strong leader and are willing to accept the inconvenience and dangers of a police state for protection.

    Disturbed Voter , June 2, 2016 at 6:49 am

    First they came for the blue collar workers

    America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America

    Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants, and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this, based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause American predatory behavior. And our great political choice iron fist with our without velvet glove.

    Jeff , June 2, 2016 at 7:58 am

    Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind (if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe :) They all have more or less fascist governments.
    Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as a government running on behalf of the corporations).

    Seb , June 2, 2016 at 8:07 am

    That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around.

    None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can be called fascist in any meaningful sense.

    Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly anti-corporatist.

    BananaBreakfast , June 4, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    The problem here is one of semantics, really. You're using "fascist" interchangeably with "authoritarian", which is a misnomer for these groups. The EU is absolutely anti-democratic, authoritarian, and technocratic in a lot of respects, but it's not fascist. Both have corporatist tendencies, but fascist corporatism was much more radical, much more anti-capitalist (in the sense that the capitalist class was expected to subordinate itself to the State as the embodiment of the will of the Nation or People, as were the other classes/corporate units). EU technocratic corporatism has none of the militarism, the active fiscal policy, the drive for government supported social cohesion, the ethno-nationalism, or millenarianism of Fascism.

    The emergent Right parties like UKIP, FNP, etc. share far more with the Fascists, thought I'd say they generally aren't yet what Fascists would have recognized as other Fascists in the way that the NSDAP and Italian Fascists recognized each other -perhaps they're more like fellow travelers.

    tgs , June 2, 2016 at 9:46 am

    True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone to moderation.

    Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.

    Jeff , June 2, 2016 at 10:05 am

    When I was young, there were 4 divisions:
    * who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
    * who decided what those means were used for.
    If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a totalitarian state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like the government or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private hands).
    If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism. I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production (mafia perhaps).
    Sheldon Wolin introduced us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means.
    When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I cite Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and the tear-down of social justice that worries me.

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    But Jeff, is Wolin accurate in using the term "inverted totalitarianism" to try to capture the nature of our modern extractive bureaucratic monolith that apparently functions in an environment where "it is no longer the government that decides what must be done..simply.."private owners just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means."

    Mirowski argues quite persuasively that the neoliberal ascendency does not represent the retreat of the State but its remaking to strongly support a particular conception of a market society that is imposed with the help of the State on our society.

    For Mirowski, neoliberalism is definitely not politically libertarian or opposed to strong state intervention in the economy and society.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused. Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.

    jan , June 2, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Hi
    I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic policies of neoliberalism.

    schizosoph , June 2, 2016 at 9:28 am

    There's LePen in France and the far-right, fascist leaning party nearly won in Austria. The far right in Greece as well. There's clearly a move to the far right in Europe. And then there's the totalitarian mess that is Turkey. How much further this turn to a fascist leaning right goes and how widespread remains to be seen, but it's clearly underway.

    myshkin , June 2, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.

    National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
    Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
    Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
    Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
    Ustaše Croatia
    National Socialist Movement of Denmark
    La Cagoule France
    National Democratic Party of Germany
    Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
    Fiamma Tricolore Italy
    Forza Nuova Italy
    Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
    Movimento Fascismo e Libertà Italy
    Pērkonkrusts Latvia
    Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
    National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
    National Revival of Poland (NOP)
    Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
    Noua Dreaptă Romania
    Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
    Barkashov's Guards Russia
    National Socialist Society Russia
    Nacionalni stroj Serbia
    Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
    Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
    España 2000 Spain
    Falange Española Spain
    Nordic Realm Party Sweden
    National Alliance Sweden
    Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
    National Youth Sweden
    Legion Wasa Sweden
    SPAS Ukraine
    Blood and Honour UK
    British National Front UK
    Combat 18 UK
    League of St. George UK
    National Socialist Movement UK
    Nationalist Alliance UK
    November 9th Society UK
    Racial Volunteer Force UK

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    "Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.

    Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"

    In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 2, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism" is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.

    As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners of the means of production.

    The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences.

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    PodBay stated:

    "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor.

    Take, for example, the late 1880s-1890s in the U.S. During that time-frame there were powerful agrarian populists movements and the beginnings of some labor/socialist movements from below, while from above the property-production system was modified by a powerful political movement advocating for more corporate administered markets over the competitive small-firm capitalism of an earlier age.

    It was this movement for corporate administered markets which won the battle and defeated/absorbed the agrarian populists.

    What are the array of such forces in 2016? What type of movement doe Trump represent? Sanders? Clinton?

    Lexington , June 2, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks

    Which textbooks specifically?

    The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism, and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you have been reading.

    As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state), private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".

    My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result. Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away. Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists" to political irrelevance.

    Roger Smith , June 2, 2016 at 7:13 am

    " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism"

    This phrase is pure gold.

    allan , June 2, 2016 at 7:44 am

    The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck.

    sleepy , June 2, 2016 at 7:56 am

    I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.

    Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.

    Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination, but blue collar folks of all ages.

    weinerdog43 , June 2, 2016 at 8:25 am

    My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months. Kmart is long gone.

    I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere. But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.

    2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. (Yes, that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread out over 200 years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past, they were promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has to do the dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)

    Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.

    Jim Haygood , June 2, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    "the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis"

    while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military dominance.

    We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure.

    Today in San Diego, the Hildabeest will deliver a vigorous defense of this decadent, dying system.

    Mary Wehrheim , June 2, 2016 at 8:32 am

    This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot.

    You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. Plus he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree. And why not the thinking goes the highly vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made a pig's breakfast out of things. So much for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give River City a boys band.

    uahsenaa , June 2, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.

    In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their political revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter, then they get to reap the whirlwind.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories?

    Besides, consumers need to learn to play the long game and suck up the "scurrilous attacks" on their personal consumption habits for the next four years. The end of abortion for four years is not important - lern2hand and lern2agency, and lern2cutyourrapist if it comes to that. What is important is that the Democratic Party's bourgeois yuppie constituents are forced to defend against GOP attacks on their personal and cultural interests with wherewithal that would have been ordinarily spent to attend to their sister act with their captive constituencies.

    If bourgeois Democrats hadn't herded us into a situation where individuals mean nothing outside of their assigned identity groups and their corporate coalition duopoly, they wouldn't be reaping the whirlwind today. Why, exactly, should I be sympathetic to exploitative parasites such as the middle class?

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing something to reduce population growth.

    How to "reverse immigration influxes"?

    I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown. If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.

    Jack Heape , June 2, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Here's a start

    1. Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal.
    2. Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
    3. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
    4. Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors.
    5. Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
    6. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
    7. Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
    8. Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
    9. Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
    10. Free public education including college (4 year degree).
    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:56 am

    Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 11:56 am

    This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election) and Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism?

    Sluggeaux , June 2, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.

    This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning. I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.

    seanseamour , June 3, 2016 at 7:59 am

    The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy.

    In the 1980's I worked inside the beltway witnessing the new cadre of apparatchiks that drove into town on the Reagan coattails full of moral a righteousness that became deviant, parochial, absolutist and for whom bi-partisan approaches to policy were scorned prodded on by new power brokers promoting their gospels in early morning downtown power breakfasts. Sadly our politicians no longer serve but seek a career path in our growing meritocratic plutocracy.

    paul whalen , June 2, 2016 at 9:19 am

    America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses.

    Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/the-myth-of-the-middle-class-have-most-americans-always-been-poor/

    [Dec 04, 2016] Methheads as a sign of socioeconomic desperation: neoliberalism behaves much like British behaves in China during opium wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine ..."
    "... children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness. ..."
    "... "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist." ..."
    "... It's a Wonderful Life ..."
    "... as educators ..."
    "... OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. ..."
    "... I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings. ..."
    "... The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher). ..."
    "... "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world. ..."
    "... Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me. ..."
    "... My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward. ..."
    "... I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order . ..."
    "... Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed ..."
    "... I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets). ..."
    "... It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual. ..."
    Jun 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    bluecollarAl , June 2, 2016 at 10:06 am

    I am almost 70 years old, born and raised in New York City, still living in a near suburb.

    Somehow, somewhere along the road to my 70th year I feel as if I have been gradually transported to an almost entirely different country than the land of my younger years. I live painfully now in an alien land, a place whose habits and sensibilities I sometimes hardly recognize, while unable to escape from memories of a place that no longer exists. There are days I feel as I imagine a Russian pensioner must feel, lost in an unrecognizable alien land of unimagined wealth, power, privilege, and hyper-glitz in the middle of a country slipping further and further into hopelessness, alienation, and despair.

    I am not particularly nostalgic. Nor am I confusing recollection with sentimental yearnings for a youth that is no more. But if I were a contemporary Rip Van Winkle, having just awakened after, say, 30-40 years, I would not recognize my beloved New York City. It would be not just the disappearance of the old buildings, Penn Station, of course, Madison Square Garden and its incandescent bulb marquee on 50th and 8th announcing NYU vs. St. John's, and the WTC, although I always thought of the latter as "new" until it went down. Nor would it be the disappearance of all the factories, foundries, and manufacturing plants, the iconic Domino Sugar on the East River, the Wonder Bread factory with its huge neon sign, the Swingline Staples building in Long Island City that marked passage to and from the East River tunnel on the railroad, and my beloved Schaeffer Beer plant in Williamsburg, that along with Rheingold, Knickerbocker, and a score of others, made beer from New York taste a little bit different.

    It wouldn't be the ubiquitous new buildings either, the Third Avenue ghostly glass erected in the 70's and 80's replacing what once was the most concentrated collection of Irish gin mills anywhere. Or the fortress-like castles built more recently, with elaborate high-ceilinged lobbies decorated like a kind of gross, filthy-wealthy Versailles, an aesthetically repulsive style that shrieks "power" in a way the neo-classical edifices of our Roman-loving founders never did. Nor would it even be the 100-story residential sticks, those narrow ground-to-clouds skyscraper condominiums proclaiming the triumph of globalized capitalism with prices as high as their penthouses, driven ever upward by the foreign billionaires and their obsession with burying their wealth in Manhattan real estate.

    It is not just the presence of new buildings and the absence of the old ones that have this contemporary Van Winkle feeling dyslexic and light-headed. The old neighborhoods have disintegrated along with the factories, replaced by income segregated swatches of homogenous "real estate" that have consumed space, air, and sunlight while sucking the distinctiveness out of the City. What once was the multi-generational home turf for Jewish, Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Italian, Polak and Bohunk families is now treated as simply another kind of investment, stocks and bonds in steel and concrete. Mom's Sunday dinners, clothes lines hanging with newly bleached sheets after Monday morning wash, stickball games played among parked cars, and evenings of sitting on the stoop with friends and a transistor radio listening to Mel Allen call Mantle's home runs or Alan Freed and Murray the K on WINS 1010 playing Elvis, Buddy Holly, and The Drifters, all gone like last night's dreams.

    Do you desire to see the new New York? Look no further than gentrifying Harlem for an almost perfect microcosm of the city's metamorphosis, full of multi-million condos, luxury apartment renovations, and Maclaren strollers pushed by white yuppie wife stay-at-homes in Marcus Garvey Park. Or consider the "new" Lower East Side, once the refuge of those with little material means, artists, musicians, bums, drug addicts, losers and the physically and spiritually broken - my kind of people. Now its tenements are "retrofitted" and remodeled into $4000 a month apartments and the new residents are Sunday brunching where we used to score some Mary Jane.

    There is the "Brooklyn brand", synonymous with "hip", and old Brooklyn neighborhoods like Red Hook and South Brooklyn (now absorbed into so desirable Park Slope), and Bushwick, another former outpost of the poor and the last place I ever imagined would be gentrified, full of artists and hipsters driving up the price of everything. Even large sections of my own Queens and the Bronx are affected (infected?). Check out Astoria, for example, neighborhood of my father's family, with more of the old ways than most but with rents beginning to skyrocket and starting to drive out the remaining working class to who knows where.

    Gone is almost every mom and pop store, candy stores with their egg creams and bubble gum cards and the Woolworth's and McCrory's with their wooden floors and aisles containing ordinary blue collar urgencies like thread and yarn, ironing boards and liquid bleach, stainless steel utensils of every size and shape. Where are the locally owned toy and hobby stores like Jason's in Woodhaven under the el, with Santa's surprises available for lay-away beginning in October? No more luncheonettes, cheap eats like Nedicks with hot dogs and paper cones of orange drink, real Kosher delis with vats of warm pastrami and corned beef cut by hand, and the sacred neighborhood "bar and grill", that alas has been replaced by what the kids who don't know better call "dive bars", the detestable simulacra of the real thing, slick rooms of long slick polished mahogany, a half-dozen wide screen TV's blaring mindless sports contests from all over the world, over-priced micro-brews, and not a single old rummy in sight?

    Old Rip searches for these and many more remembered haunts, what Ray Oldenburg called the "great good places" of his sleepy past, only to find store windows full of branded, high-priced, got-to-have luxury-necessities (necessary if he/she is to be certified cool, hip, and successful), ridiculously overpriced "food emporia", high and higher-end restaurants, and apparel boutiques featuring hardened smiles and obsequious service reserved for those recognized by celebrity or status.

    Rip notices too that the visible demographic has shifted, and walking the streets of Manhattan and large parts of Brooklyn, he feels like what walking in Boston Back Bay always felt like, a journey among an undifferentiated mass of privilege, preppy or 'metro-sexed' 20 and 30-somethings jogging or riding bicycles like lean, buff gods and goddesses on expense accounts supplemented by investments enriched by yearly holiday bonuses worth more than Rip earned in a lifetime.

    Sitting alone on a park bench by the river, Rip reflects that more than all of these individual things, however, he despairs of a city that seems to have been reimagined as a disneyfied playground of the privileged, offering endless ways to self-gratify and philistinize in a clean, safe (safest big city in U.S., he heard someone say), slick, smiley, center-of-the-world urban paradise, protected by the new centurions (is it just his paranoia or do battle-ready police seem to be everywhere?). Old ethnic neighborhoods are filled with apartment buildings that seem more like post-college "dorms", tiny studios and junior twos packed with three or four "singles" roommates pooling their entry level resources in order to pay for the right to live in "The City". Meanwhile the newer immigrants find what place they can in Kingsbridge, Corona, Jamaica, and Cambria Heights, far from the city center, even there paying far too much to the landlord for what they receive.

    New York has become an unrecognizable place to Rip, who can't understand why the accent-less youngsters keep asking him to repeat something in order to hear his quaint "Brooklyn" accent, something like the King's English still spoken on remote Smith Island in the Chesapeake, he guesses
    .
    Rip suspects that this "great transformation" (apologies to Polanyi) has coincided, and is somehow causally related, to the transformation of New York from a real living city into, as the former Mayor proclaimed, the "World Capital" of financialized commerce and all that goes with it.

    "Financialization", he thinks, is not the expression of an old man's disapproval but a way of naming a transformed economic and social world. Rip is not an economist. He reads voraciously but, as an erstwhile philosopher trained to think about the meaning of things, he often can't get his head around the mathematical model-making explanations of the economists that seem to dominate the more erudite political and social analyses these days. He has learned, however, that the phenomenon of "capitalism" has changed along with his city and his life.

    Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine
    .
    Above all else is the astronomical rise in wealth and income inequality. Rip recalls that growing up in the 1950's, the kids on his block included, along with firemen, cops, and insurance men dads (these were virtually all one-parent income households), someone had a dad who worked as a stock broker. Yea, living on the same block was a "Wall Streeter". Amazingly democratic, no? Imagine, people of today, a finance guy drinking at the same corner bar with the sanitation guy. Rip recalls that Aristotle had some wise and cautionary words in his Politics concerning the stability of oligarchic regimes.

    Last year I drove across America on blue highways mostly. I stayed in small towns and cities, Zanesville, St. Charles, Wichita, Pratt, Dalhart, Clayton, El Paso, Abilene, Clarksdale, and many more. I dined for the most part in local taverns, sitting at the bar so as to talk with the local bartender and patrons who are almost always friendly and talkative in these spaces. Always and everywhere I heard similar stories as my story of my home town. Not so much the specifics (there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness.

    I am not a trained economist. My graduate degrees were in philosophy. My old friends call me an "Eric Hoffer", who back in the day was known as the "longshoreman philosopher". I have been trying for a long time now to understand the silent revolution that has been pulled off right under my nose, the replacement of a world that certainly had its flaws (how could I forget the civil rights struggle and the crime of Viet Nam; I was a part of these things) but was, let us say, different. Among you or your informed readers, is there anyone who can suggest a book or books or author(s) who can help me understand how all of this came about, with no public debate, no argument, no protest, no nothing? I would be very much appreciative.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I'll just highlight this line for emphasis
    "there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness."
    my best friend pretty much weeps every day.

    Michael Fiorillo , June 2, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    bluecollar Al,

    As a lifelong New Yorker, I too mourn the demise of my beloved city. Actually, that's wrong: my city didn't die, it was taken from me/us.

    But if it's any consolation, remember that Everyone Loses Their New York (even insufferable hipster colonizers)

    Left in Wisconsin , June 2, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Beautifully said.

    I don't have a book to recommend. I do think you identify a really underemphasized central fact of recent times: the joint processes by which real places have been converted into "real estate" and real, messy lives replaced by safe, manufactured "experiences." This affects wealthy and poor neighborhoods alike, in different ways but in neither case for the better.

    I live in a very desirable neighborhood in one of those places that makes a lot of "Best of" lists. I met a new neighbor last night who told me how he and his wife had plotted for years to get out of the Chicago burbs, not only to our city but to this specific neighborhood, which they had decided is "the one." (This sentiment is not atypical.) Unsurprisingly, property values in the neighborhood have gone through the roof. Which, as far as I can tell, most everyone here sees as an unmitigated good thing.

    At the same time, several families I got to know because they moved into the neighborhood about the same time we did 15-20 years ago, are cashing out and moving away, kids off to or out of college, parents ready (and financed) to get on to the next phase and the next place. Of course, even though our children are all Lake Woebegoners, there are no next generations staying in the neighborhood, except of course the ones still living, or back, at "home." (Those families won't be going anywhere for awhile!)

    I can't argue that new money in the hood hasn't improved some things. Our formerly struggling food co-op just finished a major expansion and upgrade. Good coffee is 5 minutes closer than it used to be. But to my wife and me, the overwhelming feeling is that we are now outsiders here in this neighborhood where we know all the houses and the old trees but not what motivates our new neighbors. So I made up a word for it: unsettling (adj., verb, noun).

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Try to read this one:

    "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."

    - Steve Fraser, The Age of Acquiescence

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    bluecollar Al:

    Christopher Lash in "Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy" mentions Ray Oldenburg's "The Great Good Places: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts and How they Got You through the Day."

    He argued that the decline of democracy is directly related to the disappearance of what he called third places:,

    "As neighborhood hangouts give way to suburban shopping malls, or, on the other hand private cocktail parties, the essentially political art of conversation is replaced by shoptalk or personal gossip.

    Increasingly, conversation literally has no place in American society. In its absence how–or better, where–can political habits be acquired and polished?

    Lasch finished he essay by noting that Oldenburg's book helps to identify what is missing from our then newly emerging world (which you have concisely updated):

    "urban amenities, conviviality, conversation, politics–almost everything in part that makes life worth living."

    JDH , June 2, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    The best explainer of our modern situation that I have read is Wendell Berry. I suggest that you start with "The Unsettling of America," quoted below.

    "Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the old-fashioned idea or ideal of a farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The exploiter's goal is money, profit; the nurturer's goal is health - his land's health, his own, his family's, his community's, his country's. Whereas the exploiter asks of a piece of land only how much and how quickly it can be made to produce, the nurturer asks a question that is much more complex and difficult: What is its carrying capacity? (That is: How much can be taken from it without diminishing it? What can it produce dependably for an indefinite time?) The exploiter wishes to earn as much as possible by as little work as possible; the nurturer expects, certainly, to have a decent living from his work, but his characteristic wish is to work as well as possible. The competence of the exploiter is in organization; that of the nurturer is in order - a human order, that is, that accommodates itself both to other order and to mystery. The exploiter typically serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place. The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, "hard facts"; the nurturer in terms of character, condition, quality, kind."

    I also think Prof. Patrick Deneen works to explain the roots (and progression) of decline. I'll quote him at length here describing the modern college student.

    "[T]he one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere with this prime directive: a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.

    Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica – a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world's first Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning "private individual." Our education system produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.

    They won't fight against anyone, because that's not seemly, but they won't fight for anyone or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory."

    ekstase , June 2, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Wow. Did this hit a nerve. You have eloquently described what was the city of hope for several generations of outsiders, for young gay men and women, and for real artists, not just from other places in America, but from all over the world. In New York, once upon a time, bumping up against the more than 50% of the population who were immigrants from other countries, you could learn a thing or two about the world. You could, for a while, make a living there at a job that was all about helping other people. You could find other folks, lots of them, who were honest, well-meaning, curious about the world. Then something changed. As you said, you started to see it in those hideous 80's buildings. But New York always seemed somehow as close or closer to Europe than to the U.S., and thus out of the reach of mediocrity and dumbing down. New York would mold you into somebody tough and smart, if you weren't already – if it didn't, you wouldn't make it there.

    Now, it seems, this dream is dreamt. Poseurs are not artists, and the greedy and smug drive out creativity, kindness, real humor, hope.

    It ain't fair. I don't know where in this world an aspiring creative person should go now, but it probably is not there.

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.

    Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other factors.

    From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in the north and west.

    Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this process of Middle Class destruction?

    1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured by the The Real Progress Indicator.

    Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".

    Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented workers to downgrade pay scales??

    Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss would be great.

    When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens? The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.

    It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.

    Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined) Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.

    Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members until recently or maybe even ongoing.

    There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).

    I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant. Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    part timer in sd as well, family for hillary except for nephew and niece .I keep telling my mom she should vote bernie for their sake but it never goes over very well

    Bob Haugen , June 2, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children. I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.

    equote , June 2, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline. . . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
    Robert O. Paxton
    In The Five Stages of Faschism

    " that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators' any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
    Sinclair Lewis
    It Can't Happen Here page 141

    Take the Fork , June 2, 2016 at 11:07 am

    On the Boots To Ribs Front: Anyone hereabouts notice that Captain America has just been revealed to be a Nazi? Maybe this is what R. Cohen was alluding to but I doubt it.

    pissed younger baby boomer , June 2, 2016 at 11:57 am

    The four horse men are, political , social, economic and environmental collapse . Any one remember the original Mad Max movie. A book I recommend is the Crash Of 2016 By Thom Hartmann.

    rfam , June 2, 2016 at 11:59 am

    From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.

    1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.

    2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after "Nixon Shock"

    https://www.google.com/search?q=gini+coefficient+usa+chart&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1371&bih=793&tbm=isch&imgil=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%253A%253B-Lt3-YscSzdOaM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.the-crises.com%25252Fincome-inequality-in-the-us-1%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%253A%252C-Lt3-YscSzdOaM%252C_&usg=__bipTqXhWx0tXxke6Xcj5MUAcn-o%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjY18rm2onNAhUPeFIKHREjAS4QyjcILw&ei=nFdQV9iZCo_wyQKRxoTwAg#imgrc=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%3A

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable (?). Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long, long time.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from) the workers get the husk. Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am God, there doesn't need to be any other" Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find a quick primer.

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    The Walmart loathsome spawn and Jeff Bezos are the biggest welfare drains in our nation – or among the biggest. They woefully underpay their workers, all while training them on how to apply for various welfare benefits. Just so that their slaves, uh, workers can manage to eat enough to enable them to work.

    It slays me when US citizens – and it happens across the voting spectrum these days; I hear just as often from Democratic voters as I do from GOP voters – bitch, vetch, whine & cry about welfare abuse. And if I start to point out the insane ABUSE of welfare by the Waltons and Jeff Bezos, I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare.

    Hey, I'm totally sure and in agreement that there are likely a small percentage of real welfare cheats who manage to do well enough somehow. But seriously? That's like a drop in the bucket. Get the eff over it!!!

    Those cheats are not worth discussing. It's the big fraud cheats like Bezos & the Waltons and their ilk, who don't need to underpay their workers, but they DO because the CAN and they get away with it because those of us the rapidly dwindling middle/working classes are footing the bill for it.

    Citizens who INSIST on focusing on a teeny tiny minority of real welfare cheats, whilst studiously ignoring the Waltons and the Bezos' of the corporate world, are enabling this behavior. It's one of my bugabears bc it's so damn frustrating when citizens refuse to see how they are really being ripped off by the 1%. Get a clue.

    That doesn't even touch on all the other tax breaks, tax loopholes, tax incentives and just general all-around tax cheating and off-shore money hiding that the Waltons and Bezos get/do. Sheesh.

    JustAnObserver , June 2, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    This statement –

    "I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare."

    is the key and a v. long term result of the application of Bernays' to political life. Its local and hits at the gut interpersonal level 'cos the "someones" form a kind of chain of trust esp. if the the first one on the list is a friend or a credentialed media pundit. Utterly spurious I know but countering this with a *merely* rational analysis of how Walmart, Amazon abuse the welfare system to gouge profits from the rest of us just won't ever, for the large majority, get through this kind emotional wall.

    I don't know what any kind of solution might look like but, somehow, we need to find a way of seriously demonising the corporate parasites that resonates at the same emotional level as the "welfare cheat" meme that Bill Clinton and the rest of the DLC sanctified back in the '90s.

    Something like "Walmart's stealing your taxes" might work but how to get it out there in a viral way ??

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    "random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow made out like a bandit on welfare."

    Hmm. Your acquaintances might need to be educated about urban legends .

    Anonymous Coward , June 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville?

    For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful Life enough times.

    Judith , June 2, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    People may be interested in an ongoing project by the photographer Matt Black (who was recently invited to join Magnum) called the Geography of Poverty. http://www.mattblack.com/the-geography-of-poverty/

    Steve Sewall , June 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.

    seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend " This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*

    And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.

    But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom" story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)

    To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself, let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of communities large and small.

    For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered, citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of which every one of us is a member.

    Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic, issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders, commericial, public, personal and even government sources.

    So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves so we can reverse America's rapid decline.

    OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    "Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

    Sound of the Suburbs , June 2, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings.

    The end is nigh for the Neo-Liberals.

    Sound of the Suburbs , June 2, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    Whatever system is put in place the human race will find a way to undermine it. I believe in capitalism because fair competition means the best and most efficient succeed.

    I send my children to private schools and universities because I want my own children at the top and not the best. Crony capitalism is inevitable, self-interest undermines any larger system that we try and impose.

    Can we design a system that can beat human self-interest? It's going to be tricky.

    "If that's the system, how can I take advantage of it?" human nature at work. "If that's the system, is it working for me or not?" those at the top.
    If not, it's time to change the system.
    If so, how can I tweak it to get more out of it?

    Neo-Liberalism

    Academics, who are not known for being street-wise, probably thought they had come up with the ultimate system using markets and numeric performance measures to create a system free from human self-interest.

    They had already missed that markets don't just work for price discovery, but are frequently used for capital gains by riding bubbles and hoping there is a "bigger fool" out there than you, so you can cash out with a handsome profit.

    (I am not sure if the Chinese realise markets are supposed to be for price discovery at all).

    Hence, numerous bubbles during this time, with housing bubbles being the global favourite for those looking for capital gains.

    If we are being governed by the markets, how do we rig the markets?
    A question successfully solved by the bankers.

    Inflation figures, that were supposed to ensure the cost of living didn't rise too quickly, were somehow manipulated to produce low inflation figures with roaring house price inflation raising the cost of living.

    What unemployment measure will best suit the story I am trying to tell?
    U3 – everything great
    U6 – it's not so good
    Labour participation rate – it hasn't been this bad since the 1970s

    Anything missing from the theory has been ruthlessly exploited, e.g. market bubbles ridden for capital gains, money creation by private banks, the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and the fact that Capitalism trickles up through the following mechanism:

    1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
    2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.

    Neo-Liberalism – It's as good as dead.

    perpetualWAR , June 2, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    I just went on a rant last week. (Not only because the judge actually LIED in court)

    I left the courthouse in downtown Seattle, to cross the street to find the vultures selling more foreclosures on the steps of the King County Administration Building, while above them, there were tents pitched on the building's perimeter. And people were walking by just like this scene was normal.

    Because the people at the entrance of the courthouse could view this, I went over there and began to rant. I asked (loudly) "Do you guys see that over there? Vultures selling homes rendering more people homeless and then the homeless encampment with tents pitched on the perimeter above them? In what world is this normal?" One guy replied, "Ironic, isn't it?" After that comment, the Marshall protecting the judicial crooks in the building came over and tried to calm me down. He insisted that the scene across the street was "normal" and that none of his friends or neighbors have been foreclosed on. I soon found out that that lying Marshall was from Pierce County, the epicenter of Washington foreclosures.

    The scene was totally surreal. And unforgettable.

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    You need to take a photograph or two using your above words as caption.

    EGrise , June 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    And nobody cares
    As long as they get theirs

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher).

    Softie , June 2, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world.

    For these people, already skeptical about who runs things and to what end, and who are now undergoing their own eviction from the middle class, skepticism sours into a passive cynicism. Or it rears up in a kind of vengeful chauvinism directed at alien others at home and abroad, emotional compensation for the wounds that come with social decline If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."

    - Steve Fraser, The Age of Acquiescence

    LeitrimNYC , June 2, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    One thing I don't think I have seen addressed on this site (apologies if I have missed it!) in all the commentary about the destruction of the middle class is the role of US imperialism in creating that middle class in the first place and what it is that we want to save from destruction by neo-liberalism. The US is rich because we rob the rest of the world's resources and have been doing so in a huge way since 1945, same as Britain before us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the US post-war domination of the world economy and the middle class golden age happened at the same time. Obviously there was enormous value created by US manufacturers, inventors, government scientists, etc but imperialism is the basic starting point for all of this. The US sets the world terms of trade to its own advantage. How do we save the middle class without this level of control? Within the US elites are robbing everyone else but they are taking what we use our military power to appropriate from the rest of the world.

    Second, if Bernie or whoever saves the middle class, is that so that everyone can have a tract house and two cars and continue with a massively wasteful and unsustainable lifestyle based on consumption? Or are we talking about basic security like shelter, real health care, quality education for all, etc? Most of the stories I see seem to be nostalgic for a time when lots of people could afford to buy lots of stuff and don't 1) reflect on origin of that stuff (imperialism) and 2) consider whether that lifestyle should be the goal in the first place.

    perpetualWAR , June 2, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    I went to the electronics recycling facility in Seattle yesterday. The guy at customer service told me that they receive 20 million pounds per month. PER MONTH. Just from Seattle. I went home and threw up.

    Praedor , June 2, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    It doesn't have to be that way. You can replace military conquest (overt and covert) with space exploration and science expansion. Also, instead of pushing consumerism, push contentment. Don't setup and goose a system of "gotta keep up with the Joneses!"

    In the 50s(!!!) there was a plan, proven in tests and studies, that would have had humans on the mars by 1965, out to Saturn by 72. Project Orion. Later, the British Project Daedalus was envisioned which WOULD have put space probes at the next star system within 20 years of launch. It was born of the atomic age and, as originally envisioned, would have been an ecological disaster BUT it was reworked to avoid this and would have worked. Spacecraft capable of comfortably holding 100 personnel, no need to build with paper-thin aluminum skin or skimp on amenities. A huge ship built like a large sea vessel (heavy iron/steel) accelerated at 1g (or more or slightly less as desired) so no prolonged weightlessness and concomitant loss of bone and muscle mass. It was all in out hands but the Cold War got in the way, as did the many agreements and treaties of the Cold War to avoid annihilation. It didn't need to be that way. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    All that with 1950s and 60s era technology. It could be done better today and for less than your wars in the Middle East. Encourage science, math, exploration instead of consumption, getting mine before you can get yours, etc.

    hunkerdown , June 2, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me.

    Left in Wisconsin , June 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward.

    Likewise, US elites are clearly NOT robbing the manufacturing firms that have set up in China and other low-wage locations, so it is an oversimplification to say they are "robbing everyone else."

    Nostalgia is overrated but I don't sense the current malaise as a desire for more stuff. (I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I don't remember it as a time where people had, or craved, a lot of stuff. That period would be now, and I find it infects Sanders' supporters less than most.) If anything, it is nostalgia for more (free) time and more community, for a time when (many but not all) people had time to socialize and enjoy civic life.

    jrs , June 2, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    those things would be nice as would just a tiny bit of hope for the future, our own and the planet's and not an expectation of things getting more and more difficult and sometimes for entirely unnecessary reasons like imposed austerity. But being we can't have "nice things" like free time, community and hope for the future, we just "buy stuff".

    catlady , June 2, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    I live on the south side, in the formerly affluent south shore neighborhood. A teenager was killed, shot in the head in a drive by shooting, at 5 pm yesterday right around the corner from my residence. A white coworker of mine who lives in a rich northwest side neighborhood once commented to me how black people always say goodbye by saying "be safe". More easily said than done.

    Skippy , June 2, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order .

    Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed

    Jim , June 2, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Hi Skippy:

    I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets).

    It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual.

    But as Mirowski argues–carrying their analysis this far begins to undermine their own neoliberal assumptions about markets always promoting social welfare.

    Skippy , June 2, 2016 at 10:09 pm

    Hay Jim

    When I mean – agents – I'm not referring to agency, like you say the market gawd/computer does that. I was referencing the – rational agent – that 'ascribes' the markets the right at defining facts or truth as neoliberalism defines rational thought/behavior.

    Disheveled Marsupial yes democracy is a direct threat to Hayekian et al [MPS and Friends] paranoia due to claims of irrationality vs rationally

    Rick Cass , June 2, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    Neo-liberalism could not have any power without legal and ethical positivism as the ground work of the national thought processes.

    seanseamour , June 3, 2016 at 4:32 am

    I have trouble understanding the focus on an emergence of fascism in Europe, focus that seems to dominate this entire thread when, put in perspective such splinter groups bear little weight on the European political spectrum.
    As an expat living in France, in my perception the Front National is a threat to the political establishments that occupy the center left and right and whose historically broad constituencies have been brutalized by the financial crisis borne of unbridled anglo-saxon runaway capitalism, coined neoliberalism. The resulting disaffection has allowed the growth of the FN but it is also fueled by a transfer of reactionary constituencies that have historically found identity in far left parties (communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ), political expressions the institutions of the Republic allow and enable in the name of plurality, a healthy exultury in a democratic society.
    To consider that the FN in France, UKIP in the UK and others are a threat to democratic values any more that the far left is non-sensical, and I dare say insignificant compared to the "anchluss" our conservative right seeks to impose upon the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
    The reality in Europe as in America is economic. The post WWII era of reconstruction, investment and growth is behind us, the French call these years the "Trente Glorieuses" (30 glorious years) when prosperity was felt through all societal strats, consumerism for all became the panacea for a just society, where injustice prevailed welfare formulas provided a new panacea.
    As the perspective of an unravelling of this golden era began to emerge elites sought and conspired to consolidate power and wealth, under the aegis of greed is good culture by further corrupting government to serve the few, ensuring impunity for the ruling class, attempting societal cohesiveness with brash hubristic dialectics (America, the greatest this or that) and adventurism (Irak, mission accomplished), conspiring to co-opt and control institutions and the media (to understand the depth of this deception a must read is Jane Mayer in The Dark Side and in Dark Money).
    The difference between America and Europe is that latter bears of brunt of our excess.
    The 2008 Wall St / City meltdown eviscerated much of America' middle class and de-facto stalled, perhaps definitively, the vehicle of upward mobility in an increasingly wealth-ranked class structured society – the Trump phenomena feeds off the fatalistic resilience and "good book" mythologies remnant of the "go west" culture.
    In Europe where to varying degrees managed capitalism prevails the welfare state(s) provided the shock absorbers to offset the brunt of the crisis, but those who locked-in on neoliberal fiscal conservatism have cut off their nose in spite leaving scant resources to spur growth. If social mobility survives, more vibrantly than the US, unemployment and the cost thereof remains steadfast and crippling.
    The second crisis borne of American hubris is the human tidal wave resulting from the Irak adventure; it has unleashed mayhem upon the Middle East, Sub Saharan Africa and beyond. The current migrational wave Europe can not absorb is but the beginning of much deeper problem – as ISIS, Boko Haram and so many others terrorist groups destabilize the nation-states of a continent whose population is on the path to explode in the next half century.
    The icing on the cake provided by a Trump election will be a world wave of climate change refugees as the neoliberal establishment seeks to optimize wealth and power through continued climate change denial.
    Fascism is not the issue, nationalism resulting from a self serving bully culture will decimate the multilateral infrastructure responsible nation-states need to address today's problems.
    Broadly, Trump Presidency capping the neoliberal experience will likely signal the end of the US' dominant role on the world scene (and of course the immense benefits derived for the US). As he has articulated his intent to discard the art of diplomacy, from soft to institutional, in favor of an agressive approach in which the President seeks to "rattle" allies (NATO, Japan and S. Korea for example) as well as his opponents (in other words anyone who does not profess blind allegiance), expect that such modus operandi will create a deep schism accompanied by a loss of trust, already felt vis-a-vis our legislature' behavior over the last seven years.
    The US's newfound respect among friends and foes generated by President Obama' presidency, has already been undermined by the GOP primaries, if Trump is elected it will dissipate for good as other nations and groups thereof focus upon new, no-longer necessarily aligned strategic relationships, some will form as part as a means of taking distance, or protection from the US, others more opportunist with the risk of opponents such as Putin filling the void – in Europe for example.

    dk , June 3, 2016 at 8:08 am

    Neoliberalism isn't helping, but it's a population/resource ratio thing. Impacts on social orders occur well before raw supply factors kick in (and there is more than food supply to basic rations). The world population has more than doubled in the last 50 years, one doesn't get that kind of accelerated growth without profound impacts to every aspect of societies. Some of the most significant impacts are consequent to the acceleration of technological changes (skill expirations, automations) that are driven in no small part by the needs of a vast + growing population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
    Note that the vertical scale in the of the first graph is logarithmic.

    I don't suggest population as a pat simplistic answer. And neoliberalism accelerates the declining performance of institutions (as in the CUNY article and that's been going on for decades already, neoliberalism just picked up where neoconservatism petered out), but we would be facing issues like homelessness, service degradation, population displacements, etc regardless of poor policies. One could argue (I do) that neoliberalism has undertaken to accelerate existing entropies for profit.

    Murica Derp , June 3, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Thanks for soliciting reader comments on socioeconomic desperation. It's encouraging to know that I'm not the only failure to launch in this country.

    I'm a seasonal farm worker with a liberal arts degree in geology and history. I barely held on for six months as a junior environmental consultant at a dysfunctional firm that tacitly encouraged unethical and incompetent behavior at all levels. From what I could gather, it was one of the better-run firms in the industry. Even so, I was watching mid-level and senior staff wander into extended mid-life crises while our entire service line was terrorized by a badly out-of-shape, morbidly obese, erratic, vicious PG who had alienated almost the entire office but was untouchable no matter how many firing offenses she committed. Meanwhile I was watching peers in other industries (especially marketing and FIRE) sell their souls in real time. I'm still watching them do so a decade later.

    It's hard to exaggerate how atrociously I've been treated by bougie conformists for having failed/dropped out of the rat race. A family friend who got into trouble with the state of Hawaii for misclassifying direct employees of his timeshare boiler room as 1099's gave me a panic attack after getting stoned and berating me for hours about how I'd wake up someday and wonder what the fuck I'd done with my life. At the time, I had successfully completed a summer job as the de facto lead on a vineyard maintenance crew and was about to get called back for the harvest, again as the de facto lead picker.

    Much of my social life is basically my humiliation at the hands of amoral sleazeballs who presume themselves my superiors. No matter how strong an objective case I have for these people being morally bankrupt, it's impossible to really dismiss their insults. Another big component is concern-trolling from bourgeois supremacists who will do awfully little for me when I ask them for specific help. I don't know what they're trying to accomplish, and they probably don't, either. A lot of it is cognitive dissonance and incoherence.

    Some of the worst aggression has come from a Type A social climber friend who sells life insurance. He's a top producer in a company that's about a third normal, a third Willy Loman, and a third Glengarry Glen Ross. This dude is clearly troubled, but in ways that neither of us can really figure out, and a number of those around him are, too. He once admitted, unbidden, to having hazed me for years.

    The bigger problem is that he's surrounded by an entire social infrastructure that enables and rewards noxious, predatory behavior. When college men feel like treating the struggling like garbage, they have backup and social proof from their peers. It's disgusting. Many of these people have no idea of how to relate appropriately to the poor or the unemployed and no interest in learning. They want to lecture and humiliate us, not listen to us.

    Dude recently told me that our alma mater, Dickinson College, is a "grad school preparatory institution." I was floored that anyone would ever think to talk like that. In point of fact, we're constantly lectured about how versatile our degrees are, with or without additional education. I've apparently annoyed a number of Dickinsonians by bitterly complaining that Dickinson's nonacademic operations are a sleazy racket and that President Emeritus Bill Durden is a shyster who brainwashed my classmates with crude propaganda. If anything, I'm probably measured in my criticism, because I don't think I know the full extent of the fraud and sleaze. What I have seen and heard is damning. I believe that Dickinson is run by people with totalitarian impulses that are restrained only by a handful of nonconformists who came for the academics and are fed up with the propaganda.

    Meanwhile, I've been warm homeless for most of the past four years. It's absurd to get pledge drive pitches from a well-endowed school on the premise that my degree is golden when I'm regularly sleeping in my car and financially dependent on my parents. It's absurd to hear stories about how Dickinson's alumni job placement network is top-notch when I've never gotten a viable lead from anyone I know from school. It's absurd to explain my circumstances in detail to people who, afterwards, still can't understand why I'm cynical.

    While my classmates preen about their degrees, I'm dealing with stuff that would make them vomit. A relative whose farm I've been tending has dozens of rats infesting his winery building, causing such a stench that I'm just about the only person willing to set foot inside it. This relative is a deadbeat presiding over a feudal slumlord manor, circumstances that he usually justifies by saying that he's broke and just trying to make ends meet. He has rent-paying tenants living on the property with nothing but a pit outhouse and a filthy, disused shower room for facilities. He doesn't care that it's illegal. One of his tenants left behind a twenty-gallon trash can full to the brim with his own feces. Another was seen throwing newspaper-wrapped turds out of her trailer into the weeds. They probably found more dignity in this than in using the outhouse.

    When I was staying in Rancho Cordova, a rough suburb of Sacramento, I saw my next-door neighbor nearly come to blows with a man at the light rail station before apologizing profusely to me, calling me "sir," "man," "boss," and "dog." He told me that he was angry at the other guy for selling meth to his kid sister. Eureka is even worse: its west side is swarming with tweakers, its low-end apartment stock is terrible, no one brings the slumlords to heel, and it has a string of truly filthy residential motels along Broadway that should have been demolished years ago.

    A colleague who lives in Sweet Home, Oregon, told me that his hometown is swarming with druggies who try to extract opiates from local poppies and live for the next arriving shipment of garbage drugs. The berry farm where we worked had ten- and twelve-year-olds working under the table to supplement their families' incomes. A Canadian friend told me that he worked for a crackhead in Lillooet who made his own supply at home using freebase that he bought from a meathead dealer with ties to the Boston mob. Apparently all the failing mill towns in rural BC have a crack problem because there's not much to do other than go on welfare and cocaine. An RCMP sergeant in Kamloops was recently indicted for selling coke on the side.

    Uahsenaa's comment about the invisible homeless is spot on. I think I blend in pretty well. I've often stunned people by mentioning that I'm homeless. Some of them have been assholes about it, but not all. There are several cars that I recognize as regular overnighters at my usual rest area. Thank God we don't get hassled much. Oregon is about as safe a place as there is to be homeless. Some of the rest areas in California, including the ones at Kingsburg and the Sacramento Airport, end up at or beyond capacity overnight due to the homeless. CalTrans has signs reminding drivers that it's rude to hog a space that someone else will need. This austerity does not, of course, apply to stadium construction for the Kings.

    Another thing that almost slipped my mind (and is relevant to Trump's popularity): I've encountered entrenched, systemic discrimination against Americans when I've tried to find and hold menial jobs, and I've talked to other Americans who have also encountered it. There is an extreme bias in favor of Mexican peasants and against Americans in the fields and increasingly in off-farm jobs. The top quintile will be lucky not to reap the whirlwind on account of this prejudice.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Donald Trump, Brexit Are Blowback From Years of Anti-Government Rhetoric US News Opinion

    Notable quotes:
    "... The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability. ..."
    "... In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump). ..."
    "... Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks. ..."
    "... Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ..."
    Aug 07, 2016 | www.usnews.com
    In addition, the issues are similar between the two campaigns: The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability.

    In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump).

    In both countries, political elites were caught flat-footed. Elites lost control over the narrative and lost credibility and persuasiveness with angry, frustrated and fearful voters. The British elites badly underestimated the intensity of public frustration with immigration and with the EU. Most expected the vote would end on the side of "remain," up to the very last moment. Now they are trying to plot their way out of something they never expected would actually happen, and never prepared for.

    Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks.

    How did the elites lose control? There are many reasons: With social media so pervasive, advertising dollars no longer controls what the public sees and hears. With unrestricted campaign spending, the party can no longer "pinch the air hose" of a candidate who strays from party orthodoxy.

    Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    Reagan booster Grover Norquist is known for saying, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Countless candidates and elected officials slam "Washington bureaucrats" even though these "bureaucrats" were none other than themselves. It's not a great way to build respect. Then the attack escalated, with the aim of destroying parts of government that were actually mostly working. This was done to advance the narrative that government itself is the problem, and pave the way for privatization. Take the Transportation Security Administration for example. TSA has actually done its job. No terrorist attacks have succeeded on U.S. airplanes since it was established. But by systematically underfunding it , Congress has made the lines painfully long, so people hate it. Take the Post Office. Here Congress manufactured a crisis to force service cuts, making the public believe the institution is incompetent. But the so-called "problem" is due almost entirely to a requirement, imposed by Congress, forcing the Postal Service to prepay retiree's health care to an absurd level, far beyond what a similar private sector business would have to do. A similar dynamic now threatens Social Security. Thirty-five years have passed since Reagan first mocked the potential for competent and effective government. Years of unrelenting attack have sunk in. Many Americans now distrust government leaders and think it's pointless to demand or expect wisdom and statesmanship. Today's American voters (and their British counterparts), well-schooled in skepticism, disdain and dismiss leaders of all parties and they are ready to burn things down out of sheer frustration. The moment of blowback has arrived.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Human beings are now considered consumer goods in job market to be used and then discarded. As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape (pope Francis)

    Aug 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    R.L.Love : August 27, 2016 at 09:49 AM

    PK has nearly lost all of his ability to see things objectively. Ambition got him, I suppose, or maybe he has always longed to be popular. He was probably teased and ridiculed too much in his youth. He is something of a whinny sniveler after-all.

    Then too, I doubt if PK has ever used a public restroom in the Southwest, or taken his kids to a public park in one of the thousands of small towns where non-English speaking throngs take over all of the facilities and parking.Or had his children bullied at school by a gang of dark-skinned kids whose parents believe that whites took their land, or abused or enslaved their distant ansestors. It might be germane here too... to point out that some of this anti-white sentiment gets support and validation from the very rhetoric that Democrats have made integral to their campaigns.

    As for not knowing why crime rates have been falling, the incarceration rates rose in step, so duh, if you lock up those with propensities for crime, well, how could crime rates not fall? And while I'm on the subject of crime, the statistical analysis that is commonly used focuses too much on violent crime and convictions. Thus, crimes of a less serious nature, that being the type of crimes committed by poor folks, is routinely ignored. Then too, those who are here illegally are often transient and using assumed names, and so they are, presumably, more difficult to catch. So, statistics are all too often not as telling as claimed.

    And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal. As would PK if he were more travelled and in touch with those who have seen their schools, parks, towns, and everything else turn tawdry and dysfunctional. But of course the nation that most of us live in is much different than the one that PK knows.

    likbez -> R.L.Love

    > And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal

    I wonder why everybody is thinking about this problem only in terms of identity politics.

    This is a wrong, self-defeating framework to approach the problem. which is pushed by neoliberal MSM and which we should resist in this forum as this translates the problems that the nation faces into term of pure war-style propaganda ("us vs. them" mentality). To which many posters here already succumbed

    IMHO the November elections will be more of the referendum on neoliberal globalization (with two key issues on the ballot -- jobs and immigration) than anything else.

    If so, then the key question is whether the anger of population at neoliberal elite that stole their jobs and well-being reached the boiling point or not. The level of this anger might decide the result of elections, not all those petty slurs that neoliberal MSM so diligently use as a smoke screen.

    All those valiant efforts in outsourcing and replacing permanent jobs with temporary to increase profit margin at the end have the propensity to produce some externalities. And not only in the form "over 50 and unemployed" but also by a much more dangerous "globalization of indifference" to human beings in general.

    JK Galbraith once gave the following definition of neoliberal economics: "trickle down economics is the idea that if you feed the horse enough oats eventually some will pass through to the road for the sparrows." This is what neoliberalism is about. Lower 80% even in so-called rich countries are forced to live in "fear and desperation", forced to work "with precious little dignity".

    Human beings are now considered consumer goods in "job market" to be used and then discarded. As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: "without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape" (pope Francis).

    And that inevitably produces a reaction. Which in extreme forms we saw during French and Bolsheviks revolutions. And in less extremist forms (not involving lampposts as the placeholders for the "Masters of the Universe" (aka financial oligarchy) and the most obnoxious part of the "creative class" aka intelligentsia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia ) in Brexit vote.

    Hillary and Trump are just symbols here. The issue matters, not personalities.

    [Nov 30, 2016] The Electoral Consequences of Globalization

    Notable quotes:
    "... Capital in the Twenty-first Century, ..."
    Nov 29, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    by Joseph Joyce The Electoral Consequences of Globalization

    The reasons for the election of Donald Trump as President of the U.S. will be analyzed and argued about for many years to come. Undoubtedly there are U.S.-specific factors that are relevant, such as racial divisions in voting patterns. But the election took place after the British vote to withdraw from the European Union and the rise to power of conservative politicians in continental Europe, so it is reasonable to ask whether globalization bears any responsibility.

    The years before the global financial crisis were years of rapid economic globalization. Trade flows grew on average by 7% a year over the 1987-2007 period. Financial flows also expanded, particularly amongst the advanced economies. Global financial assets increased by 8% a year between 1990 and 2007 . But all this activity was curtailed in 2008-09 when the global financial crisis pushed the world economy into a downturn. Are the subsequent rises in nationalist sentiment the product of these trends?

    Trump seized upon some of the consequences of increased trade and investment to make the case that globalization was bad for the U.S. He had great success with his claim that international trade deals are responsible for a loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. In addition, he blamed outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by U.S. firms that opened production facilities in foreign countries for moving manufacturing jobs outside the U.S. Among the firms that Trump criticized were Ford Motor, Nabisco and the Carrier Corporation , which is moving a manufacturing operation from Indiana to Mexico.

    Have foreign workers taken the jobs of U.S. workers? Increased trade does lead to a reallocation of resources, as a country increases its output in those sectors where it has an advantage while cutting back production in other sectors. Resources should flow from the latter to the former, but in reality it can be difficult to switch employment across sectors. Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of MIT, David Dorn of the University of Zurich, Gordon Hanson of UC-San Diego and Brendan Price of MIT have found that import competition from China after 2000 contributed to reductions in U.S. manufacturing employment and weak U.S. job growth. They estimated manufacturing job losses due to Chinese competition of 2.0 – 2.4 million. Other studies find similar results for workers who do not have high school degrees.

    Moreover, multinational firms do shift production across borders in response to lower wages, among other factors. Ann E. Harrison of UC-Berkeley and Margaret S. McMillan of Tufts University looked at the hiring practices of the foreign affiliates of U.S. firms during the period of 1977 to 1999. They found that lower wages in affiliate countries where the employees were substitutes for U.S. workers led to more employment in those countries but reductions in employment in the U.S. However, when employment across geographical locations is complementary for firms that do significantly different work at home and abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall together.

    Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment in the U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a much larger effect on jobs. The U.S. is the second largest global producer of manufactured goods, but these products are being made in plants that employ fewer workers than they did in the past. Many of the lost jobs simply do not exist any more. Second, the U.S. exports goods and services as well as purchases them. Among the manufactured goods that account for significant shares of U.S. exports are machines and engines, electronic equipment and aircraft . Third, there is inward FDI as well as outward, and the foreign-based firms hire U.S. workers. A 2013 Congressional Research Service study by James V. Jackson reported that by year-end 2011 foreign firms employed 6.1 million Americans, and 37% of this employment-2.3 million jobs-was in the manufacturing sector. More recent data shows that employment by the U.S. affiliates of multinational companies rose to 6.4 million in 2014. Mr. Trump will find himself in a difficult position if he threatens to shut down trade and investment with countries that both import from the U.S. and invest here.

    The other form of globalization that drew Trump's derision was immigration. Most of his ire focused on those who had entered the U.S. illegally. However, in a speech in Arizona he said that he would set up a commission that would roll back the number of legal migrants to "historic norms."

    The current number of immigrants (42 million) represents around 13% of the U.S. population, and 16% of the labor force. An increase in the number of foreign-born workers depresses the wages of some native-born workers, principally high-school dropouts, as well as other migrants who arrived earlier. But there are other, more significant reasons for the stagnation in working-class wages . In addition, a reduction in the number of migrant laborers would raise the ratio of young and retired people to workers-the dependency ratio-and endanger the financing of Social Security and Medicare. And by increasing the size of the U.S. economy, these workers induce expansions in investment expenditures and hiring in areas that are complementary.

    The one form of globalization that Trump has not criticized, with the exception of outward FDI, is financial. This is a curious omission, as the crisis of 2008-09 arose from the financial implosion that followed the collapse of the housing bubble in the U.S. International financial flows exacerbated the magnitude of the crisis. But Trump has pledged to dismantle the Dodd-Frank legislation, which was enacted to implement financial regulatory reform and lower the probability of another crisis. While Trump has criticized China for undervaluing its currency in order to increase its exports to the U.S., most economists believe that the Chinese currency is no longer undervalued vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar.

    Did globalization produce Trump, or lead to the circumstances that resulted in 46.7% of the electorate voting for him? A score sheet of the impact of globalization within the U.S. would record pluses and minuses. Among those who have benefitted are consumers who purchase items made abroad at cheaper prices, workers who produce export goods, and firms that hire migrants. Those who have been adversely affected include workers who no longer have manufacturing jobs and domestic workers who compete with migrants for low-paying jobs. Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade . Similarly, studies of the cost and benefits of immigration indicate that overall foreign workers make a positive contribution to the U.S. economy.

    Other trends have exerted equal or greater consequences for our economic welfare. First, as pointed out above, advances in automation have had an enormous impact on the number and nature of jobs, and advances in artificial intelligence wii further change the nature of work. The launch of driverless cars and trucks, for example, will affect the economy in unforeseen ways, and more workers will lose their livelihoods. Second, income inequality has been on the increase in the U.S. and elsewhere for several decades. While those in the upper-income classes have benefitted most from increased trade and finance, inequality reflects many factors besides globalization.

    Why, then, is globalization the focus of so much discontent? Trump had the insight that demonizing foreigners and U.S.-based multinationals would allow him to offer simple solutions-ripping up trade deals, strong-arming CEOs to relocate facilities-to complex problems. Moreover, it allows him to draw a line between his supporters and everyone else, with Trump as the one who will protect workers against the crafty foreigners and corrupt elite who conspire to steal American jobs. Blaming the foreign "other" is a well-trod route for those who aspire to power in times of economic and social upheaval.

    Globalization, therefore, should not be held responsible for the election of Donald Trump and those in other countries who offer similar simplistic solutions to challenging trends. But globalization's advocates did indirectly lead to his rise when they oversold the benefits of globalization and neglected the downside. Lower prices at Wal-Mart are scarce consolation to those who have lost their jobs. Moreover, the proponents of globalization failed to strengthen the safety networks and redistributive mechanisms that allow those who had to compete with foreign goods and workers to share in the broader benefits. Dani Rodrik of Harvard's Kennedy School has described how the policy priorities were changed: "The new model of globalization stood priorities on their head, effectively putting democracy to work for the global economy, instead of the other way around. The elimination of barriers to trade and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social goals."

    The battle over globalization is not finished, and there will be future opportunities to adapt it to benefit a wider section of society. The goal should be to place it within in a framework that allows a more egalitarian distribution of the benefits and payment of the costs. This is not a new task. After World War II, the Allied planners sought to revive international trade while allowing national governments to use their policy tools to foster full employment. Political scientist John Ruggie of the Kennedy School called the hybrid system based on fixed exchange rates, regulated capital accounts and government programs " embedded liberalism ," and it prevailed until it was swept aside by the wave of neoliberal policies in the 1980s and 1990s.

    What would today's version of "embedded liberalism" look like? In the financial sector, the pendulum has already swung back from unregulated capital flows and towards the use of capital control measures as part of macroprudential policies designed to address systemic risk in the financial sector. In addition, Thomas Piketty of the École des hautes etudes en sciences (EHESS) and associate chair at the Paris School of Economics , and author of Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has called for a new focus in discussions over the next stage of globalization: " trade is a good thing, but fair and sustainable development also demands public services, infrastructure, health and education systems. In turn, these themselves demand fair taxation systems."

    The current political environment is not conducive toward the expansion of public goods. But it is unlikely that our new President's policies will deliver on their promise to return to a past when U.S. workers could operate without concern for foreign competition or automation. We will certainly revisit these issues, and we need to redefine what a successful globalization looks like. And if we don't? Thomas Piketty warns of the consequences of not enacting the necessary domestic policies and institutions: "If we fail to deliver these, Trump_vs_deep_state will prevail."

    cross posted with Capital Ebbs and Flows

    Comments (10) | Digg Facebook Twitter | --> --> --> Comments (10)

    1. spencer November 29, 2016 10:33 am

      Since 1980, US manufacturing output has approximately doubled while manufacturing employment fell by about a third.

      Yes, globalization impacts the composition of output and it is a contributing factor in the weaker growth of manufacturing output. but overall it has accounted for a very minor share of the weakness in manufacturing employment since 1980. Productivity has been the dominant factor driving manufacturing employment down.

    2. JimH November 29, 2016 11:11 am

      "Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade."

      Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience.

      Studies on trade can ignore the unemployed workers with a high school education or less. How were they supposed to get an equivalent paying job? EDUCATION they say! A local public university has a five year freshman graduation rate of 25%. Are those older students to eat dirt while attempting to accumulate that education!

      Studies on trade can ignore that illegal immigration increases competition for the those under educated employees. Since 1990 there has been a rising demand that education must be improved! That potential high school drop outs should be discouraged by draconian means if necessary. YET we allow immigrants to enter this country and STAY with less than the equivalent of an American high school education! Why are we spending so much on secondary education if it is not necessary!

      "In Mexico, 34% of adults aged 25-64 have completed upper secondary education, much lower than the OECD average of 76% the lowest rate amongst OECD countries."
      See: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/mexico/

      Trade studies can ignore the fate of a small town when its major employer shuts down and leaves. Trade studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market. They can assume that an unemployed worker in Pennsylvania will learn of a good paying job in Washington state, submit an application, and move within 2 weeks. Or assume that the Washington state employer will hold a factory job open for a month! And they can assume that moving expenses are trivial for an unemployed person.

      Our trade partners have not attempted anything remotely resembling balanced trade with us.

      Here are the trade deficits since 1992.
      Year__________US Trade Balance with the world
      1992__________-39,212
      1993__________-70,311
      1994__________-98,493
      1995__________-96,384
      1996__________-104,065
      1997__________-108,273
      1998__________-166,140
      1999__________-258,617
      2000__________-372,517
      2001__________-361,511
      2002__________-418,955
      2003__________-493,890
      2004__________-609,883
      2005__________-714,245
      2006__________-761,716
      2007__________-705,375
      2008__________-708,726
      2009__________-383,774
      2010__________-494,658
      2011__________-548,625
      2012__________-536,773
      2013__________-461,876
      2014__________-490,176
      2015__________-500,361
      From: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

      AND there is the loss of the income from tariffs which had been going to the federal government! How has that effected our national debt?

      "However, when employment across geographical locations is complementary for firms that do significantly different work at home and abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall together."

      And exactly how do you think that the US government could guarantee that complementary work at home and abroad. Corporations are profit seeking, amoral entities, which will seek profit any way they can. (Legal or illegal)

      The logical conclusion of your argument is that we could produce nothing and still have a thriving economy. How would American consumers earn an income?

      Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are RUST BELT states. Were the voters there merely ignorant or demented? You should never ever run for elected office.

    3. Beverly Mann November 29, 2016 12:30 pm

      Meanwhile, Trump today chose non-swampy Elaine Chao, Mitch McConnell's current wife and GWBush's former Labor Secretary, as Transportation Secretary, to privatize roads, bridges, etc.

    4. JimH November 29, 2016 12:36 pm

      The trade balances are in millions of dollars in the table in my last comment.

      Global trade had a chance of success beginning in 1992. But that required a mechanism which was very difficult to game. A mechanism like the one that the Obama administration advocated in October 2010.

      "At the meeting in South Korea's southern city of Gyeongju, U.S. officials sought to set a cap for each country's deficit or surplus at 4% of its economic output by 2015.
      The idea drew support from Britain, Australia, Canada and France, all of which are running trade deficits, as well as South Korea, which is hosting the G-20 meetings and hoping for a compromise among the parties.
      But the proposal got a cool reception from export powerhouses such as China, which has a current account surplus of 4.7% of its gross domestic product; Germany, with a surplus of 6.1%; and Russia, with a surplus of 4.7%, according to IMF statistics."
      See: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/24/business/la-fi-g20-summit-20101024

      That cap was probably too high. But at least the Obama administration showed some realization that global trade was exhibiting serious unpredicted problems. Too bad that Hillary Clinton could not have internalized that realization enough to campaign on revamping problematic trade treaties. (And persuaded a few more of the voters in the RUST BELT to vote for her.) Elections have consequences and voters understand that, but what choice did they have?

      In your world, while American corporations act out in ways that would be diagnosed as antisocial personality disorder in a human being, American human beings are expected to wait patiently for decades while global trade is slowly adjusted into some practical system. (As one shortcoming after another is addressed.)

      Antisocial personality disorder:
      "a personality disorder that is characterized by antisocial behavior exhibiting pervasive disregard for and violation of the rights, feelings, and safety of others "
      See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisocial%20personality%20disorder#medicalDictionary

    5. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 1:01 pm

      Spencer,

      The article states almost exactly what you 'add' in your comment:

      "Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment in the U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a much larger effect on jobs".

      So, what gives? Is there an award today for who ever gets the biggest DUH??? If there is anything worth adding, it would be a mention of the Ball St study that supports the author's claim but is somehow overlooked. But your comment, well, DUH!!

      =================================================

      JimH,

      Some good stuff there, your assessment of Economics and its penchant for ignoring variables, and your insight which states that "studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market", is all very true, and especially when it comes to immigration issues. I've lived most of my life near the Southern border and when economists claim that undocumented workers are good for our economy I can only chuckle and shake my head. I suppose I could also list all of the variables which those economists ignore, and there are many to choose from, but, there is that quote by Upton Sinclair: "You can't get a man to understand what his salary depends on his not understanding".

      In all fairness though, The Dept. of Labor does of course have its JOLTS data, and so not all such studies are based on broad assumptions, but Economics does have its blind spots, generally speaking. And of course economists apply far too much effort and energy serving their political and financial masters.

      As for your comment in regards to the the trade deficit, you might want to read up a little on the Triffin Dilemma. The essence of globalization has a lot to do with the US leadership choosing to maintain the reserve-currency status and Triffin showed that an increasing amount of dollars must supply the world's demand for dollars, or, global growth would falter. So, the trade deficit since 1975 has been intentional, for that reason, and others. Of course the cost of labor in the US was a factor too, and shipping and standards and so on. But, it is wise also, to remember that these choices were made at time, during and just after the Viet Nam war, when military recruitment was a very troubling issue for the leadership. And the option of good paying jobs for the working-class was very probably seen as in conflict with military recruitment. Accordingly, the working-class has been left with fewer options. This being accomplished in part with the historical anomaly of high immigration quotas, (and by the tolerance for illegal immigration), during periods with high unemployment, a falling participation-rate, inadequate infrastructure, and etc.

    6. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 2:18 pm

      JimH,

      After posting my earlier comment it occurred to me that I should have recommended an article by Tim Taylor that has some good info on the Triffin dilemma.

      http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-triffin-dilemma-and-us-trade.html

      Also, it might be worth mentioning that you are making the common mistake of assigning blame to an international undertaking that would be more accurately assigned to national shortcomings. I'm referring here to what you quoted and said:

      ""Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade.""

      "Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience".

      My point being that "positive net benefits from trade" are based on just another half-baked measurement as you suggest, but the problems which result from trade-related displacements are not necessarily the fault of trade itself. There are in fact political options, for example, immigration could have been curtailed about 40 years ago and we would now have about 40 million fewer citizens, and thus there would almost certainly be more jobs available. Or, the laws pertaining to illegal immigration could have been enforced, or the 'Employee Free Choice Act could have been passed, or whatever, and then trade issues may have had much different impact.

    7. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 3:12 pm

      It seems worth mentioning here, that there are other more important goals that make globalization valuable than just matters of money or employment or who is getting what. Let us not forget the famous words of Immanuel Kant:

      "the spirit of commerce . . . sooner or later takes hold of every nation, and is incompatible with war."

    8. coberly November 29, 2016 6:33 pm

      Ray

      the spirit of commerce did not prevent WW1 or WW2.

      otherwise, thank you, and Jim H and Joseph Joyce for the first Post and Comments for grownups we've had around here in some time.

    9. Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 7:03 pm

      Hey Coberly, long time no see.

      And yes, you are right, 'the spirit of commerce' theory has had some ups and downs. But, one could easily and accurately argue that the effort which began with the League of Nations, and loosely connects back to Kant's claim, has gained some ground since WW2. There has not, after-all, been a major war since.

      So, when discussing the pros and cons of globalization, that factor, as I said, is worthy of mention. And it was a key consideration in the formation of the Bretton Woods institutions, and in the globalization effort in general. This suggesting then that there are larger concerns than the unemployment-rate, or the wage levels, of the working-class folks who may, or may not, have been at the losing end of 'free-trade'.

      I've been a 'labor-lefty' since the 1970s, but I am still capable of understanding that things could have been much worse for the American working-class. Plus, if anyone must give up a job, who better than those with a fairly well-constructed safety-net. History always has its winners and losers, and progress rarely, if ever, comes in an even flow.

      Meanwhile, those living in extreme poverty, worldwide, have dropped from 40% in 1981, to about 10% in 2015 (World Bank), so, progress is occurring. But of course much of that is now being ignored by the din which has drowned out so many considerations that really do matter, and a great deal.

    10. coberly November 29, 2016 8:25 pm

      Ray

      I am inclined to agree with you, but sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees. Especially if one of those trees has fallen on you.

      In general I am more interested in stopping predatory business models that really hurt people than in creating cosmic justice.

      as for the relative lack of big wars since WW2, I always thought that was because of mutual assured destruction. I am sure Vietnam looked like a big enough war to the Vietnamese.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cry Shop November 23, 2016 at 6:16 pm

    Bankers & Trump

    Bankers know you capture catch more flies with money honey.

    ewmayer November 23, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning." - Oh, please, this sounds like a stereotypical Google-centric view of things. They of course left out the most important part of the campaign, the key to its inception, which could be described in terms like "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, actually noticed the widespread misery and non-recovery in the parts of the US outside the elite coastal bubbles and DC beltway, and spotted a yuuuge political opportunity." In other words, not sentiment manipulation – that was, after all, the Dem-establishment-MSM-wall-street-and-the-elite-technocrats' "America is already great, and anyone who denies it is deplorable!" strategy of manufactured consent – so much as actual *reading* of sentiment. Of course if one insisted on remaining inside a protective elite echo chamber and didn't listen to anything Trump or the attendees actually said in those huge flyover-country rallies that wasn't captured in suitably outrageous evening-news soundbites, it was all too easy to believe one's own hype.

    " former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who has known Trump socially for decades and is currently advising the president-elect on foreign policy issues " - I really, really hope this is just Hammerin' Hank tooting his own horn, as he and his sycophants in the FP establishment and MSM are wont to do.

    Brad November 23, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    "Trump dumps the TPP: conservatives rue strategic fillip to China" (Guardian)

    Another wedge angle for Trumps new-found RINO "friends" to play. Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues.

    "The TPP excludes China, which declined to join, proposing its own rival version, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which excludes the US." You see, it is all China's fault. No info presented on why China "declined" to join.

    And if Abe's Japan were really an independent country, they'd pick up the TPP baton and sell it to China.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss of jobs. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

    It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
    "... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
    "... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
    "... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
    "... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
    "... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
    "... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
    "... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
    "... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
    "... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
    "... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
    "... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
    "... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
    "... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
    "... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
    "... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
    "... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
    "... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
    "... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
    "... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
    "... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
    "... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
    "... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
    "... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
    "... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
    "... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
    "... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
    "... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
    "... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
    "... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
    "... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
    "... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
    "... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
    "... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
    "... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
    "... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
    "... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
    "... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
    "... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
    "... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
    "... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
    "... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
    "... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130

    Bruce Wilder @102

    The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?

    I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).

    The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.

    As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).

    Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.

    In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.

    I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.

    Also: Faustusnotes@100
    For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.

    And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?

    To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )

    Thomas Pickety

    " Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.

    Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "

    The Guardian

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )

    What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.

    I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.

    Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.

    I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.

    I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.

    Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.

    Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138

    Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.

    It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.

    And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.

    basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am

    Did this go through?
    Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,

    The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.

    I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!

    Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.

    --

    Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.

    Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?

    I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.

    Why the Working Class was Never 'White'

    The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.

    .

    This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.

    Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).

    But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.

    Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).

    To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.

    *To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.

    Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152

    FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

    Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .

    In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

    Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

    In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'

    http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

    Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.

    In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.

    Eventually something is going to break.

    dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )

    nastywoman @ 150
    Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.

    No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]

    I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.

    To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.

    Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156

    This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).

    I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.

    You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.

    You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.

    mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160

    One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.

    Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.

    Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.

    None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.

    Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.

    We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.

    Does anyone notice a pattern here?

    This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.

    Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.

    This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.

    And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."

    C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.

    So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.

    Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?

    Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
    Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.

    Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:

    "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

    Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:

    "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'

    "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

    Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:

    "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)

    " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.

    "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

    "In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.

    "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-Trump_vs_deep_state

    efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )

    Faustusnotes @147

    You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))

    If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).

    trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.

    trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.

    The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.

    trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.

    "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

    So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.

    But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.

    Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/

    [Nov 19, 2016] Steve Bannon Interviewed Its About Americans Not Getting disposed

    Notable quotes:
    "... " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
    "... Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids." ..."
    "... Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump" ..."
    "... " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ." ..."
    "... ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Bannon next discusses the "battle line" inside America's great divide.

    He absolutely - mockingly - rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist, " he tells me. " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Bannon's vision: an "entirely new political movement", one which drives the conservatives crazy. As to how monetary policy will coexist with fiscal stimulus, Bannon has a simple explanation: he plans to "rebuild everything" courtesy of negative interest rates and cheap debt throughout the world. Those rates may not be negative for too long.

    " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."

    How Bannon describes Trump: " an ideal vessel"

    It is less than obvious how Bannon, now the official strategic brains of the Trump operation, syncs with his boss, famously not too strategic. When Bannon took over the campaign from Paul Manafort, there were many in the Trump circle who had resigned themselves to the inevitability of the candidate listening to no one . But here too was a Bannon insight: When the campaign seemed most in free fall or disarray, it was perhaps most on target. While Clinton was largely absent from the campaign trail and concentrating on courting her donors, Trump - even after the leak of the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio - was speaking to ever-growing crowds of thirty-five or forty thousand. "He gets it, he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found such an ideal vessel. "You have probably the greatest orator since William Jennings Bryan, coupled with an economic populist message and two political parties that are so owned by the donors that they don't speak to their audience. But he speaks in a non-political vernacular, he communicates with these people in a very visceral way. Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids."

    Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump"

    At that moment, as we talk, there's a knock on the door of Bannon's office, a temporary, impersonal, middle-level executive space with a hodgepodge of chairs for constant impromptu meetings. Sen. Ted Cruz, once the Republican firebrand, now quite a small and unassuming figure, has been waiting patiently for a chat and Bannon excuses himself for a short while. It is clear when we return to our conversation that it is not just the liberal establishment that Bannon feels he has triumphed over, but the conservative one too - not least of all Fox News and its owners, the Murdochs. "They got it more wrong than anybody," he says. " Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump. To him, Trump is a radical. Now they'll go centrist and build the network around Megyn Kelly." Bannon recounts, with no small irony, that when Breitbart attacked Kelly after her challenges to Trump in the initial Republican debate, Fox News chief Roger Ailes - whom Bannon describes as an important mentor, and who Kelly's accusations of sexual harassment would help topple in July - called to defend her. Bannon says he warned Ailes that Kelly would be out to get him too .

    Finally, Bannon on how he sees himself in the administration:

    Bannon now becomes part of a two-headed White House political structure, with Reince Priebus - in and out of Bannon's office as we talk - as chief of staff, in charge of making the trains run on time, reporting to the president, and Bannon as chief strategist, in charge of vision, goals, narrative and plan of attack, reporting to the president too. Add to this the ambitions and whims of the president himself, and the novel circumstance of one who has never held elective office, the agenda of his highly influential family and the end runs of a party significant parts of which were opposed to him, and you have quite a complex court that Bannon will have to finesse to realize his reign of the working man and a trillion dollars in new spending.

    "I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."

    Life of Illusion nibiru Nov 18, 2016 2:32 PM ,
    now that is direct with truth

    " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Deathrips Life of Illusion Nov 18, 2016 2:34 PM ,
    William Jennings Bryan!!!! Bonus Points.

    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/william-jennings-bryan-cro...

    Read cross of gold about bimetalism. Gold AND Silver

    PrayingMantis wildbad Nov 18, 2016 3:51 PM ,
    ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet.

    ........ from wiki ...

    Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia into a working-class, Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1976 and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. In 1983, Bannon received an M.B.A. degree with honors from Harvard Business School.

    Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.

    After his military service, Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers & Acquisitions Department. In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. Through Bannon & Co., Bannon negotiated the sale of Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner. As payment, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld. Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in 1998.

    In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the project shifted emphasis from researching space exploration and colonization towards pollution and global warming. He left the project in 1995.

    After the sale of Bannon & Co., Bannon became an executive producer in the film and media industry in Hollywood, California. He was executive producer for Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. Bannon became a partner with entertainment industry executive Jeff Kwatinetz at The Firm, Inc., a film and television management company. In 2004, Bannon made a documentary about Ronald Reagan titled In the Face of Evil. Through the making and screening of this film, Bannon was introduced to Peter Schweizer and publisher Andrew Breitbart. He was involved in the financing and production of a number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The Undefeated (on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.

    Bannon is also executive chairman and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute, where he helped orchestrate the publication of the book Clinton Cash. In 2015, Bannon was ranked No. 19 on Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media 2015".

    Bannon convinced Goldman Sachs to invest in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment. Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From 2007 through 2011, Bannon was chairman and CEO of Affinity Media.

    Bannon became a member of the board of Breitbart News. In March 2012, after founder Andrew Breitbart's death, Bannon became executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach towards its agenda. Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016. Bannon identifies as a conservative. Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: "We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."

    The New York Times described Breitbart News under Bannon's leadership as a "curiosity of the fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." The newspaper also noted how Breitbart was now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

    Escrava Isaura The Saint Nov 18, 2016 6:11 PM ,

    Bannon: " The globalists gutted the American working class ..the Democrats were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."

    Well said. Couldn't agree more.

    Bannon: " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.

    Dear Mr. Bannon, it has to be way more than $1trillion in 10 years. Obama's $831 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) didn't make up the difference for all the job lost in 2007/08. Manufacturing alone lost about 9 million jobs since 1979, when it peaked.

    Trump needs to go Ronald Reagan 180% deficit spending. If Trump runs 100% like Obama, Trump will fail as well.

    [Nov 19, 2016] How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    Nov 19, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... November 18, 2016 at 05:07 AM

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return.

    [Figure 1-1] Theoretical and actual capital flows.

    So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital means. Rich countries like ours should be lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's basic needs.

    This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world, especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran large trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in Malaysia.

    These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia and much of the developing world in the summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to sustain the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.

    Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the textbook development path of growth driven by importing capital and running trade deficits, the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of the Clinton administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade surpluses (Radelet and Sachs 2000, O'Neil 1999).

    The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s, when they had large trade deficits. Four of the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would be almost 50 percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than the United States.

    [Figure 1-2] Per capita income of East Asian countries, actual vs. continuing on 1990s growth path.

    In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided they had to build up reserves of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade deficit has exploded, rising from just over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in 2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs, roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.

    There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued. It wasn't the laws of economics that forced developing countries to take a different path, it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that the enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current globalization policies.

    There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the volume of trade flows that is determined by policy, but also the content. A major push in recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden on the developing world. Bill Clinton would have much less need to fly around the world for the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing countries to adopt U.S.-style patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap - patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs that sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free market. Cheap drugs would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS on the developing world.

    Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We also have to compensate creative workers who produce music, movies, and books. But there are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites in the United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is just a mechanism for redistributing income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary feature of a 21st century economy.

    In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for royalties and patent licensing fees, it will have a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by national savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed by these macroeconomic factors, then more exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries....

    reason : , November 18, 2016 at 05:14 AM

    I thought this from Dean Baker was interesting:
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/if-you-thought-a-trump-presidency-was-bad?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

    It includes this interesting piece on international trade:

    "I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:


    "And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world."

    I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the problem is scarcity.

    But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff. If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a massive glut of unsold products.

    In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the 1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.

    The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer, it's free.)"

    Not sure that I fully agree with him, but I do agree that trade imbalances and mercantilism is a large part of the problem.

    Oh I see Anne posted this in parallel.

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 05:59 AM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/if-you-thought-a-trump-presidency-was-bad?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

    November 15, 2016

    If You Thought a Trump Presidency Was Bad .

    The Washington Post editorial page decided to lecture readers * on the meaning of progressivism. Okay, that is nowhere near as bad as a Trump presidency, but really, did we need this?

    The editorial gives us a potpourri of neo-liberal (yes, the term is appropriate here) platitudes, all of which we have heard many times before and are best half true. For framing, the villains are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who it tells us "are embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive."

    I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:

    "And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world."

    I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the problem is scarcity.

    But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff. If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a massive glut of unsold products.

    In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the 1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.

    The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer," ** it's free.)

    It is also important to note that the Post is only bothered by forms of protection that might help working class people. The United States prohibits foreign doctors from practicing in the United States unless they complete a U.S. residency program. (The total number of slots are tightly restricted with only a small fraction open to foreign trained doctors.) This is a classic protectionist measure. No serious person can believe that the only way for a person to be a competent doctor is to complete a U.S. residency program. It costs the United States around $100 billion a year ($700 per family) in higher medical expenses. Yet, we never hear a word about this or other barriers that protect the most highly paid professionals from the same sort of international competition faced by steelworkers and textile workers.

    Moving on, we get yet another Post tirade on Social Security.

    "You can expand benefits for everyone, as Ms. Warren favors. Prosperous retirees who live mostly off their well-padded 401(k)s will appreciate what to them will feel like a small bonus, if they notice it. But spreading wealth that way will make it harder to find the resources for the vulnerable elderly who truly depend on Social Security.

    "But demographics - the aging of the population - cannot be wished away. In the 1960s, about five taxpayers were helping to support each Social Security recipient, and the economy was growing about 6 percent annually. Today there are fewer than three workers for each pensioner, and the growth rate even following the 2008 recession has averaged about 2 percent . On current trends, 10 years from now the federal government will be spending almost all its money on Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements and on interest payments on the debt, leaving less and less for schools, housing and job training. There is nothing progressive about that."

    There are all sorts of misleading or wrong claims here. First, the economy did not grow "about 6 percent annually" in the 1960s. There were three years in which growth did exceed 6.0 percent, and it was a very prosperous decade, but growth only averaged 4.6 percent from 1960 to 1970.

    I suppose we should be happy that the Post is at least getting closer to the mark. A 2007 editorial *** praising The North American Free Trade Agreement told readers that Mexico's GDP "has more than quadrupled since 1987." The International Monetary Fund data **** put the gain at 83 percent. So by comparison, they are doing pretty good with the 6 percent growth number for the sixties.

    But getting to the demographics, we did go from more than five workers for every retiree to less than three today, and this number is projected to fall further to around 2.0 workers per retiree in the next fifteen years. This raises the obvious question, so what?

    The economy did not collapse even as we saw the fall from 5 workers per retiree to less than 3, so something really really bad happens when it falls further? We did raise taxes to cover the additional cost and we will probably have to raise taxes in the future.

    We get that the Post doesn't like tax increases (no one does), but this hardly seems like the end of the world. The Social Security Trustees project ***** that real wages will rise on average by more than 34 percent over the next two decades. Suppose we took back 5–10 percent of these projected wage gains through tax increases (still leaving workers with wages that are more than 30 percent higher than they are today), what is the big problem?

    Of course most workers have not seen their wages rise in step with the economy's growth over the last four decades. This is a huge issue which is the sort of thing that progressives should be and are focusing on. But the Post would rather distract us with the possibility that at some point in the future we may be paying a somewhat higher Social Security tax.

    The Post's route for savings is also classic misdirection. It tells how about high-living seniors who get so much money from their 401(k)s they don't even notice their Social Security checks. Only a bit more than 4.0 percent of the over 65 population has non-Social Security income of more than $80,000 a year. If the point is to have substantial savings from means-testing it would be necessary to hit people with incomes around $40,000 a year or even lower. That is not what most people consider wealthy.

    We could have substantial savings on Medicare by pushing down the pay of doctors and reducing the prices of drugs and medical equipment. The latter could be done by substituting public financing for research and development for government granted patent monopolies (also discussed in Rigged). These items would almost invariably be cheap in a free market. But the Post seems uninterested in ways to save money that could affect the incomes of the rich.

    One can quibble with whether the current benefits for middle income people are right or should be somewhat higher or lower, but it is ridiculous to argue that raising them $50 a month, as proposed by Senator Warren, will break the bank.

    Then we have the issue of free college. The Post raises the issue, pushed by Senator Sanders in his presidential campaign, and then tells readers:

    "Our answer - we would argue, the progressive answer - is that there are people in society with far greater needs than that upper-middle-class family in Fairfax County that would be relieved of its tuition burden at the College of William & Mary if Mr. Sanders got his wish."

    There are two points to be made here. First there is extensive research ****** showing that many children from low- and moderate-income families hugely over-estimate the cost of college, failing to realize that they would be eligible for financial aid that would make it free or nearly free. This means that the current structure is preventing many relatively disadvantaged children from attending college. Arguably better education on the opportunities to get aid would solve this problem, but the problem has existed for a long time and better education has not done much to change the picture thus far.

    The second point is that the process of determining eligibility for aid is itself costly. Many children have divorced parents, with a non-custodial parent often not anxious to pay for their children's college. Perhaps it is appropriate that they should pay, but forcing payment is not an easy task and it doesn't make sense to make the children in such situations suffer.

    In many ways, the free college solution is likely to be the easiest, with the tax coming out of the income of higher earners, the vast majority of whom will be the beneficiaries of this policy. There are ways to save on paying for college. My favorite is limiting the pay of anyone at a public school to the salary of the president of the United States ($400,000 a year). We can also deny the privilege of tax exempt status to private universities or other non-profits that don't accept a similar salary cap. These folks can pay their top executives whatever they want, but they shouldn't ask the taxpayers to subsidize their exorbitant pay packages.

    There is one final issue in the column worth noting. At one point it makes a pitch for the virtues of economic growth then tells readers:

    "It's not in conflict with the goal of redistribution."

    At least some of us progressive types are not particularly focused on "redistribution." The focus of my book and much of my other writing is on the way that the market has been structured to redistribute income upward, compared with the structures in place in the quarter century after World War II. Is understandable that people who are basically very satisfied with this upward redistribution of market income would not want this rigging of the market even to be discussed, but serious progressives do.

    * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-does-it-mean-to-be-progressive/2016/11/14/469662fe-9c8d-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

    ** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    *** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120201588.html

    **** http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=44&pr.y=2&sy=1987&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=273&s=NGDP_R&grp=0&a=

    ***** https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/index.html

    ****** http://www.allhallows.org/ourpages/auto/2012/9/7/43578201/Real%20and%20Imagined%20barriers.pdf

    -- Dean Baker

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 06:01 AM
    I thought this from Dean Baker was interesting...

    [ And, I think, especially important. ]

    reason -> anne... , November 18, 2016 at 06:19 AM
    Although I like much of what Dean Baker, I don't like his term "loser liberalism", nor do I think his de-emphasis on redistribution useful. Au contraire, I think talking about redistribution is absolutely essential if we are to move to sustainable world. We can no longer be certain that per person GDP growth will be sufficient to be able to ignore distribution or to rely on "predistribution".
    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 06:35 AM
    "Although I like much of what Dean Baker, I don't like his term 'loser liberalism', nor do I think his de-emphasis on redistribution useful...."

    http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/ending-loser-liberalism-why-a-market-based-approach-makes-sense

    November 18, 2015

    Ending Loser Liberalism: Why a Market Based Approach Makes Sense

    -- Dean Baker

    [ Well worth arguing about. ]

    anne -> reason ... , November 18, 2016 at 07:19 AM
    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/End-of-Loser-Liberalism.pdf

    2011

    The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive
    By Dean Baker

    Upward Redistribution of Income: It Didn't Just Happen

    Money does not fall up. Yet the United States has experienced a massive upward redistribution of income over the last three decades, leaving the bulk of the workforce with little to show from the economic growth since 1980. This upward redistribution was not the result of the natural workings of the market. Rather, it was the result of deliberate policy, most of which had the support of the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

    Unfortunately, the public and even experienced progressive political figures are not well informed about the key policies responsible for this upward redistribution, even though they are not exactly secrets. The policies are so well established as conventional economic policy that we tend to think of them as incontrovertibly virtuous things, but each has a dark side. An anti-inflation policy by the Federal Reserve Board, which relies on high interest rates, slows growth and throws people out of work. Major trade deals hurt manufacturing workers by putting them in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. A high dollar makes U.S. goods uncompetitive in world markets.

    Almost any economist would acknowledge these facts, but few economists have explored their implications and explained them to the general public. As a result, most of us have little understanding of the economic policies that have the largest impact on our jobs, our homes, and our lives. Instead, public debate and the most hotly contested legislation in Congress tend to be about issues that will have relatively little impact.

    This lack of focus on crucial economic issues is a serious problem from the standpoint of advancing a progressive agenda....

    Johannes Y O Highness -> anne... , November 18, 2016 at 06:25 AM
    Awareness is the first step forward. Foreign workers is just another name for workers, just another

    name for My
    People --

    anne -> Johannes Y O Highness... , November 18, 2016 at 06:36 AM
    Foreign workers is just another name for workers...

    [ Nicely expressed. ]

    [Nov 19, 2016] Trump's Win, Brexit Vote Stem From Mishandling of Globalization, Obama Says

    www.wsj.com

    President Barack Obama said Wednesday that America's election of Donald Trump and the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union reflect a political uprising in the West over economic inequities spawned by leaders' mishandling of globalization.

    [Nov 19, 2016] Globalizations Last Gasp by Barry Eichengreen

    Notable quotes:
    "... Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point, unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns. ..."
    "... The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly in absolute terms from 2009 levels. ..."
    "... ... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment – financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis levels. ..."
    "... This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    Does Donald Trump's election as United States president mean that globalization is dead, or are reports of the process' demise greatly exaggerated? If globalization is only partly incapacitated, not terminally ill, should we worry? How much will slower trade growth, now in the offing, matter for the global economy?

    World trade growth would be slowing down, even without Trump in office. Its growth was already flat in the first quarter of 2016, and it fell by nearly 1% in the second quarter. This continues a prior trend: since 2010, global trade has grown at an annual rate of barely 2%. Together with the fact that worldwide production of goods and services has been rising by more than 3%, this means that the trade-to-GDP ratio has been falling, in contrast to its steady upward march in earlier years.

    ... the resurgent protectionism manifest in popular opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),

    Causality in economics may be elusive, but in this case it is clear. So far, slower trade growth has been the result of slower GDP growth, not the other way around.

    This is particularly evident in the case of investment spending, which has fallen sharply since the global financial crisis. Investment spending is trade-intensive, because countries rely disproportionately on a relatively small handful of producers, like Germany, for technologically sophisticated capital goods.

    In addition, slower trade growth reflects China's economic deceleration. Until 2011 China was growing at double-digit rates, and Chinese exports and imports were growing even faster. China's growth has now slowed by a third, leading to slower growth of Chinese trade.

    China's growth miracle, benefiting a fifth of the earth's population, is the most important economic event of the last quarter-century. But it can happen only once. And now that the phase of catch-up growth is over for China, this engine of global trade will slow.

    The other engine of world trade has been global supply chains. Trade in parts and components has benefited from falling transport costs, reflecting containerization and related advances in logistics. But efficiency in shipping is unlikely to continue to improve faster than efficiency in the production of what is being shipped. Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point, unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns.

    The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly in absolute terms from 2009 levels.

    ... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment – financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis levels.

    This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations.

    In response, many banks curtailed their cross-border business. But, rather than alarming anyone, this should be seen as reassuring, because the riskiest forms of international finance have been curtailed without disrupting more stable and productive forms of foreign investment.

    We now face the prospect of the US government revoking the Dodd-Frank Act and rolling back the financial reforms of recent years. Less stringent financial regulation may make for the recovery of international capital flows. But we should be careful what we wish for.

    [Nov 18, 2016] The statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes by Bruce Wilder

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. ..."
    "... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
    "... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
    "... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
    "... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. ..."
    "... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. ..."
    "... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. ..."
    "... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. ..."
    "... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

    At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression. It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes. It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor, the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.

    FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance.

    It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.

    In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian scale - at least until the War.

    Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression, accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure, with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.

    When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup.

    I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition (as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not "gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise restructured as part of a regulatory reform.

    Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting tax subsidies or ripping off workers.

    It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.

    It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.

    This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.

    No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence.

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm ( 31 )

    The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.

    Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.

    likbez 11.18.16 at 4:48 pm 121

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

    Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !

    Notable quotes:

    "… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. …"

    "… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"

    "… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "

    "… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"

    "… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"

    "… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. …"

    "… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. …"

    "… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"

    "… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. …"

    [Nov 16, 2016] Chinas leader, Xi Jinping, is there seeking progress toward an emerging alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership,

    Notable quotes:
    "... What Is Lost by Burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership? – The New York Times : "The Americans will have to explain their failure on the trade agreement to foreign leaders gathered in Lima, Peru, while China's leader, Xi Jinping, is there seeking progress toward an emerging alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, known as R.C.E.P., which includes China, Japan and 14 other Asian countries but excludes the United States. ..."
    "... 'In the absence of T.P.P., countries have already made it clear that they will move forward in negotiating their own trade agreements that exclude the United States,' Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers wrote days before the election. 'These agreements would improve market access and trading opportunities for member countries while U.S. businesses would continue to face existing trade barriers.'" ..."
    "... Foreign leaders and foreign populations hated the TPP because it wasn't a trade deal; it was a giveaways-to-big-corporations deal full of stuff about extending copyrights for Mickey Mouse and so on. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | peakoilbarrel.com
    Boomer II says: 11/12/2016 at 11:07 am
    I don't know enough about the finer points of the TPP to be for or against it.

    But this article suggests that there are plans to exclude the US if it doesn't choose to be a factor in world affairs.

    What Is Lost by Burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership? – The New York Times : "The Americans will have to explain their failure on the trade agreement to foreign leaders gathered in Lima, Peru, while China's leader, Xi Jinping, is there seeking progress toward an emerging alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, known as R.C.E.P., which includes China, Japan and 14 other Asian countries but excludes the United States.

    'In the absence of T.P.P., countries have already made it clear that they will move forward in negotiating their own trade agreements that exclude the United States,' Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers wrote days before the election. 'These agreements would improve market access and trading opportunities for member countries while U.S. businesses would continue to face existing trade barriers.'"

    Nathanael says: 11/13/2016 at 11:43 am
    Foreign leaders and foreign populations hated the TPP because it wasn't a trade deal; it was a giveaways-to-big-corporations deal full of stuff about extending copyrights for Mickey Mouse and so on.

    China's trade deal is an *actual* trade deal and as such much more popular. We could join *it*.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Clintons electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation

    Notable quotes:
    "... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
    "... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
    "... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.wsws.org
    The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states, the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20 points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).

    The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points. Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012 by 2 points.

    The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.

    Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans (3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class, with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).

    Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.

    Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Trump and Brexit Defeat Globalism, but For How Long

    Notable quotes:
    "... There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City. ..."
    "... US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families, individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary, for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful authorities. ..."
    "... It is probably a combination of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism. ..."
    "... The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism. ..."
    "... If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current sociopolitical model of "democracy." ..."
    "... one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism" ..."
    "... No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Via The Daily Bell

    ... ... ...

    Was Trump's victory actually created by the very globalist elites that Trump is supposed to have overcome? There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City. We see no fundamental evidence of this.

    The world's real elites in our view may have substantive histories in the hundreds and thousands of years. US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families, individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary, for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful authorities.

    It is probably a combination of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism. History easily shows us who these groups are – and they are not located in America.

    This is a cynical perspective to be sure, and certainly doesn't remove the impact of Trump's victory or his courage in waging his election campaign despite what must surely be death threats to himself and his family..

    But if true, this perspective corresponds to predictions that we've been making for nearly a decade now, suggesting that sooner or later elites – especially those in London's City – would have to "take a step back."

    More:

    The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism.

    "There are a few parallels to Switzerland – that the losers of globalisation find somebody who is listening to them," said Swiss professor and lawyer Wolf Linder, a former director of the University of Bern's political science institute.

    "Trump is doing his business with the losers of globalisation in the US, like the Swiss People's Party is doing in Switzerland," he said. "It is a phenomenon which touches all European nations."

    ... ... ...

    If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current sociopolitical model of "democracy." The elites were trying to move toward a new model of world control with these two agreements. ...

    Additionally, one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism" that seeks to contrast the potentially freedom-oriented events of Trump and Brexit to the discarded wisdom of globalism. See here and here.

    No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen.

    Conclusion: But the change has come. One way or another the Internet and tens of millions or people talking, writing and acting has forced new trends. This can be hardly be emphasized enough. Globalism has been at least temporarily redirected.

    Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is giving away a silver coin and a silver "white paper" to subscribers. If you enjoy DB's articles and want to stay up-to-date for free, please subscribe here .

    spqrusa Nov 14, 2016 8:28 PM ,

    The analysis is flawed in that it fails to understand the context for power and influence in the western alliance. The Crowns in contest are seeking coordinated domination through political proxy, i.e. the force behind the EU and the UN. The problem is the most influential crown was not in a mind to destroy the fabric of their civilization and more importantly to continue to bail-out the "socialist" paradises in the continent and beyond. Britannia has its own socialism to support much less that of the world.

    Trump represents keeping the Colony in line with a growing interest in keeping traditions intact and in more direct control of Anglo values. Europe has this insane multi-culturalism that is fundamentally incompatible with a "free" and robust civilization. The whole goal of detente with China was to convert them to our values via proxy institutions and that is working in the long-run. In the short-run, the Empire must reunite and solidify its value bulwark against the coming storm from China and to a lesser extend from the expanded EU states. Russia is playing out on its own.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay

    Most commenters do not realise that it is neoliberalism that caused the current suffering of working people in the USA and elsewhere...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services. ..."
    "... Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. ..."
    "... I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left. ..."
    "... Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again. ..."
    "... I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today. ..."
    "... It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains. ..."
    "... The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril... ..."
    "... The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society. ..."
    "... People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates. ..."
    "... Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus. ..."
    "... I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else? ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    IanPitch 12h ago

    Surely the people who voted for Trump and Farage are too stupid to realise the sheer, criminal folly of their decision...

    thoughtcatcher -> IanPitch 12h ago

    Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services.

    But yeah, they voted against the elite because they are "stupid".

    attila9000 -> IanPitch 11h ago

    I think at some point a lot of them will realize they have been had, but then they will probably just blame immigrants, or the EU. Anything that means they don't have to take responsibility for their own actions. It would appear there is a huge pool of people who can be conned into acting against their own self interest.

    jonnyoyster -> IanPitch 11h ago

    Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. Most people don't appreciate being talked down to and this arrogant habit of calling those who hold views contrary to your own 'stupid' is encouraging more and more voters to ditch the established parties in favour of the new.

    I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left.

    DilemmataDocta -> IanPitch 11h ago

    A lot of the people who put their cross against Brexit or Trump weren't actually voting for anything. They were just voting against this, that or the other thing about the world that they disliked. It was voting as a gesture.

    Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again.


    Sproggit 12h ago

    I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today.

    It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains.

    The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril...

    NotoBlair 11h ago

    OMG, the lib left don't Geddit do they?

    The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society.

    People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates.

    The sour grapes bleating of the lib left who refuse to accept the democratic will of the people is a movement doomed failure.

    Frankincensedabit 11h ago

    Malign to whom? Wall Street and people who want us all dead?

    Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus.

    I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else?

    I likely wouldn't have voted at all. But all my life the occupants of the White House represented the interests of those nobody could ever identify. The owners of the media and the numbered accounts who took away the life-chances of U.S. citizens by the million and called any of them who objected a thick white-trash bigot. Whatever Trump is, he will be different.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Obama Administration Gives Up on Pacific Trade Deal

    Nov 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs -> EMichael... Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 08:21 AM Obama Administration
    Gives Up on Pacific Trade Deal
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-gives-up-on-pacific-trade-deal-1478895824
    via @WSJ - William Mauldin - Nov 11

    A sweeping Pacific trade pact meant to bind the U.S.and Asia effectively died Friday, as Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress told the White House they won't advance it in the election's aftermath, and Obama administration officials acknowledged it has no way forward now.

    The failure to pass the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership-by far the biggest trade agreement in more than a decade-is a bitter defeat for President Barack Obama, whose belated but fervent support for freer trade divided his party and complicated the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

    The White House had lobbied hard for months in the hope of moving forward on the pact if Mrs. Clinton had won.

    The deal's collapse, which comes amid a rising wave of antitrade sentiment in the U.S., also dents American prestige in the region at a time when China is flexing its economic and military muscles.

    Just over a year ago, Republicans were willing to vote overwhelmingly in support of Mr. Obama's trade policy. But as the political season approached and voters registered their concerns by supporting Donald J. Trump, the GOP reacted coolly to the deal Mr. Obama's team reached with Japan and 10 others countries just over a year ago in Atlanta. ...

    [Nov 11, 2016] TPP is dead now, thanks to Trump election

    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Manta 11.10.16 at 12:14 am 133

    Here is the EEF opinion on some of Trump policies
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/11/battle-against-tpp-isnt-over-it-has-shifted

    With President-elect Trump's victory last night, the last hopes of the Obama administration passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the lame duck session of Congress have evaporated. The passage of the TPP through Congress was dependent upon support from members of the Republican majority, and there is no realistic prospect that they will now pass the deal given their elected President's firmly expressed opposition to it. Even if they did so, the new President would presumably veto the pact's implementing legislation.

    [Nov 11, 2016] What will happen with TPP/TTIP/TISA/NAFTA under Trump

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "[Trump] has many tools to reverse the post World War II consensus on liberalizing U.S. trade without needing congressional approval. For instance, he can withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, as he has threatened to do, by simply notifying the U.S.' Nafta partners, Mexico and Canada, and waiting six months. Withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, which sets rules for global trading and enforces tariffs, has a similar provision" [ Wall Street Journal , "Donald Trump Will Need to Leverage Size, Power of U.S. Economy to Remake Global Trading System"]. "'Our major trading partners are far more likely to cooperate with an America resolute about balancing its trade than they are likely to provoke a trade war,' wrote Trump economic advisers Peter Navarro [ here ] of the University of California-Irvine and investor Wilbur Ross in September. 'This is true for one very simple reason: America's major trading partners are far more dependent on American markets than America is on their markets.'"

    TPP: "To take effect, TPP must be ratified by February 2018 by at least six countries that account for 85 percent of the 12 members' aggregate economic output. This effectively means that the U.S. and Japan, the world's third-largest economy and the second-largest that is a signatory nation, must both be on board" [ DC Velocity ].

    TPP: "Mr. Trump's win also seals the fate of President Barack Obama's 12-nation trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. The president-elect blamed the TPP on special interests who want to "rape" the country" [ Wall Street Journal , "Donald Trump Win to Upend Trade Policy"]. "Mr. Obama had hoped to work with Republican lawmakers to pass the TPP during the 'lame duck' session of Congress after the election, where they faced an uphill battle even if Tuesday's vote had favored Hillary Clinton, who previously backed the TPP negotiations. Now Republicans have little incentive to bring the TPP to a vote, since Mr. Trump could easily threaten to unravel the deal when he takes office and block its implementation, as well as punish lawmakers who vote for it."

    TPP: "Donald Trump's historic victory Tuesday has killed any chance of Congress voting on President Barack Obama's signature Asia-Pacific trade agreement while raising the odds of a damaging trade confrontation with China - just two ways a Trump presidency could upend the global trading system and usher in a new era of U.S. protectionism, analysts say" [ Politico ]. "'This is the end of globalization is we knew it … because what the U.S. is going to do is certainly going to impact other countries' and their decisions on negotiations,' Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Politico. 'TPP is now in the history dustbin for sure,' Hufbauer said."

    TPP: "House GOP election outcomes will be key as House Speaker Paul Ryan decides whether to bring the TPP to a vote in the lame-duck session with GOP voters strongly against and the GOP 's high-donor base demanding action. With an eye to conservative GOP threats to withhold support for his speakership and a possible 2020 presidential run, Ryan's decision is complicated. Whether the TPP will get a lame-duck vote is his call. Beyond whether he can muster the votes of representatives who weathered the wrath of trade voters in this cycle and worry about the 2018 primaries lies the longer-term implications of his even trying to do so with the GOP voter base so intensely against the pact" [Lori Wallach, Eyes on Trade ].

    [Nov 08, 2016] Like rapists neoliberals do not take no for the answer and will push Britain back in the EU again until the right result was achieved.

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian November 7, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Raimondo–globalism is the issue

    That's why a British court has effectively overturned the results of the Brexit vote – in a lawsuit brought by a hedge fund manager and former model – and thrown the fate of the country into the hands of pro-EU Tories, and their Labor and Liberal Democrat collaborators.

    This stunning reversal was baked in to the legislation that enabled the referendum to begin with, and is par for the course as far as EU referenda are concerned: in 1992,

    Danish voters rejected the EU, only to have the Euro-crats demand a rematch with a "modified" EU treaty which won narrowly. There have been repeated attempts to modify the modifications, which have all failed. Ireland voted against both the Lisbon Treaty and the Nice Treaty, only to have the issue brought up again until the "right" result was achieved.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/11/06/bringing-globalist-monster/

    [Nov 08, 2016] The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine *really* recorded everyones votes correctly? Insrtead we have anti-russian hysteria fed to us 24 x 7

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ... ..."
    "... poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press ..."
    "... the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say. ..."
    "... "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live! ..."
    "... Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours). ..."
    "... Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message! ..."
    "... Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders. ..."
    "... putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue. ..."
    "... Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class... ..."
    "... Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 01:47 PM

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/the-truth-about-the-sanders-movement/

    May 23, 2016

    The Truth About the Sanders Movement
    By Paul Krugman

    In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.

    The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:

    "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ...

    [ Yes, I do find defaming people by speculation or stereotype to be beyond saddening. ]

    ilsm -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press
    anne -> Chris Lowery ... , November 07, 2016 at 10:28 AM
    The fact that Obama either won, or did so much better than Hillary appears to be doing with, the white working-class vote in so many key battleground states, as well as the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say.

    And her opponent was/is incapable of debating on substance, as there was/is neither coherence nor consistency in any part of his platform -- nor that of his party....

    [ Compelling argument. ]

    JohnH : , November 07, 2016 at 10:26 AM
    Question is, will Krugman be able to move on after the election...and talk about something useful? Like how to get Hillary to recognize and deal with inequality...
    JohnH : , November 07, 2016 at 10:29 AM
    Barbara Ehrenreich: "Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting. The most sordid side of our democracy has been laid out for all to see. But that's only the beginning: whoever wins, the mutual revulsion will only intensify... With either Clinton or Trump, we will be left to choke on our mutual revulsion."
    JohnH -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 10:29 AM
    Link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/us-election-projectile-vomiting-barbara-ehrenreich
    JohnH -> Bloix... , November 07, 2016 at 04:59 PM
    "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live!
    ilsm -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 03:54 PM
    the great mortification, these two.
    cm -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 11:11 PM
    Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours).
    Tom aka Rusty : , November 07, 2016 at 11:17 AM
    Something interesting today.... President Obama came to Michigan. I fully expected him to speak in Detroit with a get out the vote message. Instead he is in Ann Arbor, speaking to an overwhelmingly white and white-collar audience. On a related note, the Dems have apparently written off the white blue collar vote in Michigan, even much of the union vote. the union leaders are pro Clinton, but the workers not so much. Strange year.
    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , November 07, 2016 at 03:55 PM
    Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message!
    John M : , November 07, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine *really* recorded everyone's votes correctly? (Did any Florida county ever give Al Gore negative something votes?)
    Julio -> John M ... , November 08, 2016 at 06:42 AM
    That's a big subject but you are right, that is the biggest risk of significant fraud. Not just the voting machines, but the automatic counting systems. Other forms of possible election fraud are tiny by comparison.
    Enquiring Mind : , November 07, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes about the Luntz focus group rancor. Instructive to read about the depth of feeling in case you didn't see the angry, disgusted faces of citizens.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-american-voters-on-trump-clinton/

    ScottB : , November 07, 2016 at 12:08 PM
    Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders.
    ilsm -> ScottB... , November 07, 2016 at 03:57 PM
    putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue.
    Before the 1970s the US was both rich and protectionist - no look at our horrible roads and hopeless people - the miracle of free trade! : , November 07, 2016 at 07:13 PM
    Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class...

    Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia.

    [Nov 07, 2016] More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions

    Notable quotes:
    "... it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. ..."
    "... It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. ..."
    "... Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked. ..."
    "... Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and yet that hasn't happens. ..."
    "... The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up their end of the bargain. ..."
    "... Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards. ..."
    "... The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war. ..."
    "... The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog mentality. ..."
    "... Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider. ..."
    "... Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. ..."
    "... Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." ..."
    "... Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply? ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adam Davidson in the New Yorker:
    More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be fair. ...

    Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...

    This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist, save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...

    ...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.

    Alex S : , November 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness.

    Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.

    Peter K. : , November 05, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    "No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."

    This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers narrative.

    The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.

    And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.

    Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges via whatever means are available.

    Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
    As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is moving left.
    Julio -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:02 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.
    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:26 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.

    [ An important criticism. ]

    Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
    Peter K. -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:12 PM
    As Julio points out, under any objective analysis, politics have moved to the right.

    Rightwing policy solutions have been tried: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, breaking of unions, etc.

    We've seen the results. Stagnation and slow growth.

    The social democratic post-war years were much better with shared prosperity for all citizens.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    "It's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts."

    When Obama refuses to jail torturers or those responsible for mortgage fraud, we the people are justified in having less confidence in the courts.

    Peter Liepmann -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 05:52 PM
    Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*.

    Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs."

    Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.

    ""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then $200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.

    How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc

    anne -> Peter Liepmann... , November 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
    Precise references, including links are necessary.
    anne : , November 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    Adam Davidson in the essay refers to this paper, which is well worth reading:

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

    April, 2016

    Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
    By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

    Abstract

    The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 02:59 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:03 PM
    I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes a lot of sense for so many reasons.
    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See, for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:13 PM
    Do set down a link to a reference when possible:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w8389

    July, 2001

    Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
    By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian

    Abstract

    This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase. Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening stagflation.

    Alex S -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:22 PM
    My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
    Peter K. -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:09 PM
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

    "Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

    "She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."

    PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.

    Like with Trump everything he says is a lie.

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:56 PM
    Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:

    * http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    pgl -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 03:37 AM
    It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than 1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
    mrrunangun : , November 05, 2016 at 06:23 PM
    Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving wage growth.

    Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways by those so inclined

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:33 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpp

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Indexed to 2007)

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:35 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bue

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2007-2016

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bua

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2002-2016

    (Percent change)

    pgl -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
    Excellent perspective. Let me say well done before PeterK gets angry and calls you a liar.
    ilsm -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    I had a job offer about 15 years ago, the quoted salary was not to my liking so the HR type told me how much the Cadillac insurance was "worth".

    I do not think you 'get' why Cadillac plans are taxed............

    or

    'income transfers'......

    mrrunangun -> ilsm... , November 06, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems have been ameliorated.
    cm : , November 05, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    "people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas"

    And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk (including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens (and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from the view of those who would usurp or derail them.

    Chris G : , -1
    "Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

    The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

    What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

    Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

    'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

    Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency; above all, perhaps, belief in its future.

    Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable. That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics. What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."

    Source - http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/

    [Nov 07, 2016] How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM

    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    [Nov 07, 2016] Economists View More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions

    Nov 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adam Davidson in the New Yorker:
    More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be fair. ...

    Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...

    This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist, save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...

    ...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.

    Alex S : , November 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
    It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 01:51 PM
    Agreed. You should have seen Peter Navarro latest performance. He may be ruder than Trump himself and he certainly babbles gibberish.
    Peter K. : , November 05, 2016 at 01:23 PM
    "No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."

    This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers narrative.

    The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.

    And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.

    Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges via whatever means are available.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 01:29 PM
    As Bernie Sanders's campaign demonstrated, there is still hope. In fact hope is growing.

    Lucky for us Sanders campaigned hard for Hillary, knowing what the stakes are.

    Given the way people like PGL treated Sanders during the campaign and given what Wikileaks showed, I doubt the reverse would have been true had Sanders won the primary.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 01:30 PM
    But then Sanders still would have beaten Trump easily.
    Gerri -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 06:39 AM
    The reverse would have been true, because we Democrats would have voted party above all else and especially in this election year. Remember "party" the thing that Bernie supporters and Bernie himself denigrated? I believe the term
    "elites" was used more than once to describe the party faithful.
    Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
    As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is moving left.
    Julio -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:02 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.
    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
    anne -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:26 PM
    Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.

    Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.

    [ An important criticism. ]

    Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:08 PM
    Oh, I understand:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    June 13, 2014

    The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
    By Tyler Cowen

    [ Who else could possibly have written such an essay? The guy is really, really scary. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/does-the-right-hold-the-economy-hostage-to-advance-its-militarist-agenda

    June 14, 2014

    Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?

    That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:

    "It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth."

    This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story. There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs. Its support made these accomplishments possible.

    This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    -- Dean Baker

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 05:15 PM
    Three points

    1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.

    2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war. If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces results.

    3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:24 PM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.

    But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    June 13, 2014

    The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
    By Tyler Cowen

    [ Guy is really, really, really scary. ]

    Peter K. -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:12 PM
    As Julio points out, under any objective analysis, politics have moved to the right.

    Rightwing policy solutions have been tried: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, breaking of unions, etc.

    We've seen the results. Stagnation and slow growth.

    The social democratic post-war years were much better with shared prosperity for all citizens.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
    "It's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts."

    When Obama refuses to jail torturers or those responsible for mortgage fraud, we the people are justified in having less confidence in the courts.

    Peter Liepmann -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 05:52 PM
    Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.
    ""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then $200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.

    How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc

    anne -> Peter Liepmann... , November 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
    Precise references, including links are necessary.
    anne : , November 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    Adam Davidson in the essay refers to this paper, which is well worth reading:

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

    April, 2016

    Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
    By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

    Abstract

    The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 02:59 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
    pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:03 PM
    I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes a lot of sense for so many reasons.
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:40 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?

    [ Having read and reread this question, I do not begin to understand what it means. There is oil here, there is oil all about us, there is oil in Canada and Mexico and on and on, and the supply of oil about us is not about to be disrupted by any conceivable war and an inconceivable war is never going to be fought. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
    Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?

    [ My guess is that this is a way of scarily pitching for fracking for oil right in my garden, but I like my azealia bushes and mocking birds. ]

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See, for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:13 PM
    Do set down a link to a reference when possible:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w8389

    July, 2001

    Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
    By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian

    Abstract

    This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase. Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening stagflation.

    Alex S -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:22 PM
    My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
    Peter K. -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:09 PM
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

    "Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

    "She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."

    PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.

    Like with Trump everything he says is a lie.

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:56 PM
    Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:

    * http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Simply excellent:

    http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    October, 2016

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
    By Dean Baker

    Introduction: Trading in Myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

    pgl -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 03:37 AM
    It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than 1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
    mrrunangun : , November 05, 2016 at 06:23 PM
    Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving wage growth.

    Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways by those so inclined

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:33 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpp

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

    (Indexed to 2007)

    anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:35 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bue

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2007-2016

    (Percent change)


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bua

    January 15, 2016

    Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2002-2016

    (Percent change)

    pgl -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
    Excellent perspective. Let me say well done before PeterK gets angry and calls you a liar.
    ilsm -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 05:10 AM
    I had a job offer about 15 years ago, the quoted salary was not to my liking so the HR type told me how much the Cadillac insurance was "worth".

    I do not think you 'get' why Cadillac plans are taxed............

    or

    'income transfers'......

    mrrunangun -> ilsm... , November 06, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems have been ameliorated.
    cm : , November 05, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    "people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas"

    And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk (including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens (and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from the view of those who would usurp or derail them.

    Chris G : , -1
    "Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

    The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

    What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

    Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

    'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

    Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency; above all, perhaps, belief in its future.

    Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable. That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics. What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."

    Source - http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/

    [Nov 06, 2016] Trump vs. the REAL Nuts -- the GOP Uniparty Establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
    "... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
    "... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
    "... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.unz.com
    54 Comments Credit: VDare.com.

    A couple of remarks in Professor Susan McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation, have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:

    In the most recent American National Election Studies survey, only 19 percent of Americans agreed with the idea that the government, "is run for the benefit of all the people." [ The True and Only Lasch: On The True and Only Heaven, 25 Years Later , Fall 2016]

    McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.

    Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations, tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.

    Second McWilliams quote:

    In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".

    I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty."

    There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians.

    Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street Journal column.

    The title of Peggy's piece was: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump . [ Alternate link ]Its gravamen: Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base, which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national politics.

    It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it was here. Sample of what she got right last week:

    Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.

    The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

    I'll just pause to note Peggy's use of Steve Sailer' s great encapsulation of Bush-style NeoConnery: "Invade the world, invite the world." Either Peggy's been reading Steve on the sly, or she's read my book We Are Doomed , which borrows that phrase. I credited Steve with it, though, so in either case she knows its provenance, and should likewise have credited Steve.

    End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though

    Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV funhouse."

    Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut. A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.

    I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.

    Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday morning shows.

    Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?

    Make your own list.

    Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.

    I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have entered into the political adventure he's on?

    Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he hoped to prove.

    And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half the party's base were at odds with them.

    Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?

    Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How has the Republican Party treated him ?

    Our own Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps": Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?

    Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, " Is he conservative? "

    I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott :

    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

    Rationalism in Politics and other essays (1962)

    That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior Republicans.

    For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.

    Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.

    I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.

    [Nov 05, 2016] Economists View Paul Krugman Who Broke Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
    "... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
    "... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
    "... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
    "... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
    "... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
    "... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
    Nov 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : November 04, 2016 at 08:51 AM , 2016 at 08:51 AM
    This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.

    I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.

    The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the left.

    In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them.

    Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.

    Eric : November 04, 2016 at 09:28 AM

    While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?

    I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.

    Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net.

    Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it.

    Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get? And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization? We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it, we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.

    America was rich when it had tariff walls - now it's becoming poor - Thanks economists! : November 04, 2016 at 09:43 PM
    Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism long ago.

    Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them the country is lost.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Neera Tanden On TPP This Makes Hillary Seem Politically Craven At Best Or A Liar At Worse

    Notable quotes:
    "... Among the more prominent exchanges released in the latest, 27th, Wikileaks release of Podesta emails is a thread from March 2016 which discusses a Politico article tilted " Clintonites: How we beat Bernie on trade ", and which reports that " Clinton faced internal pressure from her Brooklyn headquarters to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal she helped craft as secretary of State ." ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Among the more prominent exchanges released in the latest, 27th, Wikileaks release of Podesta emails is a thread from March 2016 which discusses a Politico article tilted " Clintonites: How we beat Bernie on trade ", and which reports that " Clinton faced internal pressure from her Brooklyn headquarters to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal she helped craft as secretary of State ."

    Senior Clinton strategist, Joel Benenson, is quoted in the piece as saying:

    "Voters agree that we have to compete and win in a global economy and that means we have to make things in the United States that we can sell to 95 percent of the world's consumers who happen to live outside of the United States. What the data from the exit polls says is these voters were more aligned with her fundamental view of trade ."

    * * *

    Clinton instead pushed back on Sanders' opposition to the Export-Import Bank, and doubled down on the idea that America needs to compete and win in the global economy.

    "We engaged with him on trade more forcefully," Benenson said. In the end, " I guess he came off as an economic isolationist."

    The article prompted Gene Sperling, former economic policy assistant to both Bill Clinton and Obama to say:

    " Do not get our spin here. Why we not hyping claw back, ROO, out front on steel, tough enforcement on China?! Was this just her not talking to any of us and off on her own take?(But Joel is in there ) please clarify."

    To which, a clearly angry Tanden replies:

    "Is Joel off reservation? Does he not get that this story makes Hillary seem politically craven at best or a liar at worse? Or if this is campaign position, can I object ?"

    She then adds: " Hard to say she believes what she says when Joel is spinning that she doesn't mean what she is out there saying. Her language was pretty tough last week. "

    Finally, she concludes that " Sanders or trump can move on this. "

    [Oct 29, 2016] The international community considers backroom corporate trade deals as one example of the general problem of fragmentation. The US government tries to end-run the UN Charter with NATO. It tries to end-run ILO conventions with the WTO.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The international community considers backroom corporate trade deals as one example of the general problem of fragmentation. The US government tries to end-run the UN Charter with NATO. It tries to end-run ILO conventions with the WTO. It tries to end-run economic and social rights with ISDS. It tries to end-run sovereign debt principles (e.g. A/69/L.84) with the Paris Club and the IMF. In response, the international community has been working to synthesize the different legal regimes in an objective way. ..."
    "... Corporate special pleading gets subsumed in old-time diplomacy, finding common ground, so the pitched-battle narrative is absent, but when Zayas comes out and says ISDS cannot negate human rights, this is the context. They're trying to preserve a non-hierarchical regime in which the only absolute is the purposes and principles of the UN: peace and development, which comes down to human rights. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Stalingrad, October 28, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/u-n-rights-expert-urges-nations-not-sign-flawed-ceta-treaty.html

    The international community considers backroom corporate trade deals as one example of the general problem of fragmentation. The US government tries to end-run the UN Charter with NATO. It tries to end-run ILO conventions with the WTO. It tries to end-run economic and social rights with ISDS. It tries to end-run sovereign debt principles (e.g. A/69/L.84) with the Paris Club and the IMF. In response, the international community has been working to synthesize the different legal regimes in an objective way.

    http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf

    Corporate special pleading gets subsumed in old-time diplomacy, finding common ground, so the pitched-battle narrative is absent, but when Zayas comes out and says ISDS cannot negate human rights, this is the context. They're trying to preserve a non-hierarchical regime in which the only absolute is the purposes and principles of the UN: peace and development, which comes down to human rights.

    [Oct 27, 2016] 200PM Water EU's Canada free-trade CETA deal could be back on as Walloons agree to last-minute deal

    Oct 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    TTP, TTIP, TISA

    CETA: "EU's Canada free-trade CETA deal could be back on as Walloons agree to last-minute deal" [ Telegraph ]. "Belgium's Prime Minister Charles Michel said that Wallonia was now in agreement, and the regional parliaments may now agree to CETA by the end of Friday night, opening the door to the deal being signed. Mr Tusk said that once the regional votes had taken place, he will inform Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Any extra concessions given to Wallonia may mean other countries will want to look again at the deal, however." (The BBC's headline, then - "EU-Canada trade deal: Belgians break Ceta deadlock" - is quite irresponsible. As is–

    CETA: "Belgium breaks Ceta deadlock" [ EUObserver ]. Not quite:

    Belgium's political entities agreed to a declaration on Thursday (26 October), which gives their government a green light to sign Ceta, the EU-Canada trade pact.

    The agreement was promptly sent to EU ambassadors in Brussels, to be discussed later in the afternoon.

    After a week of marathon negotiations, Belgian prime minister Charles Michel said that Thursday's talks had calmed "outstanding concerns".

    As part of the trade-off, Belgium will ask the European Court of Justice to clarify the proposed investment court system, which was one of the most controversial elements of the trade deal.

    Ceta was due to be signed off by EU leaders and Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau at a summit in Brussels on Thursday. Trudeau cancelled the trip during the night as no agreement had been reached in Brussels.

    It's not known when the summit will take place, or whether the Belgian go-ahead was the last hurdle.

    The other 27 EU countries must first accept the Belgian deal.

    At their meeting on Thursday, EU ambassadors will be accompanied by lawyers and representatives of the EU institutions, who will examine the legality and consequences of the text.

    The Walloon parliament will vote on the agreement on Friday.

    Still, how do we slay these undead deals? The same thing happened with TPP.

    CETA: "The great CETA swindle" [ Corporate Europe Observatory ]. "The latest PR move is a "joint interpretative declaration" on the trade deal hammered out by Ottawa and Brussels and published by investigative journalist collective Correctiv last Friday. It is designed to alleviate public concerns but in fact does nothing to fix CETA's flaws. In September, Canada's Trade Minister, Chrystia Freeland, and her German counterpart, Sigmar Gabriel, had announced such a text to appease Social Democrats, trade unions and the wider public who fear that CETA would threaten public services, labour and environmental standards and undermine governments' right to regulate in the public interest. Several governments, notably Austria, had linked their 'yes' to CETA to the declaration. [But] According to environmental group Greenpeace, the declaration therefore has the 'legal weight of a holiday brochure'."

    Legal experts have also warned that the declaration "could be misleading for non-lawyers, who might think that the Declaration will alter or override the CETA". But it does not change CETA's legal terms – and it is these terms which have raised concerns. As Canadian law Professor Gus van Harten explains: "Based on principles of treaty interpretation, the CETA will be interpreted primarily according to the text of its relevant provisions…. The Declaration would play a subsidiary role, if any, in this interpretative process." In other words, legally (and thus politically), the CETA text is far more important than the declaration – and the former could prevail over the latter in case of a conflictive interpretation.

    The post then goes on to analyze the provisions of the declaration in detail, comparing them to the text. (Readers may remember that TPP advocates have made the same sort of claim for the TPP Preamble, which the text also over-rides . So, the Belgians are smart to get a court ruling on this. And we might also expect the adminsitration to use similar tactics to (the toothless distraction of) the CETA "resolution" in the upcoming attempt to pass the TPP.

    "Belgian officials were discussing a working document aimed at addressing Wallonia's concerns on the trade deal. The document, published by Belgian state media RTBF, shows that Belgium is moving toward requesting additional safeguards for the agricultural sector 'in cases of market turbulence.' It also puts forward a number of requests regarding the investor court system, including 'progressing towards hiring judges on a permanent basis'" [ Politico ]. This seems to be a different document from the "declaration"; it was leaked by a different source. Here is is; it's in French .

    TPP: "Eight major financial services industry associations made an appeal to congressional leaders to support passage of the TPP this year, arguing that the deal is 'vital to ensuring that the U.S. financial services sector remains a vibrant engine for domestic and global growth'" [ Politico ]. What the heck is a "vibrant engine"? Maybe a screw loose or something? Needs a tightening to stop the shaking and shimmying?

    TPP: "Health, labor and consumer groups are warning President Barack Obama to refrain from including a 12-year monopoly period for biological drugs in legislation to implement the TPP as a means for addressing congressional concerns over the pact. The groups argue that such a move could undermine future efforts to shorten that protection period under U.S. law" [ Politico ]. "The letter, signed by Doctors Without Borders, the AFL-CIO, AARP, Oxfam and Consumers Union, also expresses concern over reports that the administration is prepared to negotiate side letters with TPP countries to reinforce U.S. lawmaker demands that countries respect a 12-year protection period, which reflects U.S. law."

    "The case against free trade – Part 1" [ Bill Mitchell ].

    [Oct 26, 2016] There are some countervailing forces in action and the Triumphal march of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon will be over

    Notable quotes:
    "... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
    "... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
    Oct 26, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    stevenjohnson

    @58

    This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.

    There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare" trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient bogeyman.

    As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability in the USA is under real threat.

    But it looks like newly formed shadow "Committee for Saving [neo]Liberal Order" (with participation of three latter agencies, just read the recent "Red scare" memorandum ( https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement ) want Hillary to be the POTUS.

    But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease. But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).

    All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part of the problem

    Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.

    Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html )) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent a viable political force.

    Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime, mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)

    Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.

    In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution" measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization due to some bubble burst.

    That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines. Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic" balance in Europe.

    Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.

    So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine) and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.

    So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.

    My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted by Republican establishment.

    Val 10.26.16 at 3:54 am 72

    #70
    But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease. But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).

    Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.

    Howard Frant 10.26.16 at 6:19 am ( 73 )

    Stephen @58

    Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest. That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.

    phenomenal cat @64

    So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do.

    Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them. Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)

    Layman 10.26.16 at 11:33 am ( 79 )

    ' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '

    Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.

    Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some explanation called for.

    likbez 10.26.16 at 3:54 pm 80

    @72

    Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.

    I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:

    1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years",
    2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian Presidential elections"
    3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"

    1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:

    http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
    The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms) was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was 7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated) took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.

    These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms, or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.

    Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease are undisputable:

    2. Hillary and Obama attempt to stage the color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 are also undisputable, but not widely known:

    3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:

    If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with references and known facts.


    stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm

    likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.

    But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement of child protection laws that break up poor families. This cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a diversion from a useful understanding.

    There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement, supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.

    By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.

    Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.

    Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not "profoundly ignorant."

    Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling," that's an internet thing...

    [Oct 25, 2016] Dean Baker: Rigged – How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars a year. ..."
    "... The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors - the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence. ..."
    "... We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP). ..."
    "... As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. We are delighted to feature an excerpt from Dean Baker's new book Rigged , which you can find at http://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm via either a free download or in hard copy for the cost of printing and shipping. The book argues that policy in five areas, macroeconomics, the financial sector, intellectual property, corporate governance, and protection for highly paid professionals, have all led to the upward distribution of income. The implication is that the yawning gap between the 0.1% and the 1% versus everyone else is not the result of virtue ("meritocracy") but preferential treatment, and inequality would be substantially reduced if these policies were reversed.

    I urge you to read his book in full and encourage your friends, colleagues, and family to do so as well.

    By Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

    Chapter 1: Introduction: Trading in myths

    In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

    This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). [1] After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

    The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

    The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt.

    In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

    That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. [2] Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. [3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

    In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return (Figure 1-1).

    So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital means. Rich countries like ours should be lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's basic needs.

    This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world, especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran large trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in Malaysia.

    These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia and much of the developing world in the summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to sustain the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.

    Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the textbook development path of growth driven by importing capital and running trade deficits, the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of the Clinton administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade surpluses (Radelet and Sachs 2000, O'Neil 1999).

    The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s, when they had large trade deficits (Figure 1-2). Four of the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would be almost 50 percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than the United States.

    In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided they had to build up reserves of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade deficit has exploded, rising from just over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in 2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs, roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.

    There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued. It wasn't the laws of economics that forced developing countries to take a different path, it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that the enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current globalization policies.

    There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the volume of trade flows that is determined by policy, but also the content. A major push in recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden on the developing world. Bill Clinton would have much less need to fly around the world for the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing countries to adopt U.S.-style patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap -patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs that sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free market. Cheap drugs would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS on the developing world.

    Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We also have to compensate creative workers who produce music, movies, and books. But there are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites in the United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is just a mechanism for redistributing income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary feature of a 21 st century economy.

    In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for royalties and patent licensing fees, it will have a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by national savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed by these macroeconomic factors, then more exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries.

    The conventional story is that we lose manufacturing jobs to developing countries because they have hundreds of millions of people willing to do factory work at a fraction of the pay of manufacturing workers in the United States. This is true, but developing countries also have tens of millions of smart and ambitious people willing to work as doctors and lawyers in the United States at a fraction of the pay of the ones we have now.

    Gains from trade work the same with doctors and lawyers as they do with textiles and steel. Our consumers would save hundreds of billions a year if we could hire professionals from developing countries and pay them salaries that are substantially less than what we pay our professionals now. The reason we import manufactured goods and not doctors is that we have designed the rules of trade that way. We deliberately write trade pacts to make it as easy as possible for U.S. companies to set up manufacturing operations abroad and ship the products back to the United States, but we have done little or nothing to remove the obstacles that professionals from other countries face in trying to work in the United States. The reason is simple: doctors and lawyers have more political power than autoworkers. [4]

    In short, there is no truth to the story that the job loss and wage stagnation faced by manufacturing workers in the United States and other wealthy countries was a necessary price for reducing poverty in the developing world. [5] This is a fiction that is used to justify the upward redistribution of income in rich countries. After all, it is pretty selfish for rich country autoworkers and textile workers to begrudge hungry people in Africa and Asia and the means to secure food, clothing, and shelter.

    The other aspect of this story that deserves mention is the nature of the jobs to which our supposedly selfish workers feel entitled. The manufacturing jobs that are being lost to the developing world pay in the range of $15 to $30 an hour, with the vast majority closer to the bottom figure than the top. The average hourly wage for production and nonsupervisory workers in manufacturing in 2015 was just under $20 an hour, or about $40,000 a year. While a person earning $40,000 is doing much better than a subsistence farmer in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is difficult to see this worker as especially privileged.

    By contrast, many of the people remarking on the narrow-mindedness and sense of entitlement of manufacturing workers earn comfortable six-figure salaries. Senior writers and editors at network news shows or at the New York Times and Washington Post feel entitled to their pay because they feel they have the education and skills to be successful in a rapidly changing global economy.

    These are the sort of people who consider it a sacrifice to work at a high-level government job for $150,000 to $200,000 a year. For example, Timothy Geithner, President Obama's first treasury secretary, often boasts about his choice to work for various government agencies rather than earn big bucks in the private sector. His sacrifice included a stint as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that paid $415,000 a year. [6] This level of pay put Geithner well into the top 1 percent of wage earners.

    Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars a year.

    Not everyone who was complaining about entitled manufacturing workers was earning as much as Timothy Geithner, but it is a safe bet that the average critic was earning far more than the average manufacturing worker - and certainly far more than the average displaced manufacturing worker.

    Turning the Debate Right-Side Up: Markets Are Structured

    The perverse nature of the debate over a trade policy that would have the audacity to benefit workers in rich countries is a great example of how we accept as givens not just markets themselves but also the policies that structure markets. If we accept it as a fact of nature that poor countries cannot borrow from rich countries to finance their development, and that they can only export manufactured goods, then their growth will depend on displacing manufacturing workers in the United States and other rich countries.

    It is absurd to narrow the policy choices in this way, yet the centrists and conservatives who support the upward redistribution of the last four decades have been extremely successful in doing just that, and progressives have largely let them set the terms of the debate.

    Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten which means they have no interest in even having them discussed.

    But for progressive change to succeed, these rules must be addressed. While modest tweaks to tax and transfer policies can ameliorate the harm done by a regressive market structure, their effect will be limited. The complaint of conservatives - that tampering with market outcomes leads to inefficiencies and unintended outcomes - is largely correct, even if they may exaggerate the size of the distortions from policy interventions. Rather than tinker with badly designed rules, it is far more important to rewrite the rules so that markets lead to progressive and productive outcomes in which the benefits of economic growth and improving technology are broadly shared

    This book examines five broad areas where the rules now in place tend to redistribute income upward and where alternative rules can lead to more equitable outcomes and a more efficient market:

    In each of these areas, it is possible to identify policy choices that have engineered the upward redistribution of the last four decades.

    In the case of macroeconomic policy, the United States and other wealthy countries have explicitly adopted policies that focus on maintaining low rates of inflation. Central banks are quick to raise interest rates at the first sign of rising inflation and sometimes even before. Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth weakens workers' bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages. In other words, the commitment to an anti-inflation policy is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages down. It should not be surprising that this policy has the effect of redistributing income upward.

    The changing structure of financial regulation and financial markets has also been an important factor in redistributing income upward. This is a case where an industry has undergone very rapid change as a result of technological innovation. Information technology has hugely reduced the cost of financial transactions and allowed for the development of an array of derivative instruments that would have been unimaginable four decades ago. Rather than modernizing regulation to ensure that these technologies allow the financial sector to better serve the productive economy, the United States and other countries have largely structured regulations to allow a tiny group of bankers and hedge fund and private equity fund managers to become incredibly rich.

    This changed structure of regulation over the last four decades was not "deregulation," as is often claimed. Almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against the elimination of government deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system. Rather, they advocated a system in which the rules restricting their ability to profit were eliminated, while the insurance provided by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and other arms of the government were left in place. The position of "deregulators" effectively amounted to arguing that they should not have to pay for the insurance they were receiving.

    The third area in which the rules have been written to ensure an upward redistribution is patent and copyright protection. Over the last four decades these protections have been made stronger and longer. In the case of both patent and copyright, the duration of the monopoly period has been extended. In addition, these monopolies have been applied to new areas. Patents can now be applied to life forms, business methods, and software. Copyrights have been extended to cover digitally produced material as well as the internet. Penalties for infringement have been increased and the United States has vigorously pursued their application in other countries through trade agreements and diplomatic pressure.

    Government-granted monopolies are not facts of nature, and there are alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work. Direct government funding, as opposed to government granted monopolies, is one obvious alternative. For example, the government spends more than $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health - money that all parties agree is very well spent. There are also other possible mechanisms. It is likely that these alternatives are more efficient than the current patent and copyright system, in large part because they would be more market-oriented. And, they would likely lead to less upward redistribution than the current system.

    The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors - the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence.

    The market discipline that holds down the pay of ordinary workers does not apply to CEOs, since their friends determine their pay. And a director has little incentive to pick a fight with fellow directors or top management by asking a simple question like, "Can we get a CEO just as good for half the pay?" This privilege matters not just for CEOs; it has the spillover effect of raising the pay of other top managers in the corporate sector and putting upward pressure on the salaries of top management in universities, hospitals, private charities, and other nonprofits.

    Reformed corporate governance structures could empower shareholders to contain the pay of their top-level employees. Suppose directors could count on boosts in their own pay if they cut the pay of top management without hurting profitability, With this sort of policy change, CEOs and top management might start to experience some of the downward wage pressure that existing policies have made routine for typical workers.

    This is very much not a story of the natural workings of the market. Corporations are a legal entity created by the government, which also sets the rules of corporate governance. Current law includes a lengthy set of restrictions on corporate governance practices. It is easy to envision rules which would make it less likely that CEOs earn such outlandish paychecks by making it easier for shareholders to curb excessive pay.

    Finally, government policies strongly promote the upward redistribution of income for highly paid professionals by protecting them from competition. To protect physicians and specialists, we restrict the ability of nurse practitioners or physician assistants to perform tasks for which they are entirely competent. We require lawyers for work that paralegals are capable of completing. While trade agreements go far to remove any obstacle that might protect an autoworker in the United States from competition with a low-paid factory worker in Mexico or China, they do little or nothing to reduce the barriers that protect doctors, dentists, and lawyers from the same sort of competition. To practice medicine in the United States, it is still necessary to complete a residency program here, as though there were no other way for a person to become a competent doctor.

    We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP).

    Changing the rules in these five areas could reduce much and possibly all of the upward redistribution of the last four decades. But changing the rules does not mean using government intervention to curb the market. It means restructuring the market to produce different outcomes. The purpose of this book is to show how.

    [1] See also Weissman (2016), Iacono (2016), Worstall (2016), Lane (2016), and Zakaria (2016).

    [2] As explained in the next chapter, this view is not exactly correct, but it's what you're supposed to believe if you adhere to the mainstream economic view.

    [3] There can be modest changes in employment through a supply-side effect. If the trade deal increases the efficiency of the economy, then the marginal product of labor should rise, leading to a higher real wage, which in turn should induce some people to choose work over leisure. So the trade deal results in more people choosing to work, not an increased demand for labor.

    [4] For those worried about brain drain from developing countries, there is an easy fix. Economists like to talk about taxing the winners, in this case developing country professionals and rich country consumers, to compensate the losers, which would be the home countries of the migrating professionals. We could tax a portion of the professionals' pay to allow their home countries to train two or three professionals for every one that came to the United States. This is a classic win-win from trade.

    [5] The loss of manufacturing jobs also reduced the wages of less-educated workers (those without college degrees) more generally. The displaced manufacturing workers crowded into retail and other service sectors, putting downward pressure on wages there.

    [6] As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District.

    fresno dan October 25, 2016 at 7:24 am

    "Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten which means they have no interest in even having them discussed."

    ======================================================
    It is one of those remarkable hypocrisies that free "unregulated" trade requires deals of thousands of pages .
    but if these deals weren't so carefully structured to help the 1%, support would melt like snowmen in Fresno on a July day

    Kokuanani October 25, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Any other way to buy a paperback copy than via Amazon [which is where the link takes me]?

    I refuse to use them/it.

    JeffC October 25, 2016 at 9:15 am

    It's also at BarnesandNoble.com .

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 11:15 am

    Or check your local indy, or one of those that take orders (I refrain from naming my favorite co-op in Chicago, and anyway I admit there are others). Nice to support those when you can.

    RickM October 25, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I downloaded the complete pdf directly from the link time to make a donation to the CEPR, I reckon.

    Vatch October 25, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    There's also this, which can help to find an independent bookseller in your area:

    http://www.indiebound.org/book/9780692793367

    Carolinian October 25, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against the elimination of government deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system.

    Actually I believe there were some Republicans who denounced the Wall Street bailout as a violation of capitalist principles. My state's Mark Sanford comes to mind. It was the Dems at the urging of Pelosi who saved the bailout. On the other hand many of my local politicians are big on "public/private" partnerships which would be a violation of laissez-faire that they approve. Perhaps it was simply that there are no giant banks headquartered in SC.

    The truth is there is no coherent intellectual basis to how the US economy is currently run. It's all about power and what you can do with it. Which is to say it is our politics, above all, that is broken.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:34 am

    "That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem.[2] Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment.[3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem."

    Unbelievable.

    By the 1920s they realised the system produced so much stuff that extensive advertising was needed to shift it all.

    One hundred year's later, we might take this on board.

    What is the global advertising budget?

    The amount necessary to shift all the crap the system produces today.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:45 am

    Demand has to be manufactured through advertising due to chronic over-supply.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:40 am

    We need to move on from Milton Freidman's ideas and discover what trade in a globalized world is really about.

    We are still under the influence of Milton Freidman's ideas of a globalised free trade world.

    These ideas came from Milton Freidman's imagination where he saw the ideal as small state, raw capitalism and thought the public sector should be sold off and entitlement programs whittled down until everything must be purchased through the private sector.

    "You are free to spend your money as you choose"

    Not mentioning its other meaning:

    "No money, no freedom"

    After Milton Freedman's "shock therapy" in Russia, people were left with so little money they couldn't afford to eat and starved to death. In Greece people cannot afford even bread today.

    But this is economic liberalism, the economy comes first.

    Milton Freidman used his imagination to work out what small state, raw capitalism looked like whereas he could have looked at it in reality through history books of the 18th and 19th centuries where it had already existed.

    The Classical Economists studied it and were able to see its problems first hand and noted the detrimental effects of the rentier class on the economy. They were constantly looking to get "unearned" income from doing nothing; sucking purchasing power out of the economy and bleeding it dry.

    Adam Smith observed:

    "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."

    Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business.

    He sees the lazy people at the top living off "unearned" income from their land and capital.

    He sees the trickle up of Capitalism:
    1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
    2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.

    He differentiates between "earned" and "unearned" income.

    Today we encourage a new rentier class of BTL landlords who look to extract the "earned" income of generation rent for "unearned" income. If you have a large BTL portfolio you can become a true rentier, do nothing productive at all and live off "unearned" income extracted from generation rent, the true capitalist parasite. (UK)

    The Classical Economists realised capitalism has two sides, the productive side where "earned" income is generated and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side where "unearned" income is generated.

    You should tax "unearned" income to discourage the parasitic side of capitalism.
    You shouldn't tax "earned" income to encourage the productive side of capitalism.

    You should provide low cost housing, education and services to create a low cost of living, giving a low minimum wage making you globally competitive. This is to be funded by taxes on "unearned" income.

    The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.

    These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum wage.

    That's Milton Freidman's imagined small state, raw capitalism.

    What he imagined bears little resemblance to the reality the Classical Economists saw firsthand.

    We need to move on from Milton Freidman fantasy land.

    Sound of the Suburbs October 25, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Milton Freidman fantasy land:

    Businesses should maximise profit.

    Small state, raw capitalism as observed by Adam Smith:

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services

    In the 18th Century they would have understood today's problems with growth and demand.

    Luckily Jeff Bezos didn't inhabit Milton Freidman fantasy land.

    He re-invested almost everything to turn Amazon onto the global behemoth it is today.

    Jim Haygood October 25, 2016 at 9:47 am

    ' The commitment to an anti-inflation policy is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages down. '

    This is strikingly silly. Insert the word 'nominal' before wages, and it's not a howler anymore.

    Anti-inflation policy in fact has little influence on real wages (the variable of concern, not nominal wages). But it has a lot to do with preventing the social chaos of constantly rising prices, strikes for higher wages, inability of first-time home buyers to borrow at affordable rates, and so on.

    Inflationism is greasy kid stuff not to mention a brazen fraud on the public.

    Anonymous2 October 25, 2016 at 10:18 am

    As one who walked the corridors of power in a very modest capacity in my country in the early to mid 1990s, can I just say that people with power or influence then were aware that globalisation would create winners and losers. I recall the consensus of those I knew then was that steps would need to be taken to compensate the losers. The tragedy is that these steps were never taken, or, if they were, only to a wholly inadequate degree.

    Alejandro October 25, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    The always elusive referents for cost, price and value the flip-side of social chaos would seem the entropic degradation of wasted lives, excluded from participating {either-OR} abandoned as irredeemable

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth weakens workers' bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages.

    Your assertion that anti-inflation policy has little influence on real wages does not address Baker's statement about the mechanism by which he says it does. Given an argument between two people, one of whom cites a mechanism he is probably prepared to document with numbers and one of whom merely declares his belief, which are people more likely to trust? Granted always, they should go look for the numbers before they fully accept the statement, his credibility is currently higher than yours on this subject.

    Jim Haygood October 25, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Real wages roughly doubled from 1947 (when BLS data begins) through the late 1970s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages#/media/File:US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg

    Over this same period, the nominal yield on 10-year Treasury notes rose from 2.5% to over 10%:

    https://staticseekingalpha.a.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/2010/3/29/saupload_10_yr_treasury_yields_25_.jpg

    By contrast, since the 1970s real wages stalled, while interest rates round-tripped back to 2 percent.

    Over nearly seven decades, the correlation is quite the opposite from that made up claimed by Dean Bonkers. Namely, real wages soared under a regime of steadily rising nominal interest rates.

    Numbers - they can be crunchy sometimes.

    Katharine October 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Since my original reply has disappeared in limbo, I will merely note that numbers are probably even crunchier when you don't generalize across a span of decades: first there was A, then there was B, nothing else happened. It's a sure way to obscure patterns.

    And Jim, please quit the ad hominem stuff! It's ugly and needless. If you really have an argument you don't need it, and if you don't you don't gain by it. You know perfectly well he's not making things up and he's not bonkers. When you say stuff like that, the obvious presumption is that you just don't want to consider his arguments because they lead somewhere you don't want to go.

    Paul Art October 25, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Don't feed the troll

    Smell of Sulfur October 25, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Perhaps I am missing the point being made, but if you are suggesting that increases in real wages in the 1945-1975 period caused inflation, why not provide the data on inflation which would in fact show that inflation was essentially tame for 20 years in this period (1952-1972, with a slight hiccup in 1969-1971), thereby contradicting your point? And if you are suggesting that Fed increases in interest rate have not resulted in suppression of wages you will have to demonstrate that using analysis that takes into account the lag in time between increase in rate and transmission to wages, and in that case would you not also use the Fed Funds Rate itself as a variable?

    sgt_doom October 25, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Bulltwacky, they have been globalizing wages downwards while globalizing housing prices upwards!

    Every time some stupid and moronic newsy floozy on one of the CorporateNonMedia outlets claims housing purchases may be going down because consumer confidence is plummeting, they CHOOSE to ignore the foreign buyers of said houses!

    It's all connected - it's all rigged . . . .

    Minnie Mouse October 25, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Did I get this right? Full employment is an assumed boundary condition and so is fixed balance of trade? If the model is to work as advertised then the boundary conditions must be hard wired to be true, right?

    sgt_doom October 25, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Dean hits it out of the park once again!

    Sounds like a great book on every level.

    If the top 25 hedge fund managers saved around $5 billion per year in being taxed on their income at capital gains rate (carried interest ruling in tax code - utterly corrupt), then think of the amount that is being robbed from the tax base when one considers ALL the hedge fund people, and ALL the private equity types (who also do this), a conservative amount of tax revenues remitted should be around $100 billion per year!

    Now that would go far . . .

    [Oct 25, 2016] Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true

    Notable quotes:
    "... My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders. ..."
    "... Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude. ..."
    "... Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me. ..."
    "... In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh. ..."
    "... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 11:48 AM

    "That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."

    Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans. Trump blames immigration and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.

    Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true. They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting worse. They've been played.

    Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc. But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war. That's not an elite Republican opinion.

    likbez -> DrDick... , -1
    My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

    Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

    Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

    Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.

    Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

    In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

    We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

    likbez : , October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM
    My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles.

    She is way too militant, and is not that different in this respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of unleashing the war with Russia.

    Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia.

    In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Trump Unloads in Pennsylvania Speech Hillary Clinton Should Be in Prison - Breitbart

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    In a lengthy speech on Saturday night in Manheim, Pennsylvania, Republican nominee for president Donald J. Trump lambasted his opponent Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for a secret tape recording of her bashing supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont-and even called for Clinton to be placed in prison and questioned as to whether she has been loyal to her husband former President Bill Clinton.

    Trump said in the speech on Saturday night:

    A new audio tape that has surfaced just yesterday from another one of Hillary's high roller fundraisers shows her demeaning and mocking Bernie Sanders and all of his supporters. You know, and I'll tell you something we have a much bigger movement that Bernie Sanders ever had. We have much bigger crowds than Sanders ever had. And we have a more important movement than Bernie Sanders ever had because we're going to save our country, okay? We're going to save our country. But I can tell you Bernie Sanders would have left a great, great legacy had he not made the deal with the devil. He would have really left a great legacy. Now he shows up and 120 people come in to hear him talk. Bernie Sanders would have left a great legacy had he not made the deal, had he held his head high and walked away. Now he's on the other side perhaps from us and we want to get along with everybody and we will-we're going to unite the country-but what Bernie Sanders did to his supporters was very, very unfair. And they're really not his supporters any longer and they're not going to support Hillary Clinton. I really believe a lot of those people are coming over and largely because of trade, college education, lots of other things-but largely because of trade, they're coming over to our side-you watch, you watch. Especially after Hillary mocks him and mocks all of those people by attacking him and his supporters as 'living in their parents' basements,' and trapped in dead-end careers. That's not what they are.

    Also in his speech on Saturday night, Trump summed up exactly what came out in the latest Hillary Clinton tapes in which she mocks Sanders supporters:

    She describes many of them as ignorant, and [that] they want the United States to be more like Scandinavia but that 'half the people don't know what that means' in a really sarcastic tone because she's a sarcastic woman. To sum up, and I'll tell you the other thing-she's an incompetent woman. She's an incompetent woman. I've seen it. Just take a look at what she touches. It never works out, and you watch: her run for the presidency will never ever work out because we can't let it work out. To sum up, Hillary Clinton thinks Bernie supporters are hopeless and ignorant basement dwellers. Then, of course, she thinks people who vote for and follow us are deplorable and irredeemable. I don't think so. I don't think so. We have the smartest people, we have the sharpest people, we have the most amazing people, and you know in all of the years of this country they say, even the pundits-most of them aren't worth the ground they're standing on, some of that ground could be fairly wealthy but ground, but most of these people say they have never seen a phenomenon like is going on. We have crowds like this wherever we go.

    WATCH THE FULL SPEECH:

    Later in the speech, Trump came back to the tape again and hammered her once more for it.

    "Hillary Clinton all but said that most of the country is racist, including the men and women of law enforcement," Trump said. "She said that the other night. Did anybody like Lester Holt? Did anybody question her when she said that? No, she said it the other night. [If] you're not a die hard Clinton fan-you're not a supporter-from Day One, Hillary Clinton thinks you are a defective person. That's what she's going around saying."

    In the speech, Trump questioned whether Clinton has the moral authority to lead when she considers the majority of Americans-Trump supporters and Sanders supporters-to be "defective" people. And he went so far as saying that Clinton "should be in prison." He went on:

    How on earth can Hillary Clinton try to lead this country when she has nothing but contempt for the people who live in this country? She's got contempt. First of all, she's got so many scandals and she's been caught cheating so much. One of the worst things I've ever witnessed as a citizen of the United States was last week when the FBI director was trying so hard to explain how she away with what she got away with, because she should be in prison. Let me tell you. She should be in prison. She's being totally protected by the New York Times and the Washington Post and all of the media and CNN-Clinton News Network-which nobody is watching anyway so what difference does it make? Don't even watch it. But she's being protected by many of these groups. It's not like do you think she's guilty? They've actually admitted she's guilty. And then she lies and lies, 33,000 emails deleted, bleached, acid-washed! And then they take their phones and they hammer the hell out of them. How many people have acid washed or bleached a Tweet? How many?

    He returned to the secret Clinton tape a little while later:

    Hillary Clinton slanders and attacks anyone who wants to put America First, whether they are Trump Voters or Bernie Voters. What she said about Bernie voters amazing. Like the European Union, she wants to erase our borders and she wants to do it for her donors and she wants people to pour into country without knowing who they are.

    Trump later bashed the media as "dishonest as hell" when calling on the reporters at his event to "turn your cameras" to show the crowd that came to see him.

    "If they showed the kind of crowds we have-which people can hear, you know it's interesting: you can hear the crowd when you hear the television but if they showed the crowd it would be better television, but they don't know much about that. But it would actually be better television," Trump said.

    Trump also questioned whether Hillary Clinton has been loyal to her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has been known to cheat on Hillary Clinton with a variety of mistresses and has been accused of rape and sexual assault by some women.

    "Hillary Clinton's only loyalty is to her financial contributors and to herself," Trump said. "I don't even think she's loyal to Bill, if you want to know the truth. And really, folks, really: Why should she be, right? Why should she be?"

    Throughout the speech, Trump weaved together references to his new campaign theme about Clinton-"Follow The Money"-with details about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He said:

    We're going to take on the corrupt media, the powerful lobbyists and the special interests that have stolen your jobs, your factories, and your future-that's exactly what's happened. We're going to stop Hillary Clinton from continuing to raid the industry from your state for her profit. Hillary Clinton has collected millions of dollars from the same global corporations shipping your jobs and your dreams to other countries. You know it and everybody else knows it. That's why Clinton, if she ever got the chance, would 100 percent approve Trans Pacific Partnership-a total disastrous trade deal. She called the deal the 'gold standard.' The TPP will bring economic devastation to Pennsylvania and our campaign is the only chance to stop that and other bad things that are happening to our country. She lied about the Gold Standard the other night at the debate. She said she didn't say it-she said it. We want to stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and if we don't-remember this, if we don't stop it, billions and billions [of dollars] in jobs and wealth will be vacuumed right out of Pennsylvania and sent to these other countries. Just like NAFTA was a disaster, this will be a disaster. Frankly I don't think it'll be as bad as NAFTA. It can't get any worse than that-signed by Bill Clinton. All of us here in this massive room here tonight can prevent this from happening. Together we can stop TPP and we can end the theft of American jobs and prosperity.

    Trump praised Sanders for being strongly opposed to the TPP:

    I knew one man-I'm not a big fan-but one man who knew the dangers of the TPP was Bernie Sanders. Crazy Bernie. He was right about one thing, only one thing, and that was trade. He was right about it because he knew we were getting ripped off, but he wouldn't be able to do anything about it . We're going to do a lot about it. We're going to have those highways running the opposite direction. We're going to have a lot of trade, but it's going to come into our country. We are going to start benefitting our country because right now it's one way road to trouble. Our jobs leave us, our money leaves us. With Mexico, we get the drugs-they get the cash-it's that simple.

    Hillary Clinton, Trump noted, is "controlled by global special interests."

    "She's on the opposite side of Bernie on the trade issue," Trump said. "She's totally on the opposite side of Bernie."

    He circled back to trade a bit later in the more-than-hour-long speech, hammering TPP and Clinton cash connections. Trump continued:

    Three TPP member countries gave between $6 and $15 million to Clinton. At least four lobbyists who are actively lobbying for TPP passage have raised more than $800,000 for her campaign. I'm just telling you Pennsylvania, we're going to make it. We're going to make it. We're going to make it if we have Pennsylvania for sure. It'll be easy. But you cannot let this pass. NAFTA passed. It's been the worst trade deal probably ever passed, not in this country but anywhere in the world. It cleaned out New England. It cleaned out big portions of Pennsylvania. It cleaned out big portions of Ohio and North Carolina and South Carolina-you can't let it happen.

    Trump even called the politicians like Clinton "bloodsuckers" who have let America be drained out of millions upon millions of jobs.

    "These bloodsuckers want it to happen," Trump said. "They're politicians that are getting taken care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for them, but it's not good for us. So hopefully you're not going to let it happen. Whatever Hillary's donors want, they get. They own her. On Nov. 8, we're going to end Clinton corruption. Hillary Clinton, dishonest person, is an insider fighting for herself and for her friends. I'm an outsider fighting for you. And by the way, just in case you're not aware, I used to be an insider but I thought this was the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do, believe me."

    [Oct 22, 2016] Why Trade Deals Lost Legitimacy

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Dani Rodrik:

    The Walloon mouse : ...Instead of decrying people's stupidity and ignorance in rejecting trade deals, we should try to understand why such deals lost legitimacy in the first place. I'd put a large part of the blame on mainstream elites and trade technocrats who pooh-poohed ordinary people's concerns with earlier trade agreements.

    The elites minimized distributional concerns, though they turned out to be significant for the most directly affected communities. They oversold aggregate gains from trade deals, though they have been smallish since at least NAFTA. They said sovereignty would not be diminished though it clearly was in some instances. They claimed democratic principles would not be undermined, though they are in places. They said there'd be no social dumping though there clearly is at times. They advertised trade deals (and continue to do so) as "free trade" agreements, even though Adam Smith and David Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read, say, any of the TPP chapters.

    And because they failed to provide those distinctions and caveats now trade gets tarred with all kinds of ills even when it's not deserved. If the demagogues and nativists making nonsensical claims about trade are getting a hearing, it is trade's cheerleaders that deserve some of the blame.

    One more thing. The opposition to trade deals is no longer solely about income losses. The standard remedy of compensation won't be enough -- even if carried out. It's about fairness, loss of control, and elites' loss of credibility. It hurts the cause of trade to pretend otherwise.

    El Chapo Guapo -> DrDick... October 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM , 2016 at 11:22 AM

    ... ... ..
    Trump would propose and/or enact, he listed the following six:

    "A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress."
    "A hiring freeze on all federal employees."
    "A requirement that for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated."
    "A 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government."
    "A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government."
    "A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections."
    "
    ~~WWW~

    Lot of reform is needed but may be

    The forgotten spirit of American protectionism : , -1
    The free traders have human economic history precisely inverted. Countries that practice protectionism almost uniformly become wealthy and technologically advanced. Countries that don't become or remain terribly sad, poverty-stricken producers of worthless raw materials and desperate labor migrants. This has been true at least going back to Byzantium and its economic conquest by Genoa and Venice.

    That the US thrived pre-1970 free trade is no coincidence. There is no alternative to protectionism. Free trade = no industry = no money = no future.

    [Oct 22, 2016] CETA's collapse is equivalent to the Budapest COMECON council session of June 28, 1991

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Zweite Wende October 21, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    CETA's collapse is equivalent to the Budapest COMECON council session of 28/6/91. Corporate central planning has flopped down dead alongside Soviet central planning. The Western Bloc is finally breaking up.

    DJG October 21, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    The ironies of the Belgians. Liberation by Walloons? First, Monty Python and the Belgian-naming contest:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvXoin9NcA

    The Walloons, part of a barely real country. The Walloons, who brought you much of Belgian colonialism, which got a bad name even among colonialists. The Walloons, who oppressed the Flemings. There were cases of Dutch speakers being condemned to death in courts that were in French and refused to provide translation.

    And yet the Walloons, a singularly unsuccessful people, are derailing a bad trade deal.

    Enlightening times. And times in which we cannot assume that we know where our allies will come from.

    DJG October 21, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Liberation weighs in with an interesting analysis: La Vallonie considers CETA to be a Trojan horse bearing the subsidiaries of U.S. companies into Belgium:

    http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2016/10/21/libre-echange-waterloo-pour-le-ceta_1523569

    Although the writer couldn't resist a French swipe at the Belgians for their messy politics.

    [Oct 22, 2016] China is to build a deepwater tanker port in Malaysia off the Malacca Strait, a key gateway for Chinese oil imports

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    L October 21, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Shipping: "China is to build a deepwater tanker port in Malaysia off the Malacca Strait, a key gateway for Chinese oil imports.The $1.9bn port, located on the coast of Malacca City, will be able to accommodate very large crude carriers" [Lloyd's List].

    But, if the point of the TPP is to hem in China by excluding them and bringing Malaysia into our "orbit" then why would they do this?

    Unless, of course they know that any deal will make Malaysia a key gateway to the American market and thus allow them to use it to wash their goods through the TPP for cheap market access in the exact same way that they do it now via Mexico.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Belgium's Wallonia has put a nail on the coffin of the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) by vetoing it

    Oct 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2016/10/the-walloon-mouse.html

    OCTOBER 22, 2016

    The Walloon mouse

    It appears Belgium's Wallonia has put a nail on the coffin of the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) by vetoing it. The reasons, The Economist puts it, "are hard to understand."

    Well, yes and no. Canada is one of the most progressive trade partners you could hope to have, and it is hard to believe that Walloon incomes or values are really being threatened. But clearly something larger than the specifics of this agreement is at stake here.

    Instead of decrying people's stupidity and ignorance in rejecting trade deals, we should try to understand why such deals lost legitimacy in the first place. I'd put a large part of the blame on mainstream elites and trade technocrats who pooh-poohed ordinary people's concerns with earlier trade agreements.

    The elites minimized distributional concerns, though they turned out to be significant for the most directly affected communities. They oversold aggregate gains from trade deals, though they have been smallish since at least NAFTA. They said sovereignty would not be diminished though it clearly was in some instances. They claimed democratic principles would not be undermined, though they are in places. They said there'd be no social dumping though there clearly is at times. They advertised trade deals (and continue to do so) as "free trade" agreements, even though Adam Smith and David Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read, say, any of the TPP chapters.

    And because they failed to provide those distinctions and caveats now trade gets tarred with all kinds of ills even when it's not deserved. If the demagogues and nativists making nonsensical claims about trade are getting a hearing, it is trade's cheerleaders that deserve some of the blame.

    One more thing. The opposition to trade deals is no longer solely about income losses. The standard remedy of compensation won't be enough -- even if carried out. It's about fairness, loss of control, and elites' loss of credibility. It hurts the cause of trade to pretend otherwise.
    Reply Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 09:32 AM Peter K. -> Peter K.... , -1

    http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21709060-tiny-region-belgium-opposes-trade-reasons-are-hard-understand-wallonia

    Wallonia is adamantly blocking the EU's trade deal with Canada

    "HEY Canada, f!@# you." Within hours this tweet (the result of a hack) from the Belgian foreign minister's account was replaced with a friendlier message: "keep calm and love Canada". Yet his country's actions are closer to the original. On October 14th the regional parliament of Wallonia voted to block the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a trade deal between the European Union and Canada.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Nationalists and Populists Poised to Dominate European Balloting

    Oct 21, 2016 | www.bloomberg.com

    As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s Brexit referendum , they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance. "The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar, a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."

    ... ... ....

    The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.

    ... ... ...

    ...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front, for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015 to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.

    [Oct 20, 2016] The hand wringing over Clinton's stance on the TPP was even more evident in another batch of hacked emails posted by WikiLeaks on Wednesday

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TPP: "CLINTON ADVISERS WALK THE KNIFE'S EDGE ON TPP: The hand wringing over Clinton's stance on the TPP was even more evident in another batch of hacked emails posted by WikiLeaks on Wednesday. The exchange from Oct. 6, like other emails allegedly* from the account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, is focused on the Democratic candidate's statement following the conclusion of TPP negotiations last October and how to balance the former secretary of State's previous support for the deal with demands from her base. 'The goal here was to minimize our vulnerability to the authenticity attack and not piss off the WH [White House] any more than necessary," wrote chief speechwriter Dan Schwerin when sending out a draft of the statement" [ Politico ]. The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. * Politico, can we can get an asterisk on that allegedly? Something like "* Bob from Legal made us put this 'allegedly' in, after he got a call from John." What say?

    TPP: "El Salvador Ruling Offers a Reminder of Why the TPP Must Be Defeated" [ The Nation (Re Silc)]. "Last week, the tribunal at the center of the proposed TPP ruled against a global mining firm that sued El Salvador, but only after seven years of deliberations and over $12 million spent by the government of El Salvador. Equally outrageous, legal shenanigans by the Australian-Canadian firm OceanaGold around corporate ownership will likely prevent El Salvador from ever recouping a cent…. [N]o one should be complacent about defeating the TPP. Despite Hillary Clinton's professed opposition to the agreement, she is not picking up the phone to convince members of Congress to vote no."

    TPP: "The Case for the TPP: Responding to the Critics" [ United States Chamber of Commerce ]. These guys are rolling in dough. Is this really the best they can do? Claim: "The TPP Will Undermine Regulations Protecting Health, Safety and the Environment."The COC's answer: "ISDS has been included in approximately 3,000 investment treaties and trade agreements over the past five decades. These neutral arbitrators have no power to overturn laws or regulations; they can only order compensation." In the billions, right? No chilling effect there!

    TISA: "Meanwhile, news out of Europe cast doubt on whether negotiators will actually finish TISA this year because the EU cannot agree on how to handle cross-border data flows. The European Commission's trade and justice departments have been squabbling for months over the issue, which Froman acknowledged is an important outstanding concern. EU trade officials want data flows included in the pact, opening up new markets for Europe's data economy to expand, while data protection officials are more concerned about strong safeguards for privacy" [ Politico ].

    [Oct 19, 2016] Toxic Politics Versus Better Economics by Mohamed A. El-Erian

    This guy is die hard neoliberal. That's why he is fond of Washington consensus. He does not understand that the time is over for Washington consensus in 2008. this is just a delayed reaction :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails. ..."
    "... Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. ..."
    "... They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy. ..."
    "... The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ..."
    "... At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them. ..."
    "... The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down". ..."
    "... In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable. ..."
    "... However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics... ..."
    "... The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean. ..."
    Oct 19, 2016 | www.project-syndicate.org

    In the 1990s and 2000s, for example, the so-called Washington Consensus dominated policymaking in much of the world...

    ... ... ...

    But after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails.

    Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. The United Kingdom proved that in June, with its Brexit vote – a decision that directly defied the broad economic consensus that remaining within the European Union was in Britain's best interest.

    ... ... ...

    ... speeches by Prime Minister Theresa May and members of her cabinet revealed an intention to pursue a "hard Brexit," thereby dismantling trading arrangements that have served the economy well. They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy.

    Several other advanced economies are experiencing analogous political developments. In Germany, a surprisingly strong showing by the far-right Alternative für Deutschland in recent state elections already appears to be affecting the government's behavior.

    In the US, even if Donald Trump's presidential campaign fails to put a Republican back in the White House (as appears increasingly likely, given that, in the latest twist of this highly unusual campaign, many Republican leaders have now renounced their party's nominee), his candidacy will likely leave a lasting impact on American politics. If not managed well, Italy's constitutional referendum in December – a risky bid by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to consolidate support – could backfire, just like Cameron's referendum did, causing political disruption and undermining effective action to address the country's economic challenges.

    ... ... ...

    The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ...

    john zac OCT 17, 2016

    Mr El-Erian, I know you are a good man, but it seems as though everyone believes we can synthetically engineer a way out of this never ending hole that financial engineering dug us into in the first place.

    Instead why don't we let this game collapse, you are a good man and you will play a role in the rebuilding of better system, one that nurtures and guides instead of manipulate and lie.

    The moral suasion you mention can only appear by allowing for the self annihilation of this financial system. This way we can learn from the autopsies and leave speculative theories to third rate economists

    Curtis Carpenter OCT 15, 2016

    It is sadly true that "the relationship between politics and economics is changing," at least in the U.S.. At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them.

    It seems to me that the best we can hope for now is some sort of modest correction in the relationship after 2020 -- and that the TBTF banks won't deliver another economic disaster in the meantime.

    Petey Bee OCT 15, 2016
    1. The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down".

    2. In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable.

    In the concluding paragraph, the author states that the reaction is going to be slow. That's absolutely correct, the evidence has been pushed higher and higher above the icy water line since 2008.

    However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics...

    Paul Daley OCT 15, 2016
    The Washington consensus collapsed during the Great Recession but the latest "consensus" among economists regarding "good economics" deserves respect.
    atul baride OCT 15, 2016
    The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean.

    [Oct 18, 2016] For starters, many Americans are economically worse off* than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the worst off within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express no opinion to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans who vote, automatically a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally. ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : October 17, 2016 at 10:13 AM

    EMichael quotes Steve Randy Waldman and Dylan Matthews in today's links:

    ""Trump voters, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver found, had a median household income of $72,000, a fair bit higher than the $62,000 median household income for non-Hispanic whites in America."

    ...

    ""But it is also obvious that, within the Republican Party, Trump's support comes disproportionately from troubled communities, from places that have been left behind economically, that struggle with unusual rates of opiate addiction, low educational achievement, and other social vices."

    I followed the link and failed to find any numbers on the "troubled communities" thing. It seems strange to me that the two comments above are in conflict with each other."

    It seems like you are missing the point of Waldman's blog post (and Stiglitz and Shiller)

    You didn't quote this part:

    "... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the worst off within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express no opinion to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans who vote, automatically a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally.

    * [ http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/07/among-republican-voters-trump-supporters-have-the-lowest-income/

    "Among Republicans, Trump supporters have slightly lower incomes. But what really differentiates them?"]

    "At the community level**, patterns are clear. (See this*** too.) Of course, it could still all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social and economic dysfunction are likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism."

    [** http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=1

    "The Geography of Trump_vs_deep_state"

    *** http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    "How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind"]

    Of course, it could still all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social and economic dysfunction are likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism. Social affairs are complicated and the real world does not hand us unique well-identified models. We always have to choose our explanations,**** and we should think carefully about how and why we do so. Explanations have consequences, not just for the people we are imposing them upon, but for our polity as a whole. I don't get involved in these arguments to express some high-minded empathy for Trump voters, but because I think that monocausally attributing a broad political movement to racism when it has other plausible antecedents does real harm....

    **** http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6602.html

    [Oct 16, 2016] The shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Trump referred explicitly to "the disenfranchisement of working people" ..."
    "... Trump denounced the "global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities." ..."
    "... He continued: "Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit and Flint, Michigan-and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and across our country. They have stripped these towns bare, and raided the wealth for themselves and taken away their jobs." ..."
    "... He went on to cite internal Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks this week, documenting how, as Trump put it, "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers." ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign, warned of the impending release of masses of politically incriminating documents by WikiLeaks, sought to preempt this exposure by denouncing the leaks as a conspiracy engineered by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... Clinton is appealing for support from sections of the Republican Party, above all the neo-conservatives of the George W. Bush administration, responsible for the war in Iraq, the widespread use of torture and other crimes. ..."
    "... The anti-Russian campaign has been combined with an effort to demonize Trump for a series of purported sexual offenses, with a barrage of video and audio recordings, together with the testimony of alleged victims. ..."
    "... The Democratic campaign and its media allies are using methods similar to those the ultra-right employed in its efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House in the 1990s. They are seeking to stampede public opinion with increasingly sensationalized material. These methods degrade political discussion and distract popular consciousness from the real issues in the election. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | www.wsws.org
    In a speech delivered by Donald Trump to an audience of thousands in West Palm Beach, Florida, the Republican candidate turned his campaign in a more distinctly fascistic direction. Presenting himself as both the savior of America and the victim of a ruthless political and economic establishment, Trump sought to connect deep-seated social anger among masses of people with an "America First" program of anti-immigrant xenophobia, militarism, economic nationalism and authoritarianism.

    Responding to the latest allegations of sexual abuse, Trump proclaimed that he is being targeted by international bankers, the corporate-controlled media and the political establishment who fear that his election will undermine their interests.

    He offered as an alternative his own persona-the strong-man leader who is willing to bear the burden and make the sacrifices necessary for a pitiless struggle against such powerful adversaries. Trump warned that the November 8 election would be the last opportunity for the American people to defeat the powerful vested interests that are supporting Hillary Clinton.

    The clear implication of the speech is that if Trump loses the election, the struggle against the political establishment will have to be carried forward by other means...

    ...

    ...Trump referred explicitly to "the disenfranchisement of working people" -with racist, chauvinist and dictatorial solutions. This includes not only the demand for jailing Hillary Clinton, now a refrain of every speech, but his calls for his supporters to prevent a "rigged" election by blocking access to the polls for voters in "certain communities."

    Trump denounced the "global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities."

    He continued: "Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit and Flint, Michigan-and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and across our country. They have stripped these towns bare, and raided the wealth for themselves and taken away their jobs."

    He went on to cite internal Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks this week, documenting how, as Trump put it, "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers."

    After the top congressional Republican, House Speaker Paul Ryan, publicly broke with Trump Monday, declaring that he would neither campaign for him nor defend him, Trump responded with the declaration, "It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to."

    ... ... ...

    The Clinton campaign, warned of the impending release of masses of politically incriminating documents by WikiLeaks, sought to preempt this exposure by denouncing the leaks as a conspiracy engineered by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

    Clinton is appealing for support from sections of the Republican Party, above all the neo-conservatives of the George W. Bush administration, responsible for the war in Iraq, the widespread use of torture and other crimes.

    The anti-Russian campaign has been combined with an effort to demonize Trump for a series of purported sexual offenses, with a barrage of video and audio recordings, together with the testimony of alleged victims.

    The Democratic campaign and its media allies are using methods similar to those the ultra-right employed in its efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House in the 1990s. They are seeking to stampede public opinion with increasingly sensationalized material. These methods degrade political discussion and distract popular consciousness from the real issues in the election.

    [Oct 14, 2016] The well deserved hatred for Hillary and the globalists is so great, that at least 40% of the males in this country would back anyone who went up against the Clintons.

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    dsty balolalo Oct 14, 2016 11:53 AM Thank You Vladimir Putin

    The Hillary Clinton campaign says the hackers behind the leaked email evidence of their collusion with the major media are from Russia and linked to the Russian regime. If so, I want to publicly thank those Russian hackers and their leader, Russian President Vladimir Putin, for opening a window into the modern workings of the United States government-corporate-media establishment.

    We always knew that the major media were extensions of the Democratic Party. But the email evidence of how figures like Maggie Haberman of The New York Times, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post, and John Harwood of CNBC worked hand-in-glove with the Democrats is important. The Daily Caller and Breitbart have led the way in digging through the emails and exposing the nature of this evidence. It is shocking even to those of us at Accuracy in Media who always knew about, and had documented, such collusion through analysis and observation.

    The Clinton campaign and various intelligence officials insist that the purpose of the Russian hacking is to weaken the confidence of the American people in their system of government, and to suggest that the American system is just as corrupt as the Russian system is alleged to be. Perhaps our confidence in our system should be shaken. The American people can see that our media are not independent of the government or the political system and, in fact, function as an arm of the political party in control of the White House that wants to maintain that control after November 8.

    In conjunction with other evidence, including the ability to conduct vote fraud that benefits the Democrats, the results on Election Day will be in question and will form the basis for Donald J. Trump to continue to claim that the system is "rigged" against outsiders like him.

    The idea of an American system of free and fair elections that includes an honest press has been terribly undermined by the evidence that has come to light. We are not yet to the point of the Russian system, where opposition outlets are run out of business and dissidents killed in the streets. That means that the Russians have not completely succeeded in destroying confidence in our system. But we do know that federal agencies like the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are poised to strike blows against free and independent media. Earlier this year the three Democrats on the FEC voted to punish filmmaker Joel Gilbert for distributing a film critical of President Barack Obama during the 2012 campaign.

    The New York Times is reporting that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta has been contacted by the FBI about the alleged Russian hackers behind the leaks of his emails. This is what Podesta and many in the media want to talk about.

    But the Russians, if they are responsible, have performed a public service. And until there is a thorough house-cleaning of those in the major media who have made a mockery of professional journalism, the American people will continue to lack confidence in their system. The media have been caught in the act of sabotaging the public's right to know by taking sides in the presidential contest. They have become a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, coordinating with the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, which apparently was being run out of Georgetown University, where John Podesta was based. Many emails carry the web address of [email protected] , a reference to the Georgetown University position held by the chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Podesta is a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. His other affiliations include the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and the United Nations High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

    Podesta and the other members of this U.N. panel had proposed " A New Global Partnership for the World ," which advocated for a "profound economic transformation" of the world's economic order that would result in a new globalist system. Shouldn't the American people be informed about what Podesta and his Democratic allies have planned for the United States should they win on November 8?

    That Podesta would serve the purposes of the U.N. is not a surprise. But it is somewhat surprising that he would use his base at Georgetown University to run the Hillary campaign. On the other hand, Georgetown, the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university, describes itself as preparing "the next generation of global citizens to lead and make a difference in the world."

    In a previous column, "The Sad Demise of a Once-Catholic University," we noted that the university launched a " Hillary Rodham Clinton Fellowship Program ," and that Mrs. Clinton is the Honorary Founding Chair of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security . Georgetown is even giving awards named after the former Secretary of State, designated the " Hillary Rodham Clinton Awards for Advancing Women in Peace and Security ."

    When a Catholic university serves as the base for the election of a Democratic Party politician committed to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand and transgender rights, you know America's political system and academia are rotten to the core. The disclosure from WikiLeaks that Podesta used his Georgetown email to engage in party politics only confirms what we already knew.

    If the Russians are ultimately responsible for the release of these emails, some of which show an anti-Catholic animus on the part of Clinton campaign officials, we are grateful to them. The answer has to be to clean out the American political system of those who corrupt it and demonstrate to the world that we can achieve higher standards of integrity and transparency.

    For its part, Georgetown University should be stripped of its Catholic affiliation and designated as an official arm of the Democratic Party.

  • Read more: " Thank You Vladimir Putin http://americasurvival.org/2016/10/thank-you-vladimir-putin.html#ixzz4N4iiqCrc

    Paul Kersey balolalo Oct 14, 2016 12:02 PM The well deserved hatred for Hillary and the globalists is so great, that at least 40% of the males in this country would back anyone who went up against the Clintons. That's just not the same thing as "BUYING TRUMPS BULLSHIT HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER".

    Trump is exposing the corruption and the hypocrisy of the Clintons in a way that no one has ever had the guts to do in the past. He's doing it on national TV with a large national audience. With Trump we may get anarchy, but with the Clintons, Deep State is guaranteed. It is Deep State that is working overtime to finish building the expressway to neofeudalism.

    [Oct 14, 2016] Hillary Clinton asks for landslide victory to rebuke Trumps bigotry and bullying

    Killary only can beg that voters hold their noses and vote for her. Guardian neoliberal presstitutes still don't want to understand that Hillary is more dangerous then trump, Sge with her attempt that she is more militant then male neocons can really provoke a confrontation with Russia or China.
    Notable quotes:
    "... War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me. ..."
    "... Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump. ..."
    "... Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy... ..."
    "... Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?! ..."
    "... We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy. ..."
    "... It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff ..."
    "... The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more. ..."
    "... This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization. ..."
    "... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. ..."
    "... But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Julian Kelley , 14 Oct 2016 02:47

    The vast majority of her support comes from people that will be holding their noses as they vote for her. Seems to me that convincing those same people that you have it in the bag will just cause them to think voting isn't worth their time since they don't want to anyway.

    I know Trump's supporters, the real ones, and the anyone-but-Hillary club will show up as well. Funny if this backfires and he wins.

    I won't be voting for either one and couldn't care less which one wins. War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me.

    Apache287 -> Julian Kelley , 14 Oct 2016 02:57

    War at home versus another foreign war

    Yes because War in the US will be so great.

    ... ... ...

    AQuietNight -> playloro , 14 Oct 2016 02:56
    "Trump has to be the limit, and there has to be a re-alignment"

    Trump has shown one must fight fire with fire. The days of the meek and mild GOP are over. Twice they tried with nice guys and failed. Trump has clearly shown come out with both fists swinging and you attract needed media and you make the conversation about you. Trump's mistake was not seeking that bit of polish that leaves your opponent on the floor.

    Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump.

    taxhaven , 14 Oct 2016 02:50
    Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy...
    tugend49

    For every woman that's been sexually harassed, bullied, raped, assaulted, catcalled, groped, objectified, and treated lesser than, a landslide victory for Clinton would be an especially sweet "Fuck You" to the Trumps of this world.

    DJROM -> tugend49 , 14 Oct 2016 03:17

    Tell that to Juanita Brodrick, Katherine Willie, or Paula Jones
    SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 02:53

    Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?!

    It might be a reaction against Trump, but it's also a depressing example of the power of the establishment, and their desire for control in democracy. Just look at how they squealed at Brexit.

    chuckledog -> SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 03:06
    Rather low opinion of people's ability to decide for themselves.
    AlvaroBo -> chuckledog , 14 Oct 2016 03:13
    That low opinion is justified. See also: Asch experiment.
    Kieran Brown -> SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 03:52
    "squealed at Brexit" hahaha...hasnt happened yet and your currency is in the toilet. the squealing from england gonna be deafening...
    Boojay , 14 Oct 2016 02:54
    It takes a horrible man to make Clinton look good. We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy.
    SeenItAlready , 14 Oct 2016 02:55
    It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff

    There is a report from two years ago, July 2014, before the candidates had even been selected, by the economist Branko Milanovic for Yale 'Global' about the impact of Globalisation on the Lower Middle Classes in the West and how this was basically going to turn into exactly the choice the American electorate is facing now

    http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tale-two-middle-classes

    Why won't the media discuss these issues instead of pushing this pointless circus?

    These are the penultimate paragraphs of the article on the report (there is a similar one for the Harvard Business Review here ):

    The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past three decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition with workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and Africa. The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more.

    This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization.

    If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the immediate pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves and their countries, let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the interests and the political power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a direct conflict with the interests of the worldwide poor.

    These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation.

    But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization.

    Martin51 -> SeenItAlready , 14 Oct 2016 09:19
    Globalisation will continue to happen. It has pulled a large part of the world population out of poverty and grown the global economy.

    Sure on the downside it has also hugely benefitted the 1%, while the western middle classes have done relatively less well and blue collar workers have suffered as they seek to turn to other types (less well paid) of work.

    The issue is the speed of change, how to manage globalisation and spread the wealth more equitably. Maybe it will require slowing but it cannot and should not be stopped.

    ozbornzadick , 14 Oct 2016 02:56
    Ah, the lesser of two evils.

    [Oct 12, 2016] One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. ..."
    "... Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access. ..."
    "... But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century. ..."
    "... To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. ..."
    "... The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out. ..."
    "... Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations. ..."
    "... The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need to combat climate change ..."
    "... "Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing." ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    any U.S. law, policy, or practice that it claims could limit its future profits."

    hemeantwell October 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.

    The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles" that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs - Franco-Prussian war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial expansion. The forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe, even as competition for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what led to WW1.

    Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital.

    Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access.

    But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Of course, duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by marked or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state systems.

    Many contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort zones will not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is too distant and remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency wars that have hegemonic hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global exploit (ruled by market capital fright / fight and flight).

    To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule.

    Recall, however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global levels under East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in reality the current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a stealth colonialism on steroids.

    TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    (TPP In a Nutshell http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp )

    "The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.

    Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations.

    The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need to combat climate change."

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/30/ttp-ttip-map-shows-

    how-trade-deals-would-enable-polluter-power-grab

    TTP & TTIP: Map Shows How Trade Deals Would Enable 'Polluter Power-Grab'
    by Andrea Germanos

    The new, interactive tool 'gives people a chance to see if toxic trade is in their own backyard'

    Dead Squashed Kissinger October 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very different thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's requirement to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey shot that Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA expected. The outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts fires you go to Russia to put them out.

    While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is increasingly vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound paradoxical because of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for your economic and social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by example. They comply with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection under independent international oversight. The USA does not.

    When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how developed countries work.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    "RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
    Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
    An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.

    "…US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.

    In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had "deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
    their relatives.

    The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests" and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups armed, trained or supported by the US.

    "If any of these litigants were to win judgements – based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States," Obama said."
    -----------------------
    To the tune of "Moma said…" by The Shirelles –
    ….Oh don't you know…Obama said they be days like this,
    …..they would be days like this Obama said…

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override any U.S. law, policy, or practice that it claims could limit its future profits."

    (source: http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp )

    "Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."

    [Oct 12, 2016] Advocates of "Brexit" argued that the risk of recession was hogwash, and the early evidence suggests they were right

    Oct 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : October 11, 2016 at 07:13 AM

    Britain's Economy Was Resilient After 'Brexit.' Its Leaders Learned the Wrong Lesson. http://nyti.ms/2dOx0Is via @UpshotNYT
    NYT - Neil Irwin - OCT. 10, 2016

    This article must begin with a mea culpa. When British voters decided in June that they wanted to depart the European Union, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that the British economy would probably slow and that uncertainty put it at risk of recession.

    Advocates of "Brexit" argued that was hogwash, and the early evidence suggests they were right. For example, surveys of purchasing managers showed that both the British manufacturing and service sectors plummeted after the vote in July, yet were comfortably expanding in August and September.

    But the events of the last couple of weeks suggest that British leaders are drawing the wrong conclusions from the fact that their predictions proved right. The British currency is plummeting again, most immediately because of comments from French and German leaders suggesting they will take a tough line in negotiating Brexit. But the underlying reason is that the British government is ignoring the lessons from the relatively benign immediate aftermath of the vote.

    The British pound fell to about $1.24 on Friday from $1.30 a week earlier and continued edging down Monday. Even if you treat a "flash crash" in the pound on Asian markets Thursday night as an aberration - it fell 6 percent, then recovered in a short span - these types of aberrations seem to happen only when a market is already under severe stress. (See, for example, the May 2010 flash crash of American stocks, during a flare-up of the eurozone crisis).

    Sterling, as traders refer to the currency, is acting as the global market's minute-to-minute referendum on how significant the economic disruption from Brexit will end up being. So what does the latest downswing represent? It's worth understanding why British financial markets and the country's economy stabilized quickly after the Brexit vote to begin with.

    The vote set off a chaotic time of political disruption, especially the resignation of the prime minister, David Cameron, who had advocated for the country's remaining part of the E.U. Theresa May won the internal battle to become the next prime minister, which was to markets and business decision makers a relatively benign result.

    Down, Down, Down for the Pound

    The British currency plummeted after the country's vote to leave the European Union, and again this week.

    (graph at the link: £ at ~$1.45 Jan-June 30,
    then down to $1.30-1.35 thru Sep 30,
    then plunging to $1.24.)

    Ms. May, the former home secretary, is temperamentally pragmatic. She reluctantly supported remaining in the union. And while she pledged to follow through on leaving it ("Brexit means Brexit," she said), she seemed like the kind of leader who would ensure that some of the worst-case possibilities of how Brexit might go wouldn't materialize. Exporters would retain access to European markets. London could remain the de facto banking capital of Europe. All would be well.

    Meanwhile, the Bank of England sprang into action to cushion the economic blow of Brexit-related uncertainty. Despite the inflationary pressures created by a falling pound, the bank, projecting loss of jobs and economic output, cut interest rates and started a new program of quantitative easing to try to soften the blow.

    All of that - the prospect of "soft Brexit" and easier monetary policy - helped financial markets stabilize and then rally, and kept the economic damage mild, as the purchasing managers' surveys show.

    But in the last couple of weeks, the tenor has shifted.

    The May government has sent a range of signals indicating it will take a hard line in negotiations with European governments over the terms of Brexit. At a conservative party conference, she pledged to begin the "Article 50" process of formally unwinding Britain's E.U. membership by the end of March, declaring that the government's negotiators would insist that Britain would assert control of immigration and not be subject to decisions of the European Court of Justice.

    That sets up confrontational negotiations between the British government and its E.U. counterparts. European leaders will be reluctant to allow Britain continued free access to its markets, which the May government wants, without similarly free movement of people across borders.

    And beyond the substance of the negotiations, the British government has signaled in recent days that it is looking inward, and will be hostile to those who are not British citizens. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 07:17 AM

    Notes on Brexit and the Pound
    http://nyti.ms/2dUiIYI
    NYT - Paul Krugman - Oct 11

    The much-hyped severe Brexit recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing – which really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, because as I warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think about this?

    Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that recession prediction: domestic investment demand would collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence capital flight. But the demand collapse doesn't seem to be happening. So what is the story?

    For now, at least, I'm coming at it from the trade side – especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that one way to think about this is in terms of the "home market effect," an old story in trade but one that only got formalized in 1980.

    Here's an informal version: imagine a good or service subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient that if it's consumed in two countries, you want to produce it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located? Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.

    In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way this worked out was not that all production left the smaller economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make up for its smaller market.

    In Britain's case, I'd suggest that we think of financial services as the industry in question. Such services are subject to both internal and external economies of scale, which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge financial centers around the world, one of which is, of course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to offset this adverse impact.

    Does this make Britain poorer? Yes. It's not just the efficiency effect of barriers to trade, there's also a terms-of-trade effect as the real exchange rate depreciates.

    But it's important to be aware that not everyone in Britain is equally affected. Pre-Brexit, Britain was obviously experiencing a version of the so-called Dutch disease. In its traditional form, this referred to the way natural resource exports crowd out manufacturing by keeping the currency strong. In the UK case, the City's financial exports play the same role. So their weakening helps British manufacturing – and, maybe, the incomes of people who live far from the City and still depend directly or indirectly on manufacturing for their incomes. It's not completely incidental that these were the parts of England (not Scotland!) that voted for Brexit.

    Is there a policy moral here? Basically it is that a weaker pound shouldn't be viewed as an additional cost from Brexit, it's just part of the adjustment. And it would be a big mistake to prop up the pound: old notions of an equilibrium exchange rate no longer apply.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 08:47 AM
    'A softer currency turneth away recession'?

    [Oct 11, 2016] Advocates of "Brexit" argued that the risk of recession was hogwash, and the early evidence suggests they were right

    Oct 11, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : October 11, 2016 at 07:13 AM

    Britain's Economy Was Resilient After 'Brexit.'
    Its Leaders Learned the Wrong Lesson.
    http://nyti.ms/2dOx0Is via @UpshotNYT
    NYT - Neil Irwin - OCT. 10, 2016

    This article must begin with a mea culpa. When British voters decided in June that they wanted to depart the European Union, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that the British economy would probably slow and that uncertainty put it at risk of recession.

    Advocates of "Brexit" argued that was hogwash, and the early evidence suggests they were right. For example, surveys of purchasing managers showed that both the British manufacturing and service sectors plummeted after the vote in July, yet were comfortably expanding in August and September.

    But the events of the last couple of weeks suggest that British leaders are drawing the wrong conclusions from the fact that their predictions proved right. The British currency is plummeting again, most immediately because of comments from French and German leaders suggesting they will take a tough line in negotiating Brexit. But the underlying reason is that the British government is ignoring the lessons from the relatively benign immediate aftermath of the vote.

    The British pound fell to about $1.24 on Friday from $1.30 a week earlier and continued edging down Monday. Even if you treat a "flash crash" in the pound on Asian markets Thursday night as an aberration - it fell 6 percent, then recovered in a short span - these types of aberrations seem to happen only when a market is already under severe stress. (See, for example, the May 2010 flash crash of American stocks, during a flare-up of the eurozone crisis).

    Sterling, as traders refer to the currency, is acting as the global market's minute-to-minute referendum on how significant the economic disruption from Brexit will end up being. So what does the latest downswing represent? It's worth understanding why British financial markets and the country's economy stabilized quickly after the Brexit vote to begin with.

    The vote set off a chaotic time of political disruption, especially the resignation of the prime minister, David Cameron, who had advocated for the country's remaining part of the E.U. Theresa May won the internal battle to become the next prime minister, which was to markets and business decision makers a relatively benign result.

    Down, Down, Down for the Pound

    The British currency plummeted after the country's vote to leave the European Union, and again this week.

    (graph at the link: £ at ~$1.45 Jan-June 30,
    then down to $1.30-1.35 thru Sep 30,
    then plunging to $1.24.)

    Ms. May, the former home secretary, is temperamentally pragmatic. She reluctantly supported remaining in the union. And while she pledged to follow through on leaving it ("Brexit means Brexit," she said), she seemed like the kind of leader who would ensure that some of the worst-case possibilities of how Brexit might go wouldn't materialize. Exporters would retain access to European markets. London could remain the de facto banking capital of Europe. All would be well.

    Meanwhile, the Bank of England sprang into action to cushion the economic blow of Brexit-related uncertainty. Despite the inflationary pressures created by a falling pound, the bank, projecting loss of jobs and economic output, cut interest rates and started a new program of quantitative easing to try to soften the blow.

    All of that - the prospect of "soft Brexit" and easier monetary policy - helped financial markets stabilize and then rally, and kept the economic damage mild, as the purchasing managers' surveys show.

    But in the last couple of weeks, the tenor has shifted.

    The May government has sent a range of signals indicating it will take a hard line in negotiations with European governments over the terms of Brexit. At a conservative party conference, she pledged to begin the "Article 50" process of formally unwinding Britain's E.U. membership by the end of March, declaring that the government's negotiators would insist that Britain would assert control of immigration and not be subject to decisions of the European Court of Justice.

    That sets up confrontational negotiations between the British government and its E.U. counterparts. European leaders will be reluctant to allow Britain continued free access to its markets, which the May government wants, without similarly free movement of people across borders.

    And beyond the substance of the negotiations, the British government has signaled in recent days that it is looking inward, and will be hostile to those who are not British citizens. ...
    Reply Tuesday, Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 07:17 AM

    Notes on Brexit and the Pound
    http://nyti.ms/2dUiIYI
    NYT - Paul Krugman - Oct 11

    The much-hyped severe Brexit recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing – which really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, because as I warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think about this?

    Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that recession prediction: domestic investment demand would collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence capital flight. But the demand collapse doesn't seem to be happening. So what is the story?

    For now, at least, I'm coming at it from the trade side – especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that one way to think about this is in terms of the "home market effect," an old story in trade but one that only got formalized in 1980.

    Here's an informal version: imagine a good or service subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient that if it's consumed in two countries, you want to produce it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located? Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.

    In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way this worked out was not that all production left the smaller economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make up for its smaller market.

    In Britain's case, I'd suggest that we think of financial services as the industry in question. Such services are subject to both internal and external economies of scale, which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge financial centers around the world, one of which is, of course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to offset this adverse impact.

    Does this make Britain poorer? Yes. It's not just the efficiency effect of barriers to trade, there's also a terms-of-trade effect as the real exchange rate depreciates.

    But it's important to be aware that not everyone in Britain is equally affected. Pre-Brexit, Britain was obviously experiencing a version of the so-called Dutch disease. In its traditional form, this referred to the way natural resource exports crowd out manufacturing by keeping the currency strong. In the UK case, the City's financial exports play the same role. So their weakening helps British manufacturing – and, maybe, the incomes of people who live far from the City and still depend directly or indirectly on manufacturing for their incomes. It's not completely incidental that these were the parts of England (not Scotland!) that voted for Brexit.

    Is there a policy moral here? Basically it is that a weaker pound shouldn't be viewed as an additional cost from Brexit, it's just part of the adjustment. And it would be a big mistake to prop up the pound: old notions of an equilibrium exchange rate no longer apply.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 08:47 AM
    'A softer currency
    turneth away recession'?

    [Oct 11, 2016] On the ongoing demise of globalisation

    Notable quotes:
    "... But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances could result in a very different type of correction (something which may or may not be happening now). ..."
    "... The immediate consequence may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant industrial on-shoring. ..."
    "... I'm not convinced the end of globalization and the retrenchment of banking industry are the same thing. There are some things that can't be exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point where it didn't make sense to order moules marinieres from Brussels!? ..."
    "... You forget the third leg - reducing the price of labour for services via immigration of labour from poorer countries. On top of the supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades union membership and activity is one indicator. It's a win-win for capital. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | ftalphaville.ft.com
    10 comments
    According to strategists Bhanu Baweja, Manik Narain and Maximillian Lin the elasticity of trade to GDP - a measure of wealth creating globalisation - rose to as high as 2.2. in the so-called third wave of globalisation which began in the 1980s. This compared to an average of 1.5 since the 1950s. In the post-crisis era, however, the elasticity of trade has fallen to 1.1, not far from the weak average of the 1970s and early 1980s but well below the second and third waves of globalisation.

    ... ... ...

    The anti-globalist position has always been simple. Global trade isn't a net positive for anyone if the terms of trade relationships aren't reciprocal or if the trade exists solely for the purpose of taking advantage of undervalued local resources like labour or commodities whilst channeling rents/profits to a single central beneficiary. That, they have always argued, makes it more akin to an imperialistic relationship than a reciprocal one.

    If the latest wave of "globalisation" is mostly an expression of American imperialism, then it does seem logical it too will fade as countries wake-up to the one-sided nature of the current global value chains in place.

    Back in the first wave of globalisation, of course, much of the trade growth was driven by colonial empires taking advantage of cheap commodity resources abroad in a bid to add value to them domestically. When these supply chains unravelled, that left Europe short of commodities but long industrial capacity - a destabilising imbalance which coincided with two world wars.

    Simplistically speaking, resource rich countries at this point were faced with only two options: industrialising on their own autonomous terms or be subjugated by even more oppressive imperialist forces, which had even grander superiority agendas than their old colonial foes. That left those empires boasting domestic industrial capacity but lacking natural resources of their own, with the option of fighting to defend the rights of their former colonies in the hope that the promise of independence and friendly future knowledge exchanges (alongside military protection) would be enough to secure resource access from then on. But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances could result in a very different type of correction (something which may or may not be happening now).

    The immediate consequence may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant industrial on-shoring.

    But while reversing the off-shoring trend may boost productivity in nations like the US or even in Europe, it's also likely to reduce demand for mobile international capital as a whole. As UBS notes, global cross border capital flows are already decelerating significantly as a share of GDP post-crisis, and the peak-to-trough swing in capital inflows to GDP over the past ten years has been much more dramatic in developed markets than in emerging ones:

    Related likes:
    How do you solve a problem like de-globalisation? – FT Alphaville
    As goes correspondent banking, so goes globalisation – FT Alphaville
    There is a war for capital coming, says UBS – FT Alphaville
    Prepare for the Post Pax-Americana era, says Citi – FT Alphaville

    Refractious

    To note, in China trade as a % of GDP fell from 65% in 2006 to 42% in 2014. The relationship between trade and GDP is in reality more variable than is usually claimed.

    Knockmacool

    I'm not convinced the end of globalization and the retrenchment of banking industry are the same thing. There are some things that can't be exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point where it didn't make sense to order moules marinieres from Brussels!?

    labantall

    "if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home"

    You forget the third leg - reducing the price of labour for services via immigration of labour from poorer countries. On top of the supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades union membership and activity is one indicator. It's a win-win for capital.

    Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured
    11 hours ago

    The simple problem with globalization is that it was based off economic views which looked at things in aggregate - but people are individuals, not aggregates. "On average, GDP per person has gone up" doesn't do anything for the person whose income has gone down. "Just think about all the people in China who are so much better off than they used to be" isn't going to do much for an American or European whose standard of living has slipped from middle class to working class to government assistance.

    "Redistribution" is routinely advertised as the solution to all of this. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how to redistribute wealth from the areas that have prospered the most (Asia, particularly China) to the individuals (primarily in the West) who have lost the most. In the absence of any viable redistribution scheme, though, I suspect the most likely outcome will be a pulling back on globalization.

    Meh... 5pts Featured
    11 hours ago

    @ Terra_Desolata The aggregates also do apply to countries - i.e. the US on aggregate has benefited from globalisation, but median wages have been stagnant in real terms, meaning that the benefits of globalisation have not been well distributed across the country (indeed, companies like Apple have benefited hugely from reducing the costs of production, while you could make the case that much of the benefits of lower production costs have been absorbed into profit margins).

    That suggests that redistribution can occur at the country level, rather than requiring a cross-border dimension.

    Terra_Desolata 5pts Featured
    8 hours ago
    @ Meh... @ Terra_Desolata Yes, there has been uneven distribution of income within countries as well as between them - but as the Panama Papers revealed, in a world of free movement of capital, incomes can also move freely between borders. (See: Apple.) While the U.S. has lower tolerance than Europe and Asia for such games, any attempts at redistribution would necessarily include an effort to keep incomes from slipping across national borders, which would have the same effect: a net reduction in globalization.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Trump angst looms over economic elite at IMF meetings

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. ..."
    "... There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth, stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely. ..."
    "... Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation". ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.ft.com
    The world's economic elite spent this week invoking fears of protectionism and the existential crisis facing globalisation

    .... ... ...

    Mr Trump has raised the possibility of trying to renegotiate the terms of the US sovereign debt much as he did repeatedly with his own business debts as a property developer. He also has proposed imposing punitive tariffs on imports from China and Mexico and ripping up existing US trade pacts.

    ... ... ...

    "Once a tariff has been imposed on a country's exports, it is in that country's best interest to retaliate, and when it does, both countries end up worse off," IMF economists wrote.

    It is not just angst over Mr Trump. There are similar concerns over Brexit and the rise of populist parties elsewhere in Europe. All present their own threats to the advance of the US-led path of economic liberalisation pursued since Keynes and his peers gathered at Bretton Woods in 1944.

    "In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth, stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely.

    Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation".

    ... ... ...

    [Oct 09, 2016] The Week Globalists Started to Panic

    Notable quotes:
    "... Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a tighter call than markets are pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment strategies. ..."
    "... From the economists and politicians at the annual IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems to be pondering a future in which cooperation and global trade may look much different than they do now. ..."
    "... "The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially if global coordination evaporates." ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.bloomberg.com
    Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a tighter call than markets are pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment strategies.

    From the economists and politicians at the annual IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems to be pondering a future in which cooperation and global trade may look much different than they do now.

    Brexit

    Suggestions that the U.K. will prioritize control over its migration policy at the expense of open access to Europe's single market in negotiations to leave the European Union-a strategy that's being dubbed a "hard Brexit"-loomed large over global markets. The U.K. government is "strongly supportive of open markets, free markets, open economies, free trade," said Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York on Thursday. "But we have a problem-and it's not just a British problem, it's a developed-world problem-in keeping our populations engaged and supportive of our market capitalism, our economic model."

    Trade

    Citing the rising anti-trade sentiment, analysts from Bank of America Merrill Lynch warned that "events show nations are becoming less willing to cooperate, more willing to contest," and a backlash against inequality is likely to trigger more activist fiscal policies. Looser government spending in developed countries-combined with trade protectionism and wealth redistribution-could reshape global investment strategies, unleashing a wave of inflation, the bank argued, amid a looming war against inequality.

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew did his part to push for more openness. During an interview in Washington on Thursday, he said that efforts to boost trade, combined with a more equitable distribution of the fruits of economic growth, are key to ensuring U.S. prosperity. Rolling back on globalization would be counterproductive to any attempt to boost median incomes, he added.

    Trump

    Without mentioning him by name, Lew's comments appeared to nod to Donald Trump, who some believe could take the U.S. down a more isolationist trading path should he be elected president in November. "The emergence of Donald Trump as a political force reflects a mood of growing discontent about immigration, globalization and the distribution of wealth," write analysts at Fathom Consulting, a London-based research firm. Their central scenario is that a Trump administration might be benign for the U.S. economy. "However, in our downside scenario, Donald Dark, global trade falls sharply and a global recession looms. In this world, isolationism wins, not just in the U.S., but globally," they caution.

    Analysts at Standard Chartered Plc agree that the tail risks of a Trump presidency could be significant. "The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially if global coordination evaporates." They add that business confidence could take a big hit in this context. "The global trade system could descend into a spiral of trade tariffs, reminiscent of what happened after the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 , and ultimately a trade war, possibly accompanied by foreign-exchange devaluations; this would be a 'lose-lose' deal for all."

    Market participants are also concerned that populism could take root under a Hillary Clinton administration. "We believe the liberal base's demands on a Clinton Administration could lead to an overly expansive federal government with aggressive regulators," write analysts at Barclays Plc. "If the GOP does not unify, Clinton may expand President Obama's use of executive authority to accomplish her goals."

    [Oct 09, 2016] The top trade negotiators involved in the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) will meet in Washington later this month to review their latest market access offers and prepare the groundwork for a final deal in December

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    TPP/TTIP/TISA

    "The top trade negotiators involved in the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) will meet in Washington later this month to review their latest market access offers and prepare the groundwork for a final deal in December" [ Bloomberg ]. "The high-level meeting follows a successful September negotiating round and recent signals from Washington that a TiSA deal could be forged before the end of the year." Yikes! Dark horse coming up on the outside!

    "TTIP AG TALKS SET TO DRIFT: The U.S. summarily rejected a European Union request for three days of agriculture talks at this week's Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership round, further indicating that political uncertainty has limited what either side is able to discuss in the negotiations, sources close to the talks say" [ Politico ].

    "'I think we can get there,' Lew said, referring to a vote on the Asia-Pacific pact. He argued that voting for TPP should be easier than voting for last year's Trade Promotion Authority bill because it has tangible benefits that will grow the economy. He said current voter angst is not due to TPP itself but rather to other domestic needs that the government has not adequately addressed" [ Politico ]. "'If we were investing more in infrastructure, which I believe we should, if we were investing more smartly in education and training and in child care, I'm not so sure we'd be in the same place,' Lew said." I think "hysteresis" is the word for the fact that you can't reverse a 40-year screw job handwaving about a policy pivot. And whenever you hear a liberal use the word "smart," get your back against the nearest wall.

    "The American Brexit Is Coming" [James Stavridis, Foreign Policy ]. "The case for the TPP is economically strong, but the geopolitical logic is even more compelling. The deal is one that China will have great difficulty accepting, as it would put Beijing outside a virtuous circle of allies, partners, and friends on both sides of the Pacific. Frankly, that is a good place to keep China from the perspective of the United States…. Over 2,500 years ago, during the Zhou dynasty, the philosopher-warrior Sun Tzu wrote the compelling study of conflict The Art of War. There is much wisdom in that slim volume, including this quote: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." The United States can avoid conflict best in East Asia by using a robust combination of national tools - with the TPP at the top of the list. Looking across the Atlantic to the Brexit debacle, we must avoid repeating the mistake in the Pacific." And we get?

    "12 U.S. Senators Outline TPP's Fundamental Flaws, Tell President Obama it Shouldn't Be Considered Until Renegotiated" (PDF) [ Public Citizen ]. Brown, Sanders, Blumenthal, Merkley, Franken, Markey, Schatz, Casey, Warren, Whitehouse, Hirono, and Baldwin call for renegotiation. "It is simply not accurate to call an agreement progressive if it does not require trading partners to ban trade in goods made with forced labor or includes a special court for corporations to challenge legitimate, democratically developed public policies."

    "The way ahead" [Barack Obama, The Economist ]. "Lifting productivity and wages also depends on creating a global race to the top in rules for trade. While some communities have suffered from foreign competition, trade has helped our economy much more than it has hurt. Exports helped lead us out of the recession. American firms that export pay their workers up to 18% more on average than companies that do not, according to a report by my Council of Economic Advisers. So, I will keep pushing for Congress to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to conclude a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU. These agreements, and stepped-up trade enforcement, will level the playing field for workers and businesses alike." I should really get out my Magic Marker's for this one.

    Steve C October 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    "Global race to the top" is vintage Obama propaganda. A "smart" sounding phrase meant to obscure the impact of TPP on the non-elite. The adoring comments make it all the worse. He sure knows the lingo to appeal to educated professionals.

    This is a lot of patented, soaring Obama verbiage that boils down to surrendering to global corporations and the big banks.

    Pat October 7, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    Yeah, no one is thinking through the analogy to note that there are very few races where everyone wins. In point of fact, except for those where finishing is considered an accomplishment like marathons, there is only one winner and what's left are also ran and losers. So why are we involved in a situation where most are going to lose?

    [Oct 07, 2016] I suppose immigration is particularly sensitive because the newcomers will likely settle and become British citizens, thus giving them the vote and a say in how the country is run

    Notable quotes:
    "... Any argument that democracy can't work because of mass ignorance also has to answer the question: what evidence is there that people are worse informed/more actively mislead than in the twentieth century? Yellow journalism, for example, is nothing new historically. ..."
    "... The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things. ..."
    "... How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it. ..."
    "... So much for Democracy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html ..."
    "... I think direct democracy is untenable. It would bring forth every economically bankrupt and socially disastrous policy under the sun. Don't be under any illusions about that. ..."
    Oct 07, 2016 | stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com

    Richard | October 06, 2016 at 04:07 PM

    I suppose immigration is particularly sensitive because the newcomers will likely settle and become British citizens, thus giving them the vote and a say in how the country is run. If the newcomers fail to assimilate then they may vote in ways that the "native" population object to and bring about changes that would not otherwise have occurred.

    Imagine for example a referendum on the monarchy that is won by republicans based on the votes from first generation immigrants who, understandably, are less likely to have attachment to the institution. I suppose another way to put it is: do the original inhabitants of a territory have a right to prevent social/cultural/political/economic change brought about by newcomers?

    AndrewD | October 06, 2016 at 06:29 PM
    @Richard

    Which "original inhabitants" do you mean? The welsh, Anglo-saxons, Norman French, Romans...

    Dipper | October 06, 2016 at 07:07 PM
    @AndrewD what is your point? That there are no such people as British people? That those who live here have no more rights than those who don't?

    Brexit in a nutshell: decades of treating the population of the UK as if they are nobodies: ask them "are you happy to continue being treated as if you are worthless nobodies?" Answer "no".

    AndrewD | October 06, 2016 at 08:02 PM
    My point is that the concept of "original inhabitents" for any part of the world (save possibly a small part of East Africa) is meaningless in historical terms. Historically, immigrants came with "fire and slaughter". Justify your statement about the rights of those here over other immigrants to come in any way other than a claim we were here first.
    Ahmed | October 06, 2016 at 08:11 PM
    The problem with an epistocracy is that it doesn't solve the problem of people voting their self-interest instead of what is good for a nation.

    Intelligence is a good first step but you need more than that.

    magistra | October 06, 2016 at 09:12 PM
    The difference between Daniel Kahnemann and Jason Brennan is that Kahnemann talks about the biases we all (including him) have and Brennan talks about the biases that "they" have. Which is why I take Kahnemann seriously and not Brennan. What's more, Dan Kahan's work on motivated reasoning suggests that it affects Type 2 (slow) thinking as well and that the bias is greatest among the most educated. In other words, we're all prone to cognitive biases and there's no justification from that to restrict the franchise.

    Any argument that democracy can't work because of mass ignorance also has to answer the question: what evidence is there that people are worse informed/more actively mislead than in the twentieth century? Yellow journalism, for example, is nothing new historically.

    Jim | October 06, 2016 at 09:28 PM
    The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things.

    How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it.

    Dipper | October 06, 2016 at 10:11 PM
    AndrewD - "Justify your statement about the rights of those here over other immigrants to come in any way other than a claim we were here first."

    well that's just about the whole of human history. If everyone has rights to be everywhere then no-one gets to influence what happens in "their" area. I like my neighbours but they live in their house and I live in mine.

    More specifically and recently, the switch of who "we" are from the UK to Europe has created a bonanza for some people and left others on the scrap heap.

    gastro george | October 06, 2016 at 11:04 PM
    "If everyone has rights to be everywhere then no-one gets to influence what happens in "their" area."

    You might want to think about how this scales, or are you about to erect some barricades?

    Dipper | October 06, 2016 at 11:13 PM
    gastro george - it scales into countries with borders and has done for centuries. Not sure what your point is.
    gastro george | October 06, 2016 at 11:16 PM
    For example, you're relying on the idea of an in group and an out group. What about the Scots, who are pro-immigration ATM? Are they part of your in group or not? What about people in your street that like immigration? Where are your borders? Then think about Europe where, to put it mildly, there has been a recent history of "fluid" boundaries.
    aragon | October 06, 2016 at 11:59 PM
    So much for Democracy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

    Not to mention the European elite. Tribalism is natural: http://www.theglobalist.com/tribalism-groupism-globalism/

    Most people don't share your views on immigration.

    In fact the public have experienced free movement/immigration from Europe, the result Brexit.

    Of course you don't have limited rationality, knowledge and attention.

    You support free markets but not the wisdom of crowds?

    Tonybirte | October 07, 2016 at 07:11 AM
    @aragon Ah good, I wondered how long it would be before the Appeal to Nature fallacy reared its head. Social Darwinism anybody?
    How do you reconcile the fact that the areas of the UK that saw the most EU immigration were the areas that were the most tolerant of it, and vice versa?
    Lastly your wisdom of crowds reference is a bit silly. What we saw in the referendum was crowd psychology rather than diverse collections of independently deciding individuals, because the media drip fed them their views over 20 years or more.Crowds can be made to behave stupidly too.
    Dipper | October 07, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    @ gastro-george

    "What about the Scots, who are pro-immigration ATM? Are they part of your in group or not?" this is a critical question that recent referenda have thrown up, even more so than left/right and class. The scots are part of my group but I suspect increasingly I am not part of theirs.

    "What about people in your street that like immigration?" well once out of the EU we can all vote for parties that reflect our views on immigration. While in the EU over 450 million people have the right of residence and our various opinions matter not a jot.

    Dipper | October 07, 2016 at 08:36 AM
    @ Tonybirte. so people who disagree with you have been drop fed views over 20 years and are too stupid to see the truth.

    Are you sure its not you who has been drip-fed views over the past 20 years? Are you absolutely sure you are not the one behaving stupidly? Have you done your due diligence?

    a random eman | October 07, 2016 at 09:08 AM
    Gastro George, the Scots are not pro-immigration. Opinion polling suggests they are less opposed to it than the UK as a whole, but still opposed overall.

    I think direct democracy is untenable. It would bring forth every economically bankrupt and socially disastrous policy under the sun. Don't be under any illusions about that.

    [Oct 06, 2016] TPP/TTIP/TISATPP/TTIP/TISA discussion at Water Cooler 10-5-2016

    Oct 06, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    "Morning Trade was let down - along with many on Twitter - that there was no mention of the TPP [in the Vice-Presidential Debate], a deal that both vice presidential candidates initially supported until they signed on as running-mates and flip-flopped" [ Politico ]. Especially given that in Trump's strong first half-hour, he hammered Clinton with it.

    "In conference at Yale Law School, DeLauro pushes to stop controversial Trans Pacific Partnership" [ New Haven Register ]. Detailed report of speech. ".S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, said the administration will be "relentless" in its pursuit of a positive vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership in the lame duck Congress, something she and a coalition in Congress are hoping to stop…. '(T)he agreement is undemocratic in its drafting, undemocratic in its contents and it cannot be passed during an unaccountable lame duck period,' she told Yale Law students and staff in attendance."

    "Obama Hails Enforcement on Trade Deals to Win Support for T.P.P." [ New York Times ]. "Such actions against other countries' subsidies, dumping and market barriers, however, do not address two big concerns of trade skeptics: currency manipulation and workers' rights."

    "The French decision follows Uruguay and Paraguay leaving the controversial US backed TISA negotiations last year and the recent humiliating back down of the EU on Investor State Dispute Resolution. With Germany and France so critical and Great Britain on the way out of the EU, it is hard to see how the European Commission can continue the negotiations" [ Public Services International ].

    [Oct 06, 2016] It was just too easy to pander to the predatory class with investor friendly trade agreements and trickle down monetary policy.

    Oct 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... October 06, 2016 at 07:58 AM , October 06, 2016 at 07:58 AM

    Yes, inclusive growth is a huge problem, largely ignored until now. It was just too easy to pander to the predatory class with investor friendly trade agreements and trickle down monetary policy.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/white-working-class-men-increasingly-falling-behind-as-college-becomes-the-norm/2016/10/05/95610130-8a51-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html

    Now the predatory class claims to be aghast at what its policies have enabled--Trump. But are Trumps policies really the problem...or is the problem that doesn't use the reassuring, coded language that the predatory class has carefully crafted to cover its exploitation?

    [Oct 05, 2016] The computers and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China

    Notable quotes:
    "... Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next 40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype, the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet. ..."
    "... ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once. ..."
    "... When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including the author. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    flora October 4, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    " Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next 40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype, the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet."

    ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once.

    sgt_doom October 4, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    Great comments, and please allow me to piggyback off them:

    When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including the author.

    When so many have contributed so much, only to see their jobs and livelihoods offshored again and again and again, that great jump the others have will then zero out OUR innovation!

    [Oct 01, 2016] Oddly, after outsourcing jobs CEO pay never decreases.

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    jellybelly21 5h ago 3 4 Why are Trump supporters under the illusion that DT can bring jobs back? Carrier will move production abroad because 'Most of its Indianapolis workers make about $26 an hour. Their Mexican replacements make $3 an hour'. DT products are manufactured overseas for the same reason: low production costs = higher profits. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Facebook Twitter | Pick Report WillKnotTell jellybelly21 3h ago 2 3 Oddly, CEO pay never decreases.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Doing what contemporary American economists suggest: eliminate tariffs, dont worry about huge capital inflows or a ridiculously overvalued dollar, has led the US from being the envy of the world to being a non-developed economy with worse roads than Cuba or Ghana.

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Friederich List : September 30, 2016 at 05:29 PM

    Doing what contemporary American economists suggest: eliminate tariffs, don't worry about huge capital inflows or a ridiculously overvalued dollar, has led the US from being the envy of the world to being a non-developed economy with worse roads than Cuba or Ghana.

    That US economists are still treated with any degree of credibility it totally appalling. They are so obviously bought-and-paid for snake oil salesmen that people are finally tuning them out.

    TRUMP 2016: Return America to Protectionism - Screw globalism

    [Oct 01, 2016] Get real! No alumni of the Peterson Institute and IMF is going to go all mushy on the down sides of globalization and wealth distribution.

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : September 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM RE: The State of Advanced Economies and Related Policy Debates: A Fall 2016 Assessment

    https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/state-advanced-economies-and-related-policy-debates-fall-2016-assessment

    [There is a pdf at the link. Olivier Blanchard has surprised me again. As establishment economists go he is not so bad. There is plenty that he still glosses over but insofar as status quo establishment macroeconomics goes he is thorough and coherent. One might hope that those that do not understand either the debate for higher inflation targets or the debate for fiscal policy to accomplish what monetary policy cannot might learn from this article by Olivier Blanchard, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that. In any case the article is worth a read for anyone that can.] RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM

    Get real! No alumni of the Peterson Institute and IMF is going to go all mushy on the down sides of globalization and wealth distribution.
    anne -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:13 AM
    https://piie.com/system/files/documents/pb16-14.pdf

    September, 2016

    The State of Advanced Economies and Related Policy Debates: A Fall 2016 Assessment
    By Olivier Blanchard

    Perhaps the most striking macroeconomic fact about advanced economies today is how anemic demand remains in the face of zero interest rates.

    In the wake of the global financial crisis, we had a plausible explanation why demand was persistently weak: Legacies of the crisis, from deleveraging by banks, to fiscal austerity by governments, to lasting anxiety by consumers and firms, could all explain why, despite low rates, demand remained depressed.

    This explanation is steadily becoming less convincing. Banks have largely deleveraged, credit supply has loosened, fiscal consolidation has been largely put on hold, and the financial crisis is farther in the rearview mirror. Demand should have steadily strengthened. Yet, demand growth has remained low.

    Why? The likely answer is that, as the legacies of the past have faded, the future has looked steadily bleaker. Forecasts of potential growth have been repeatedly revised down. And consumers and firms-anticipating a gloomier future-are cutting back spending, leading to unusually low demand growth today....

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> anne... , -1
    THANKS!

    [Sep 30, 2016] Myth that neoliberal globalization reduces poverty

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward." ..."
    "... If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period. ..."
    "... It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.) ..."
    "... the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." ..."
    "... In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world. ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : September 30, 2016 at 04:55 AM

    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    President Obama Inadvertently Gives High Praise to China in UN Speech
    By Mark Weisbrot

    President Obama's speech at the UN last week was mostly a defense of the world's economic and political status quo, especially that part of it that is led or held in place by the US government and the global institutions that Washington controls or dominates. In doing so, he said some things that were exaggerated or wrong, or somewhat misleading. It is worth looking at some of the things that media reports on this speech missed.

    "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward."

    China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the economy. State control over investment, technology transfer, and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to international trade and investment, and rapid privatization of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition, over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role. Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy.

    If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period.

    It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.)

    Of course, the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." Some of them are the exact opposite of "open markets," such as the lengthening and strengthening of patent and copyright protection included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. President Obama also made a plug for the TPP in his speech, asserting that "we've worked to reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits [of globalization] are more broadly shared." But the labor and environmental standards in the TPP, as with those in previous US-led commercial agreements, are not enforceable; whereas if a government approves laws or regulations that infringe on the future profit potential of a multinational corporation - even if such laws or regulations are to protect public health or safety - that government can be hit with billions of dollars in fines. And they must pay these fines, or be subject to trade sanctions.

    In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world.

    "We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration," President Obama told the world at the UN General Assembly. "Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."

    But the rich country governments led by Washington are not offering the rest of the world any better model of cooperation and integration than the failed model they have been offering for the past 35 years. And that is a big part of the problem....

    RGC -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:57 AM

    Excellent commentary by Mark Weisbrot.
    anne -> RGC... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:09 AM
    Excellent commentary by Mark Weisbrot.

    [ Really so. ]

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 09:23 AM
    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the economy. State control over investment, technology transfer, and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to international trade and investment, and rapid privatization of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition, over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role. Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy....

    -- Mark Weisbrot

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:04 AM
    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/president-obama-inadvertently-gives-high-praise-to-china-in-un-speech

    September 29, 2016

    Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016 (as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the economy....

    -- Mark Weisbrot


    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/14/yale-professors-offer-economic-prescriptions/

    October 14, 2011

    Yale Professors Offer Economic Prescriptions
    By Brenda Cronin - Wall Street Journal

    Richard C. Levin, president of Yale - and also a professor of economics - moderated the conversation among Professors Judith Chevalier, John Geanakoplos, William D. Nordhaus, Robert J. Shiller and Aleh Tsyvinski....

    An early mistake during the recession, Mr. Levin said, was not targeting more stimulus funds to job creation. He contrasted America's meager pace of growth in gross domestic product in the past few years with China's often double-digit pace, noting that after the crisis hit, Washington allocated roughly 2% of GDP to job creation while Beijing directed 15% of GDP to that goal....

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:13 AM
    Repeatedly there are warnings from Western economists that the Chinese economy is near collapse, nonetheless economic growth through the first 2 quarters this year is running at 6.7% and the third quarter looks about the same. The point is to ask and describe how after these last 39 remarkable years:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKv

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, 1976-2015

    (Percent change)

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKu

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, 1976-2015

    (Indexed to 1976)

    anne -> anne... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:16 AM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKF

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, 1976-2014

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7uKE

    November 1, 2014

    Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, 1976-2014

    (Indexed to 1976)

    jonny bakho : , -1
    Before the crash, complacent Democrats, ... tended to agree with them that the economy was largely self-correcting.

    Who is a complacent Democrat? Obama ran as a fiscal conservative and appointed a GOP as his SecTreas. Geithner was a "banks need to be bailed out" and the economy self corrects. Geithner was not in favor of cram down or mortgage programs that would have bailed out the injured little folks.

    Democrats like Romer and Summers were in favor a fiscal stimulus, but not enough of it. I expect to see the Clinton economic team include a lot more women and especially focus on economic policies that help working women and families.

    I have always thought that a big reason for the Bush jobless recovery was his lack of true fiscal stimulus. Bush had tax cuts for the wealthy, but the latest from Summers shows why trickle down does not work.

    Full employment may have been missing from the 1992 platform, but full employment was pursued aggressively by Bill Clinton. He got AG to agree to allow unemployment to drop to 4% in exchange for raising taxes and dropping the middle class tax cuts. Bill Clinton used fiscal policy to tax the economy and as a break so monetary policy could be accommodating.

    He should include raising the MinWage. Maybe that has not changed but it is a lynchpin for putting money in the pockets of the working poor.

    [Sep 30, 2016] Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market? ..."
    "... The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade. ..."
    "... First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F. ..."
    "... The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.) ..."
    Sep 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... September 30, 2016 at 05:30 PM

    Dean Baker:

    Why are none of the "free trade" members of Congress pushing to change the regulations that require doctors go through a U.S. residency program to be able to practice medicine in the United States? Obviously they are all protectionist Neanderthals.

    Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market?

    The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade.

    First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F.

    If we had a more competent team in place, that didn't botch the workings of the international financial system, then we would have expected the dollar to drop as more imports entered the U.S. market. This would have moved the U.S. trade deficit toward balance and prevented the massive loss of manufacturing jobs we saw in the last decade.

    The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.)

    Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing workers to international competition, but not doctors and lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development. There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and economists.

    Addendum:

    Since some folks asked about the botched bailout from the East Asian financial crisis, the point is actually quite simple. Prior to 1997 developing countries were largely following the textbook model, borrowing capital from the West to finance development. This meant running large trade deficits. This reversed following the crisis as the conventional view in the developing world was that you needed massive amounts of reserves to avoid being in the situation of the East Asian countries and being forced to beg for help from the I.M.F. This led to the situation where developing countries, especially those in the region, began running very large trade surpluses, exporting capital to the United States. (I am quite sure China noticed how its fellow East Asian countries were being treated in 1997.)

    [Sep 28, 2016] Battling Apple and the Giants naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun. ..."
    "... Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions ..."
    "... Those who support globalisation support this power disparity. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The case of Apple's Irish operations is an extreme example of such tax avoidance accounting. It relates to two Apple subsidiaries Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Apple Inc US has given the rights to Apple Sales International (ASI) to use its "intellectual property" to sell and manufacture its products outside of North and South America, in return for which Apple Inc of the US receives payments of more than $2 billion per year. The consequence of this arrangement is that any Apple product sold outside the Americas is implicitly first bought by ASI, Ireland from different manufacturers across the globe and sold along with the intellectual property to buyers everywhere except the Americas. So all such sales are by ASI and all profits from those sales are recorded in Ireland. Stage one is complete: incomes earned from sales in different jurisdictions outside the Americas (including India) accrue in Ireland, where tax laws are investor-friendly. What is important here that this was not a straight forward case of exercising the "transfer pricing" weapon. The profits recorded in Ireland were large because the payment made to Apple Inc in the US for the right to use intellectual property was a fraction of the net earnings of ASI.

    Does this imply that Apple would pay taxes on these profits in Ireland, however high or low the rate may be? The Commission found it did not. In two rather curious rulings first made in 1991 and then reiterated in 2007 the Irish tax authority allowed ASI to split it profits into two parts: one accruing to the Irish branch of Apple and another to its "head office". That "head office" existed purely on paper, with no formal location, actual offices, employees or activities. Interestingly, this made-of-nothing head office got a lion's share of the profits that accrued to ASI, with only a small fraction going to the Irish branch office. According to Verstager's Statement: "In 2011, Apple Sales International made profits of 16 billion euros. Less than 50 million euros were allocated to the Irish branch. All the rest was allocated to the 'head office', where they remained untaxed." As a result, across time, Apple paid very little by way of taxes to the Irish government. The effective tax rate on its aggregate profits was short of 1 per cent. The Commissioner saw this as illegal under the European Commission's "state aid rules", and as amounting to aid that harms competition, since it diverts investment away from other members who are unwilling to offer such special deals to companies.

    In the books, however, taxes due on the "head office" profits of Apple are reportedly treated as including a component of deferred taxes. The claim is that these profits will finally have to be repatriated to the US parent, where they would be taxed as per US tax law. But it is well known that US transnationals hold large volumes of surplus funds abroad to avoid US taxation and the evidence is they take very little of it back to the home country. In fact, using the plea that it has "permanent establishment" in Ireland and, therefore, is liable to be taxed there, and benefiting from the special deal the Irish government has offered it, Apple has accumulated large surpluses. A study by two non-profit groups published in 2015 has argued that Apple is holding as much as $181 billion of accumulated profits outside the US, a record among US companies. Moreover, The Washington Post reports that Apple's Chief Executive Tim Cook told its columnist Jena McGregor, "that the company won't bring its international cash stockpile back to the United States to invest here until there's a 'fair rate' for corporate taxation in America."

    This has created a peculiar situation where the US is expressing concern about the EC decision not because it disputes the conclusion about tax avoidance, but because it sees the tax revenues as due to it rather than to Ireland or any other EU country. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew criticised the ruling saying, "I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States." In Europe on the other hand, the French Finance Minister and the German Economy Minister, among others, have come out in support of Verstager, recognizing the implication this has for their own tax revenues. Governments other than in Ireland are not with Apple, even if not always for reasons advanced by the EC.

    ... ... ...

    Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions. The costs of garnering that difference are, therefore, often missed. Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun.

    JEHR September 28, 2016 at 10:42 am

    Greed has no boundaries!

    Ranger Rick September 28, 2016 at 10:43 am

    I think the common misconception that multinational corporations exist because "they are big companies that happen to operate in more than one country" is one of the biggest lies ever told.

    From the beginning (e.g. Standard Oil, United Fruit) it was clear that multinational status was an exercise in political arbitrage.

    tegnost September 28, 2016 at 11:23 am

    " Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions "

    Those who support globalisation support this power disparity.

    [Sep 28, 2016] TPP implies the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections. which are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses might be huge.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment. ..."
    "... It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game. ..."
    "... The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA. ..."
    "... It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne said... \ September 28, 2016 at 04:55 AM

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/nyt-editorial-in-news-section-for-tpp-short-on-substance

    September 28, 2016

    NYT Editorial In News Section for TPP Short on Substance

    When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the New York Times throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro-trade deal agenda. Therefore it is not surprising to see a story * in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement for these trade deals.

    The headline tells readers that Donald Trump's comments on trade in the Monday night debate lacked accuracy. The second paragraph adds:

    "His aggressiveness may have been offset somewhat by demerits on substance."

    These comments could well describe this NYT piece.

    For example, it ostensibly indicts Trump with the comment:

    "His [Trump's] first words of the night were the claim that "our jobs are fleeing the country," though nearly 15 million new jobs have been created since the economic recovery began."

    It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment.

    The NYT piece continues:

    "[Trump] singled out Ford for sending thousands of jobs to Mexico to build small cars and worsening manufacturing job losses in Michigan and Ohio, but the company's chief executive has said 'zero' American workers would be cut. Those states each gained more than 75,000 jobs in just the last year."

    It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game.

    The next sentence adds:

    "Mr. Trump said China was devaluing its currency for unfair price advantages, yet it ended that practice several years ago and is now propping up the value of its currency."

    While China has recently been trying to keep up the value of its currency by selling reserves, it still holds more than $4 trillion in foreign reserves, counting its sovereign wealth fund. This is more than four times the holdings that would typically be expected of a country its side. These holdings have the effect of keeping down the value of China's currency.

    If this seems difficult to understand, the Federal Reserve now holds more than $3 trillion in assets as a result of its quantitative easing programs of the last seven years. It raised its short-term interest rate by a quarter point last December, nonetheless almost all economists would agree the net effect of the Fed's actions is the keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise be. The same is true of China and its foreign reserve position.

    The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA.

    In later discussing the TPP the piece tells readers:

    "Economists generally have said the Pacific nations agreement would increase incomes, exports and growth in the United States, but not significantly."

    It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-tpp-nafta.html

    ** http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906

    *** http://economics.mit.edu/files/6613

    -- Dean Baker

    [Sep 28, 2016] Mook Spooked Clinton Campaign Manager, Other Top Dems Dodge Questions on Whether Hillary Wants Obama to Withdraw T

    www.breitbart.com
    Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook and other top Democrats refused to answer whether Clinton wants President Barack Obama to withdraw the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from consideration before Congress during interviews with Breitbart News in the spin room after the first presidential debate here at Hofstra University on Monday night.

    The fact that Mook, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Donna Brazile each refused to answer the simple question that would prove Clinton is actually opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership now after praising it 40 times and calling it the "gold standard" is somewhat shocking.

    After initially ignoring the question entirely four separate times, Mook finally replied to Breitbart News. But when he did respond, he didn't answer the question:

    BREITBART NEWS: "Robby, does Secretary Clinton believe that the president should withdraw the TPP?"

    ROBBY MOOK: "Secretary Clinton, as she said in the debate, evaluated the final TPP language and came to the conclusion that she cannot support it."

    BREITBART NEWS: "Does she think the president should withdraw it?"

    ROBBY MOOK: "She has said the president should not support it."

    Obama is attempting to ram TPP through Congress as his last act as president during a lame duck session of Congress. Clinton previously supported the TPP, and called it the "Gold Standard" of trade deals. That's something Brazile, the new chairwoman of the DNC who took over after Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was forced to resign after email leaks showed she and her staff at the DNC undermined the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and in an untoward way forced the nomination into Clinton's hands, openly confirmed in her own interview with Breitbart News in the spin room post debate. Brazile similarly refused to answer if Clinton should call on Obama to withdraw the TPP from consideration before Congress.

    [Sep 27, 2016] TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century

    Sep 27, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    wumogang

    22h ago 12 13

    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naïve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 24, 2016] Income Inequality in a Globalising World

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
    "... See original post for references ..."
    "... John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it. ..."
    "... Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process. ..."
    "... The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple. ..."
    "... The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet. ..."
    "... Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy? ..."
    Sep 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ...if you look at absolute inequality, as opposed to relative inequality, inequality has increased around the world. This calls into question one of the big arguments made in favor of globalization: that the cost to workers in advanced economies are offset by gains to workers in developing economies, and is thus virtuous by lowering inequality more broadly measured.

    By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU

    Since the turn of the century, inequality in the distribution of income, together with concerns over the pace and nature of globalisation, have risen to be among the most prominent policy issues of our time. These concerns took centre stage at the recent annual G20 summit in China. From President Obama to President Xi, there was broad agreement that the global economy needs more inclusive and sustainable growth, where the economic pie increases in size and is at the same time divided more fairly. As President Obama emphasised, "[t]he international order is under strain." The consensus is well founded, following as it does the recent Brexit vote, and the rise of populism (especially on the right) in the US and Europe, with its hard stance against free trade agreements, capital flows and migration.

    ... ... ...

    The inclusivity aspect of growth is now more imperative than ever. Globalisation has not been a zero sum game. Overall perhaps more have benefitted, especially in fast-growing economies in the developing world. However, many others, for example among the working middle class in industrialised nations, have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years. It is unsurprising that this has bred considerable discontent, and it is an urgent priority that concrete steps are taken to reduce the underlying sources of this discontent. Those who feel they have not benefitted, and those who have even lost from globalisation, have legitimate reasons for their discontent. Appropriate action will require not only the provision of social protection to the poorest and most vulnerable. It is essential that the very nature of the ongoing processes of globalisation, growth, and economic transformation are scrutinised, and that broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.

    See original post for references

    tony , September 23, 2016 at 7:20 am

    http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2013/11/china-world-poverty.html

    John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it.

    cnchal , September 23, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.

    Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process.

    The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple.

    The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet.

    Sustainable economic growth is an oxymoron.

    Sally Snyder , September 23, 2016 at 7:35 am

    Here is an article that looks at the relationship between wealth and ethnicity/race in the United States:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-growing-ethnicracial-wealth-gap.html

    The notable presence of public policies that exacerbate racial and economic inequality and the lack of will by Washington to change the system mean that the ethnic/racial wealth gap is becoming more firmly entrenched in society.

    tegnost , September 23, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Good article but standard policy prescription…

    "broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come."

    …I guess if the skills were sustainable low chemical and diverse farming in 5 acre lots or in co-ops then I might have less complaint, however the skills people apparently are going to need are supervising robots and going to non jobs in autonomous vehicles and being fed on chemical mush shaped like things we used to eat, a grim dystopia.

    Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of reading the hard copy nyt wherein kristof opined that hey it's not so bad, extreme poverty has eased (the same as in this article, but without this article's Vietnamese example where 1 v. 8 becomes 8 v. 80),ignoring the relative difference while on another lackluster page there was an article saying immigrants don't take jobs from citizens which had to be one of the most thinly veiled press releases of some study made by some important sounding acronym and and, of course a supposed "balance" between pro and anti immigration academics. because in this case, they claim we're relatively better off.

    So there you have it, it's all relative. Bi color bird cage liner, dedicated to the ever shrinking population of affluent/wealthy who are relatively better off as opposed to the ever increasing population of people who are actually worse off…There was also an article on the desert dwelling uighur and their system of canals bringing glacier water to farm their arid land which showed some people who were fine for thousands of years, but now thanks to fracking, industrial pollution and less community involvement (kids used to clean the karatz, keeping it healthy) now these people can be uplifted into the modern world(…so great…) that was reminiscent of the nyt of olde which presented the conundrum but left out the policy prescription which now always seems to be "the richer I get the less extreme poverty there is in the world so stop your whining and borrow a few hundred thousand to buy a PhD "

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/world/asia/china-xinjiang-turpan-water.html

    timotheus , September 23, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy?

    sgt_doom , September 23, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Great comments, timotheus , great comments!

    Three reading recommendations for anyone who doesn't grasp your sentiment, shared by millions: Sold Out , by Michelle Malkin Outsourcing America , by Ron Hira America: Who Stole the Dream? , by Donald L. Barlett Reply

    [Sep 21, 2016] When Capitalism Becomes an Act of War Alternet

    Notable quotes:
    "... traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape. ..."
    "... It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. ..."
    Mar 04, 2015 | AlterNet

    Inside the trauma of globalization.

    Novelist Rana Dasgupta recently turned to nonfiction to explore the explosive social and economic changes in Delhi starting in 1991, when India launched a series of transformative economic reforms. In Capital: The Eruption of Delhi, he describes a city where the epic hopes of globalization have dimmed in the face of a sterner, more elitist world. In Part 1 of an interview with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Dasgupta traces a turbulent time in which traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape.

    Lynn Parramore: Why did you decide to move from New York to Delhi in 2000, and then to write a book about the city?

    Rana Dasgupta: I moved to be with my partner who lived in Delhi, and soon realized it was a great place to have landed. I was trying write a novel and there were a lot of people doing creative things. There was a fascinating intellectual climate, all linked to changes in society and the economy. It was 10 years since liberalization and a lot of the impact of that was just being felt and widely sensed.

    There was a sense of opportunity, not any more just on the part of business people, but everyone. People felt that things were really going to change in a deep way - in every part of the political spectrum and every class of society. Products and technology spread, affecting even very poor people. Coke made ads about the rickshaw drivers with their mobile phones -people who had never had access to a landline. A lot of people sensed a new possibility for their own lives.

    Amongst the artists and intellectuals that I found myself with, there were very big hopes for what kind of society Delhi could become and they were very interested in being part of creating that. They were setting up institutions, publications, publishing houses, and businesses. They were thinking new ideas. When I arrived, I felt, this is where stuff is happening. The scale of conversations, the philosophy of change was just amazing.

    LP: You've interviewed many of the young tycoons who emerged during Delhi's transformation. How would you describe this new figure? How do they do business?

    RD: Many of their fathers and grandfathers had run significant provincial businesses. They were frugal in their habits and didn't like to advertise themselves, and anyway their wealth remained local both in its magnitude and its reach. They had business and political associates that they drank with and whose weddings they went to, and so it was a tight-knit kind of wealth.

    But the sons, who would probably be now between 35 and 45, had an entirely different experience. Their adult life happened after globalization. Because their fathers often didn't have the skills or qualifications to tap into the forces of globalization, the sons were sent abroad, probably to do an MBA, so they could walk into a meeting with a management consultancy firm or a bank and give a presentation. When they came back they operated not from the local hubs where their fathers ruled but from Delhi, where they could plug into federal politics and global capital.

    So you have these very powerful combinations of father/son businesses. The sons revere the fathers, these muscular, huge masculine figures who have often done much more risky and difficult work building their businesses and have cultivated relationships across the political spectrum. They are very savvy, charismatic people. They know who to give gifts to, how to do favors.

    The sons often don't have that set of skills, but they have corporate skills. They can talk finance in a kind of international language. Neither skill set is enough on its own by early 2000's: they need each other. And what's interesting about this package is that it's very powerful elsewhere, too. It's kind of a world-beating combination. The son fits into an American style world of business and finance, but the thing about American-style business is that there are lots of things in the world that are closed to it. It's very difficult for an American real estate company or food company to go to the president of an African country and do a deal. They don't have the skills for it. But even if they did, they are legally prevented from all the kinds of practices involved, the bribes and everything.

    This Indian business combination can go into places like Africa and Central Asia and do all the things required. If they need to go to market and raise money, they can do that. But if they need to sit around and drink with some government guys and figure out who are the players that need to be kept happy, they can do that, too. They see a lot of the world open to themselves.

    LP: How do these figures compare to American tycoons during, say, the Gilded Age?

    RD: When American observers see these people they think, well, we had these guys between 1890 and 1920, but then they all kind of went under because there was a massive escalation of state power and state wealth and basically the state declared a kind of protracted war on them.

    Americans think this is a stage of development that will pass. But I think it's not going to pass in our case. The Indian state is never going to have the same power over private interests as the U.S. state because lots of things have to happen. The Depression and the Second World War were very important in creating a U.S. state that was that powerful and a rationale for defeating these private interests. I think those private interests saw much more benefit in consenting to, collaborating in, and producing a stronger U.S. state.

    Over time, American business allied itself with the government, which did a lot to open up other markets for it. In India, I think these private interests will not for many years see a benefit in operating differently, precisely because continents like Africa, with their particular set of attributes, have such a bright future. It's not just about what India's like, but what other places are like, and how there aren't that many people in the world that can do what they can do.

    LP: What has been lost and gained in a place like Delhi under global capitalism?

    RD: Undeniably there has been immense material gain in the city since 1991, including the very poorest people, who are richer and have more access to information. What my book tracks is a kind of spiritual and moral crisis that affects rich and poor alike.

    One kind of malaise is political and economic. Even though the poorest are richer, they have less political influence. In a socialist system, everything is done in the name of the poor, for good or for bad, and the poor occupy center stage in political discourse. But since 1991 the poor have become much less prominent in political and economic ideology. As the proportion of wealth held by the richest few families of India has grown massively larger, the situation is very much like the break-up of the Soviet Union, which leads to a much more hierarchical economy where people closest to power have the best information, contacts, and access to capital. They can just expand massively.

    Suddenly there's a state infrastructure that's been built for 70 years or 60 years which is transferred to the private domain and that is hugely valuable. People gain access to telecommunication systems, mines, land, and forests for almost nothing. So ordinary people say, yes, we are richer, and we have all these products and things, but those making the decisions about our society are not elected and hugely wealthy.

    Imagine the upper-middle-class guy who has been to Harvard, works for a management consultancy firm or for an ad agency, and enjoys a kind of international-style middle-class life. He thinks he deserves to make decisions about how the country is run and how resources are used. He feels himself to be a significant figure in his society. Then he realizes that he's not. There's another, infinitely wealthier class of people who are involved in all kinds of backroom deals that dramatically alter the landscape of his life. New private highways and new private townships are being built all around him. They're sucking the water out of the ground. There's a very rapid and seemingly reckless transformation of the landscape that's being wrought and he has no part in it.

    If he did have a say, he might ask, is this really the way that we want this landscape to look? Isn't there enormous ecological damage? Have we not just kicked 10,000 farmers off their land?

    All these conversations that democracies have are not being had. People think, this exactly what the socialists told us that capitalism was - it's pillage and it creates a very wealthy elite exploiting the poor majority. To some extent, I think that explains a lot of why capitalism is so turbulent in places like India and China. No one ever expected capitalism to be tranquil. They had been told for the better part of a century that capitalism was the imperialist curse. So when it comes, and it's very violent, and everyone thinks, well that's what we expected. One of the reasons that it still has a lot of ideological consensus is that people are prepared for that. They go into it as an act of war, not as an act of peace, and all they know is that the rewards for the people at the top are very high, so you'd better be on the top.

    The other kind of malaise is one of culture. Basically, America and Britain invented capitalism and they also invented the philosophical and cultural furniture to make it acceptable. Places where capitalism is going in anew do not have 200 years of cultural readiness. It's just a huge shock. Of course, Indians are prepared for some aspects of it because many of them are trading communities and they understand money and deals. But a lot of those trading communities are actually incredibly conservative about culture - about what kind of lifestyle their daughters will have, what kinds of careers their sons will have. They don't think that their son goes to Brown to become a professor of literature, but to come back and run the family business.

    LP: What is changing between men and women?

    RD: A lot of the fallout is about families. Will women work? If so, will they still cook and be the kind of wife they're supposed to be? Will they be out on the street with their boyfriends dressed in Western clothes and going to movies and clearly advertising the fact that they are economically independent, sexually independent, socially independent? How will we deal with the backlash of violent crimes that have everything to do with all these changes?

    This capitalist system has produced a new figure, which is the economically successful and independent middle-class woman. She's extremely globalized in the sense of what she should be able to do in her life. It's also created a set of lower-middle-class men who had a much greater sense of stability both in their gender and professional situation 30 years ago, when they could rely on a family member or fellow caste member to keep them employed even if they didn't have any marketable attributes. They had a wife who made sure that the culture of the family was intact - religion, cuisine, that kind of stuff.

    Thirty years later, those guys are not going to get jobs because that whole caste value thing has no place in the very fast-moving market economy. Without a high school diploma, they just have nothing to offer. Those guys in the streets are thinking, I don't have a claim on the economy, or on women anymore because I can't earn anything. Women across the middle classes - and it's not just across India, it's across Asia -are trying to opt out of marriage for as long as they can because they see only a downside. Remaining single allows all kinds of benefits – social, romantic, professional. So those guys are pretty bitter and there's a backlash that can become quite violent. We also have an upswing of Hindu fundamentalism as a way of trying to preserve things. It's very appealing to people who think society is falling apart.

    LP: You've described India's experience of global capitalism as traumatic. How is the trauma distinct in Delhi, and in what ways is it universal?

    RD: Delhi suffers specifically from the trauma of Partition, which has created a distinct society. When India became independent, it was divided into India and Pakistan. Pakistan was essentially a Muslim state, and Hindis and Sikhs left. The border was about 400 kilometers from Delhi, which was a tiny, empty city, a British administrative town. Most of those Hindis and Sikhs settled in Delhi where they were allocated housing as refugees. Muslims went in the other direction to Pakistan, and as we know, something between 1 and 2 million were killed in that event.

    The people who arrived in Delhi arrived traumatized, having lost their businesses, properties, friends, and communities, and having seen their family members murdered, raped and abducted. Like the Jewish Holocaust, everyone can tell the stories and everyone has experienced loss. When they all arrive in Delhi, they have a fairly homogeneous reaction: they're never going to let this happen to them again. They become fiercely concerned with security, physical and financial. They're not interested in having nice neighbors and the lighter things of life. They say, it was our neighbors that killed us, so we're going to trust only our blood and run businesses with our brother and our sons. We're going to build high walls around our houses.

    When the grandchildren of these people grow up, it's a problem because none of this has been exorcised. The families have not talked about it. The state has not dealt with it and wants to remember only that India became independent and that was a glorious moment. So the catastrophe actually becomes focused within families rather than the reverse. A lot of grandchildren are more fearful and hateful of Muslims than the grandparents, who remembered a time before when they actually had very deep friendships with Muslims.

    Parents of my generation grew up with immense silence in their households and they knew that in that silence was Islam - a terrifying thing. When you're one year old, you don't even know yet what Islam is, you just know that it's something which is the greatest horror in the universe.

    The Punjabi businessman is a very distinct species. They have treated business as warfare, and they are still doing it like that 70 years later and they are very good at it. They enter the global economy at a time when it's becoming much less civilized as well. In many cases they succeed not because they have a good idea, but because they know how to seize global assets and resources. Punjabi businessmen are not inventing Facebook. They are about mines and oil and water and food -things that everyone understands and needs.

    In this moment of globalization, the world will have to realize that events like the Partition of India are not local history anymore but global history. Especially in this moment when the West no longer controls the whole system, these traumas explode onto the world and affect all of us, like the Holocaust. They introduce levels of turbulence into businesses and practices that we didn't expect necessarily.

    Then there's the trauma of capitalism itself, and here I think it's important for us to re-remember the West's own history. Capitalism achieved a level of consensus in the second half of the 20th century very accidentally, and by a number of enormous forces, not all of which were intended. There's no guarantee that such consensus will be achieved everywhere in the emerging world. India and China don't have an empire to ship people off to as a safety valve when suffering become immense. They just have to absorb all that stuff.

    For a century or so, people in power in Paris and London and Washington felt that they had to save the capitalist system from socialist revolution, so they gave enormous concessions to their populations. Very quickly, people in the West forgot that there was that level of dissent. They thought that everyone loved capitalism. I think as we come into the next period where the kind of consensus has already been dealt a huge blow in the West, we're going to have to deal with some of those forces again.

    LP: When you say that the consensus on capitalism has been dealt a blow, are you talking about the financial crisis?

    RD: Yes, the sense that the nation-state - I'm talking about the U.S. context - can no longer control global capital, global processes, or, indeed, it's own financial elite.

    It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. Then, if you have 30-40 percent unemployment in America, which has always been the ideological leader in capitalism, America will start to re-theorize capitalism very profoundly (and maybe the Institute of New Economic Thinking is part of that). Meanwhile, I think the middle class in India would not have these kinds of problems. It's precisely because American technology and finance are so advanced that they're going to hit a lot of those problems. I think in places like India there's so much work to be done that no one needs to leap to the next stage of making the middle class obsolete. They're still useful.

    Lynn Parramore is contributing editor at AlterNet. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of "Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture." She received her Ph.D. in English and cultural theory from NYU. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.

    [Sep 19, 2016] Trump Harbinger Of A New Age by Rod Dreher

    This set of principles in the core of "Trump_vs_deep_state" probably can be improved, but still are interesting: "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
    Notable quotes:
    "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
    "... These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. ..."
    "... if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all ..."
    "... What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism. ..."
    "... Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good. ..."
    "... The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton. ..."
    "... Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff." ..."
    "... They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them. ..."
    "... The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter. ..."
    "... Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening. ..."
    "... Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Writing in Politico , Georgetown political scientist Joshua Mitchell has a long, important take on the deep meaning of Trump - and it's probably not what you think.

    ... ... ...

    More:

    If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated.

    These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989.

    That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens, working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been.

    Mitchell goes on to say that political elites call Trump "unprincipled," and perhaps they're right: that he only does what's good for Trump. On the other hand, maybe Trump's principles are not ideological, but pragmatic. That is, Trump might be a quintessential American political type: the leader who gets into a situation and figures out how to muddle through. Or, as Mitchell puts it:

    This doesn't necessarily mean that he is unprincipled; it means rather that he doesn't believe that yet another policy paper based on conservative "principles" is going to save either America or the Republican Party.

    Also, Mitchell says that there are no doubt voters in the Trump coalition who are nothing but angry, provincial bigots. But if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all the Trump voters are, they will miss something profoundly important about how Western politics are changing because of deep instincts emerging from within the body politic:

    What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism.

    They think that identity politics has gone too far, or that if it hasn't yet gone too far, there is no principled place where it must stop. They believe that the state can't be our only large-scale political unit, but they see that on the post-1989 model, there will, finally, be no place for the state.

    Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good.

    There's lots more here, including his prediction of what's going to happen to the GOP.
    Read the whole thing.

    Michael Guarino , September 18, 2016 at 10:41 am

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff."

    Which not only makes it seem more likely that we were targeting Assad's forces to anyone reasonably distrustful of American involvement in the war, but also shows the moral reasoning ability of nothing greater than a 6 year old.

    Seriously, accusing Russia of moralism, and then moralistically trying to hide responsibility by listing atrocities committed by Assad? It is self-parody.

    Red brick, September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric:

    1. borders matter;
    2. immigration policy matters;
    3. national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
    4. entrepreneurship matters;
    5. decentralization matters;
    6. PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.

    james, September 16, 2016 at 6:51 pm
    I cannot speak to what is best for conservative Christians, but change is definitely in the air. Since the start of this election, I have had a clear sense that we are seeing a beginning of a new political reality.

    The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter.

    Too many voters have finally come to recognize that neither party serves them in any real way. This will forcibly result in a serious reform process of one or both parties, a third party that actually represents working people, or if neither reform or a new party is viable-–a new American revolution, which I fear greatly.

    Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening.

    T.S.Gay, September 16, 2016 at 6:57 pm
    Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism

    I'm certainly not the first to say this, but perhaps the first to post it on this blog. RD, perhaps rightfully, has steered this post toward the Benedict Option, but what should be debated is the repudiation of globalization and identity politics.

    Clint, September 16, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Hillary Clinton,

    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    [Sep 18, 2016] We Have to Deal With Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
    "... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
    "... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
    "... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
    "... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
    "... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    "... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
    "... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
    "... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
    "... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
    "... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
    "... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
    "... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    ...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites, Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.

    What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir Putin is raised?

    Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood. He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?

    Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran, and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.

    Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.

    When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo, and dismiss Havana's protests?

    Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?

    ... ... ...

    Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?

    ... ... ...

    Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it.

    Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

    Tiktaalik , says: September 16, 2016 at 2:41 am

  • >>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea
  • buttressed could be even more pertinent)
  • Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets.
  • bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.

    Skeptic , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:18 am

    "Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just" believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.

    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    blimbax , says: September 16, 2016 at 11:29 am

    John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"

    Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh, and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.

    Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused.

    There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    "During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter, does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op of all time.

    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    "From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"

    "Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

    WakeUp , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy". This is how they determine an "enemy".

    As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.

    If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family.

    Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.

    What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Brexit In America: Clinton vs. Trump

    You need to substitute PIC (a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)) for neoliberal elite for the article to make more sense.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders... ..."
    "... The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market. ..."
    strata-sphere.com

    This election cycle is so amazing one cannot help but think it has been scripted by some invisible, all-powerful, hand. I mean, how could we have two completely opposite candidates, perfectly reflecting the forces at play in this day and age? It truly is a clash between The Elites and The Masses!

    Main Street vs Wall & K Street.

    The Political Industrial Complex (PIC – a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class) is all up arms over the outsider barging in on their big con. The PIC is beside itself trying to stop Donald Trump from gaining the Presidency, where he will be able to clean out the People's House and the bureaucratic cesspool that has shackled Main Street with political correctness, propaganda, impossibly expensive health care, ridiculous taxes and a national debt that will take generations to pay off.

    The PIC has run amok long enough – illustrated perfectly by the defect ridden democrat candidate: Hillary Clinton. I mean, how could you frame America's choices this cycle any better than this --

    Back in July, Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "there is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation."

    On Monday of this week, ABC's Liz Kreutzer reminded people of that statement, as a new batch of emails reveal that there was a connection, and it was cash .

    The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton's tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin's June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of " Clinton family matters ."

    This is what has Main Street so fed up with Wall & K street (big business, big government). The Clinton foundation is a cash cow for Clinton, Inc. So while our taxes go up, our debt sky rockets and our health care becomes too expensive to afford, Clan Clinton has made 100's of millions of dollars selling access (and obviously doing favors, because no one spends that kind of money without results).

    The PIC is circling the wagons with its news media arm shrilly screaming anything and everything about Trump as if they could fool Main Street with their worn out propaganda. I seriously doubt it will work. The Internet has broken the information monopoly that allowed the PIC in the not too distant past to control what people knew and thought.

    Now we have cracks in the PIC's media spin, through which we can see the ugly truth about our modern democracy :

    Massachusetts has a long history of using the power of incumbency to cripple political opponents. In fact, it's a leading state for such partisan gamesmanship. Dating back to 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into law a redistricting plan for state Senate districts that favored his Democratic-Republican Party, the era of Massachusetts rule rigging began. It has continued, unabated, ever since.

    Given the insider dealing and venality that epitomized the 2016 presidential primary process, I'd hoped that politicians would think twice before abusing the power of the state for political purposes. Galvin quickly diminished any such prospect of moderation in the sketchy behavior of elected officials. He hid his actions behind the thin veil of fiscal responsibility. He claimed to be troubled by the additional $56,000 he was going to have to spend printing ballots to accommodate Independent voters. He conveniently ignored the fact that thousands of these UIP members have been paying taxes for decades to support a primary process that excludes them.

    In my home state of Kansas, where my 2014 candidacy threatened to take a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans, they responded predictably. Instead of becoming more responsive to voters, our state's highly partisan secretary of state, Kris Kobach, introduced legislation that would bring back one of the great excesses of machine politics: straight party-line voting – which is designed to discourage voters from considering an Independent candidacy altogether. Kobach's rationale, like Galvin's, was laughable. He described it as a "convenience" for voters.

    The article goes on to note these acts by the PIC are an affront to the large swath of the electorate who really choose who will win elections:

    In a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans said they do not feel well-represented by the Democrats and Republicans and believe a third major party is needed. Fully 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves as politically independent .

    That means the two main parties are each smaller in size than the independents (68% divided by 2 equals 34%), which is why independents pick which side will win. If the PIC attacks this group – guess what the response will look like?

    I recently had a discussion with someone from Washington State who is pretty much my opposite policy-wise. She is a deep blue democrat voter, whereas I am a deep purple independent who is more small-government Tea Party than conservative-GOP. She was lamenting the fact that her state has caucuses, which is one method to blunt Main Street voters from having a say. It was interesting that we quickly and strongly agreed on one thing above all else: open primaries. We both knew that if the voters had the only say in who are leaders would be, all sides could abide that decision easily. It is when PIC intervenes that things get ugly.

    Open primaries make the political parties accountable to the voters. Open primaries make it harder for the PIC to control who gets into office, and reduces the leverage of big donors. Open primaries reflect the will of the states and the nation – not the vested interests (read bank accounts) of the PIC.

    That is why you when you hear someone oppose open primaries , it is a clear sign they are from the Political Industrial Complex and not from Main Street. For example:

    Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee took relatively little time and money , today's process has resulted in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.

    The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period.

    It is amazing how this kind of thinking can be considered legitimate. Note how independent voters are evil in the mind of the PIC, and only government leaders need apply. Not surprising, their answer is to control access to the ballot:

    During the week of Lincoln's birthday (February 12), the Republican Party would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local communities , and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate, and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each be named as one of the party's officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen times.

    Brexit became a political force because the European Union was not accountable to the voters. The EU members are also selected by members of the European PIC – not citizens of the EU. Without direct accountability to all citizens (a.k.a. – voters) there is no democracy – just a variant of communism:

    During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism, which put factories and railroads under strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of industry . After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.

    Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline .

    Emphasis mine. Note how communism begins with government control of major industries. The current con job about Global Warming is the cover-excuse for a government grab of the energy sector. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the healthcare sector. And Wall Street already controls the banking sector. See a trend yet?

    This is then followed by imposing a rigid hierarchy of "leaders" at all levels of politics – so no opposing views can gain traction. Party discipline uber alles!

    Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders...

    The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market.

    His opponent is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – a cancer that has eaten away America's free market foundation and core strength. A person who wants to impose government on the individual.

    How could the choice be any starker, any clearer?

    [Sep 18, 2016] Protesting Youth in the Age of Neoliberal Cruelty by Henry A. Giroux

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting. A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked questions. ..."
    "... - Eduardo Galeano ..."
    "... Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." ..."
    "... One way of understanding Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized, there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage, and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability, is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. ..."
    "... As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital ..."
    "... As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one's individual needs and self-interests. ..."
    "... The unemployment rate for young people in many countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States, young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the political arena. ..."
    "... They now inhabit a neoliberal notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak, and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military. ..."
    "... dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies, and material goods to the machineries of disposability. ..."
    "... Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering, cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility, and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2). ..."
    "... In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it. ..."
    "... What is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization. ..."
    "... London Review of Books ..."
    "... This is not a diary ..."
    "... Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment ..."
    "... Against the terror of neoliberalism ..."
    "... Against the violence of organized forgetting: beyond America's disimagination machine ..."
    "... Debt: The First 5,000 Years ..."
    "... The democracy project: a history, a crisis, a movement ..."
    "... 5th assessment report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change ..."
    "... Unlearning With Hannah Arendt ..."
    "... Agnonistics: thinking the world politically ..."
    "... Capital in the twenty-first century ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting. A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked questions.

    - Eduardo Galeano

    Neoliberalism's Assault on Democracy

    Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." He goes on to say that "We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way of imagining the end of the world" (Jameson 2003). One way of understanding Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized, there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage, and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability, is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. Certainly, more recent scientific reports on the threat of ecological disaster from researchers at the University of Washington, NASA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reinforce this dystopian possibility. [1]

    To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.

    As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital (Giroux 2008; 2014). As a political project, it includes "the deregulation of finance, privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws" (Yates 2013). As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy, consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations. As a mode of governance, it produces identities, subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society.

    Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one's individual needs and self-interests. Matters of mutual caring, respect, and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations. As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear, and the increasing use of state violence. One consequence is that it has become more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers, and other segments of society - now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the ruling economic and political elite.

    That they are unable to make their voices heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree to which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing what Chantal Mouffe calls "a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing societies" under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This is one reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students, have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States, and England.

    The Rise of Disposable Youth

    What is particularly distinctive about the current historical conjuncture is the way in which young people, particularly low-income and poor minority youth across the globe, have been increasingly denied any place in an already weakened social order and the degree to which they are no longer seen as central to how a number of countries across the globe define their future. The plight of youth as disposable populations is evident in the fact that millions of them in countries such as England, Greece, and the United States have been unemployed and denied long term benefits. The unemployment rate for young people in many countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States, young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the political arena.

    This is the first generation, as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, in which the "plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation." (Bauman 2012a; 2012b; 2012c) He rightly insists that today's youth have been "cast in a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory or permanent" (Bauman 2004:76). Youth no longer occupy the hope of a privileged place that was offered to previous generations. They now inhabit a neoliberal notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak, and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military.

    Students, in particular, found themselves in a world in which unrealized aspirations have been replaced by dashed hopes and a world of onerous debt (Fraser 2013; On the history of debt, see Graeber 2012).

    The Revival of the Radical Imagination

    Within the various regimes of neoliberalism that have emerged particularly in North since the late 1970s, the ethical grammars that drew attention to the violence and suffering withered or, as in the United States, seemed to disappear altogether, while dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies, and material goods to the machineries of disposability. The fear of losing everything, the horror of an engulfing and crippling precarity, the quest to merely survive, the rise of the punishing state and police violence, along with the impending reality of social and civil death, became a way of life for the 99 percent in the United States and other countries. Under such circumstances, youth were no longer the place where society reveals its dreams, but increasingly hid its nightmares. Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering, cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility, and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2).

    In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it. Such movements produced a new understanding of politics based on horizontal forms of collaboration and political participation. In doing so, they resurrected revitalized and much needed questions about class power, inequality, financial corruption, and the shredding of the democratic process. They also explored as well as what it meant to create new communities of mutual support, democratic modes of exchange and governance, and public spheres in which critical dialogue and exchanges could take place (For an excellent analysis on neoliberal-induced financial corruption, see Anderson 2004).

    A wave of youth protests starting in 2010 in Tunisia, and spreading across the globe to the United States and Europe, eventually posed a direct challenge to neoliberal modes of domination and the corruption of politics, if not democracy itself (Hardt & Negri 2012). The legitimating, debilitating, and depoliticizing notion that politics could only be challenged within established methods of reform and existing relations of power was rejected outright by students and other young people across the globe. For a couple of years, young people transformed basic assumptions about what politics is and how the radical imagination could be mobilized to challenge the basic beliefs of neoliberalism and other modes of authoritarianism. They also challenged dominant discourses ranging from deficit reduction and taxing the poor to important issues that included poverty, joblessness, the growing unmanageable levels of student debt, and the massive spread of corporate corruption. As Jonathan Schell argued, youth across the globe were enormously successfully in unleashing "a new spirit of action", an expression of outrage fueled less by policy demands than by a cry of collective moral and political indignation whose message was

    'Enough!' to a corrupt political, economic and media establishment that hijacked the world's wealth for itself… sabotaging the rule of law, waging interminable savage and futile wars, plundering the world's finite resources, and lying about all this to the public [while] threatening Earth's life forms into the bargain. (Schell 2011)

    Yet, some theorists have recently argued that little has changed since 2011, in spite of this expression of collective rage and accompanying demonstrations by youth groups across the globe.

    The Collapse or Reconfiguration of Youthful Protests?

    Costas Lapavitsas and Alex Politaki, writing in The Guardian, argue that as the "economic and social disaster unfolded in 2012 and 2013", youth in Greece, France, Portugal, and Spain have largely been absent from "politics, social movements and even from the spontaneous social networks that have dealt with the worst of the catastrophe" (Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014). Yet, at the same time, they insist that more and more young people have been "attracted to nihilistic ends of the political spectrum, including varieties of anarchism and fascism" (Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014). This indicates that young people have hardly been absent from politics. On the contrary, those youth moving to the right are being mobilized around needs that simply promise the swindle of fulfillment. This does not suggest youth are becoming invisible. On the contrary, the move on the part of students and others to the right implies that the economic crisis has not been matched by a crisis of ideas, one that would propel young people towards left political parties or social formations that effectively articulate a critical understanding of the present economic and political crisis. Missing here is also a strategy to create and sustain a radical democratic political movement that avoids cooptation of the prevailing economic and political systems of oppression now dominating the United States, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, France, and England, among other countries.

    This critique of youthful protesters as a suspect generation is repeated in greater detail by Andrew R. Myers in Student Pulse (Myers 2012). He argues that deteriorating economic and educational conditions for youth all over Europe have created not only a profound sense of political pessimism among young people, but also a dangerous, if not cynical, distrust towards established politics. Regrettably, Myers seems less concerned about the conditions that have written young people out of jobs, a decent education, imposed a massive debt on them, and offers up a future of despair and dashed hopes than the alleged unfortunate willingness of young people to turn their back on traditional parties. Myers argues rightly that globalization is the enemy of young people and is undermining democracy, but he wrongly insists that traditional social democratic parties are the only vehicles and hope left for real reform. As such, Myers argues that youth who exhibit distrust towards established governments and call for the construction of another world symbolize political defeat, if not cynicism itself. Unfortunately, with his lament about how little youth are protesting today and about their lack of engagement in the traditional forms of politics, he endorses, in the end, a defense of those left/liberal parties that embrace social democracy and the new labor policies of centrist-left coalitions. His rebuke borders on bad faith, given his criticism of young people for not engaging in electoral politics and joining with unions, both of which, for many youth, rightfully represent elements of a reformist politics they reject.

    It is ironic that both of these critiques of the alleged passivity of youth and the failure of their politics have nothing to say about the generations of adults that failed these young people - that is, what disappears in these narratives is the fact that an older generation accepted the "realization that one generation no longer holds out a hand to the next" (Knott 2011:ix). What is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization.

    In fact, what was distinctive about the protesting youth across the globe was their rejection to the injustices of neoliberalism and their attempts to redefine the meaning of politics and democracy, while fashioning new forms of revolt (Hardt & Negri 2012; Graeber 2013). Among their many criticisms, youthful protesters argued vehemently that traditional social democratic, left, and liberal parties suffered from an "extremism of the center" that made them complicitous with the corporate and ruling political elites, resulting in their embrace of the inequities of a form of casino capitalism which assumed that the market should govern the entirety of social life, not just the economic realm (Hardt & Negri 2012:88).

    ... ... ...

    References:

    Related Stories

    Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent books include: Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013), America's Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013) Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014), and The Violence of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America's Disimagination Machine (City Lights, 2014). The Toronto Star named Henry Giroux one of the twelve Canadians changing the way we think! Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors. His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Benedict Option FAQ

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "Benedict Option" refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, ..."
    "... Benedict wrote his famous Rule , which became the guiding constitution of most monasteries in western Europe in the Middle Ages. The monasteries were incubators of Christian and classical culture, and outposts of evangelization in the barbarian kingdoms ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The "Benedict Option" refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, and who therefore are keen to construct local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the empire represents.

    Put less grandly, the Benedict Option - or "Ben Op" - is an umbrella term for Christians who accept MacIntyre's critique of modernity, and who also recognize that forming Christians who live out Christianity according to Great Tradition requires embedding within communities and institutions dedicated to that formation.

    ... ... ...

    For one, the it awakened many small-o orthodox Christians to something that ought to have been clear to them a long, long time ago: the West is truly a post-Christian civilization, and we had better come up with new ways of living if we are going to hold on to the faith in this new dark age. The reason gay rights were so quickly embraced by the American public is because the same public had already jettisoned traditional Christian teaching on the meaning of sex, of marriage, and even a Christian anthropology. Same-sex marriage is only the fulfillment of a radical change that had already taken place in Western culture.

    ... ... ...

    Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480-537) was an educated young Christian who left Rome, the city of the recently fallen Empire, out of disgust with its decadence. He went south, into the forest near Subiaco, to live as a hermit and to pray. Eventually, he gathered around him some like-minded men, and formed monasteries. Benedict wrote his famous Rule , which became the guiding constitution of most monasteries in western Europe in the Middle Ages. The monasteries were incubators of Christian and classical culture, and outposts of evangelization in the barbarian kingdoms. As Cardinal Newman wrote:

    St Benedict found the world, physical and social, in ruins, and his mission was to restore it in the way not of science, but of nature, not as if setting about to do it [the caveat], not professing to do it by any set time, or by any rare specific, or by any series of strokes, but so quietly, patiently, gradually, that often till the work was done, it was not known to be doing. It was a restoration rather than a visitation, correction or conversion.

    The new work which he helped to create was a growth rather than a structure . Silent men were observed about the country, or discovered in the forest, digging, clearing and building; and other silent men, not seen, were sitting in the cold cloister, tiring their eyes and keeping their attention on the stretch, while they painfully copied and recopied the manuscripts which they had saved.

    There was no one who contended or cried out, or drew attention to what was going on, but by degrees the woody swamp became a hermitage, a religious house, a farm, an abbey, a village, a seminary, a school of learning and a city.

    ... ... ...

    Here are some basic Benedictine principles that we might think of as tools for living the Christian life:

    1. Order. Benedict described the monastery as a "school for the service of the Lord." The entire way of life of the monastic community was ordered by this telos , or end. The primary purpose of Christian community life is to form Christians. The Benedict Option must teach us to make every other goal in our lives secondary to serving God. Christianity is not simply a "worldview" or an add-on to our lives, as it is in modernity; it must be our lives, or it is something less than Christianity.

    2. Prayer and work. Life as a Christian requires both contemplation and action. Both depend on the other. There is a reason Jesus retired to the desert after teaching the crowds. Work is as sacred as prayer. Ordinary life can and should be hallowed.

    3. Stability. The Rule ordinarily requires monks to stay put in the monastery where they professed their vows. The idea is that moving around constantly, following our own desires, prevents us from becoming faithful to our calling. True, we must be prepared to follow God's calling, even if He leads us away from home. But the far greater challenge for us in the 21st century is learning how to stay put - literally and metaphorically - and to bind ourselves to a place, a tradition, a people. Only within the limits of stability can we find true freedom.

    4. Community. It really does take a village to raise a child. That is, we learn who we are and who we are called to be in large part through our communities and their institutions. We Americans have to unlearn some of the ways of individualism that we absorb uncritically, and must relearn the craft of community living.

    Not every community is equally capable of forming Christians. Communities must have boundaries, and must build these metaphorical walls because, as the New Monastic pioneer Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove writes, "we cannot become the gift to others we are called to be until we embrace the limits that are necessary to our vocation." In other words, we must withdraw behind some communal boundaries not for the sake of our own purity, but so we can first become who God wants us to be, precisely for the sake of the world. Beliefs and practices that are antithetical to achieving the community's telos must be excluded.

    5. Hospitality. That said, we must be open to outsiders, and receive them "as Christ," according to the Rule. For Benedictine monks, this had a specific meaning, with regard to welcoming visitors to the monastery. For modern laypersons, this will likely have to do with their relationship to people outside the community. The Benedictines are instructed to welcome outsiders so long as they don't interrupt communal life. It should be that way with us, too. We should always be open to others, in charity, to share what we have with them, including our faith.

    6. Balance. The Rule of St. Benedict is marked by a sense of balance, of common sense. As Ben Oppers experiment with building and/or reforming communities and institutions in a more intentional way, we must be vigilant against the temptations to fall intorigid legalism, cults of personality, and other distortions that have been the ruin of intentional communities. There must be workable forms of accountability for leadership, and the cultivation of an anti-utopian sensibility among the faithful. A community that is too lax will dissolve, or at least be ineffective, but one that is too strict will also produce disorder. A Benedict Option community must be joyful and confident, not dour and fearful.

    Can you point to any contemporary examples of Ben Op communities?

    Yes. There is a Catholic agrarian community around Our Lady of Clear Creek Abbey in eastern Oklahoma. The lay community gathered around St. John Orthodox cathedral in Eagle River, Alaska, is another. Trinity Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville, Virginia , is working towards incorporating a version of the Rule of St. Benedict within its congregational life. Rutba House, a New Monastic community in Durham, North Carolina, and its School for Conversion , is still another. I recently met a couple in Waco, Texas - Baylor philosophy professor Scott Moore and his wife Andrea - who bought a property near Crawford, Texas, and who are rehabilitating it into a family home and a Christian retreat called Benedict Farm. There is the Bruderhof.

    I think schools can be a form of the Benedict Option. Consider St. Jerome's, a classical school in the Catholic tradition , in Hyattsville, Maryland, or the Scuola G.K. Chesterton in San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy, which is run by Catholics for Catholic children, following the vision of the late Stratford Caldecott (see his essay, "A Question of Purpose" ). Homeschool groups can be motivated by the Ben Op.

    I am certain that there is no such thing as a perfect Ben Op community, and that each and every one of them will have struggled with similar problems. In working on the Benedict Option book, I intend to visit as many of these communities as I can, to find out what they are doing right, what they wish they did better, and what we can all learn from them. The Benedict Option has to be something that ordinary people can do in their own circumstances.

    Do you really think you can just run away from the world and live off in a compound somewhere? Get real!

    No, I don't think that at all. While I wouldn't necessarily fault people who sought geographical isolation, that will be neither possible nor desirable for most of us. The early Church lived in cities, and formed its distinct life there. Most of the Ben Op communities that come to mind today are not radically isolated, in geography or otherwise, from the broader community. It's simply nonsense to say that Ben Oppers want to hide from the world and live in some sort of fundamentalist enclave. Some do, and it's not hard to find examples of how this sort of thing has gone bad. But that is not what we should aim for. In fact, I think it's all too easy for people to paint the Benedict Option as utopian escapism so they can safely wall it off and not have to think about it.

    Isn't this a violation of the Great Commission? How can we preach the Gospel to the nations when we're living in these neo-monastic communities?

    Well, what is evangelizing? Is it merely dispersing information? Or is there something more to it. The Benedict Option is about discipleship , which is itself an indirect form of evangelism. Pagans converted to the early Church not simply because of the words the first Christians spoke, but because of the witness of the kinds of lives they lived. It has to be that way with us too.

    Pope Benedict XVI said something important in this respect. He said that the best apologetic arguments for the truth of the Christian faith are the art that the Church has produced as a form of witness, and the lives of its saints:

    Yet, the beauty of Christian life is even more effective than art and imagery in the communication of the Gospel message. In the end, love alone is worthy of faith, and proves credible. The lives of the saints and martyrs demonstrate a singular beauty which fascinates and attracts, because a Christian life lived in fullness speaks without words. We need men and women whose lives are eloquent, and who know how to proclaim the Gospel with clarity and courage, with transparency of action, and with the joyful passion of charity.

    The Benedict Option is about forming communities that teach us and help us to live in such a way that our entire lives are witnesses to the transforming power of the Gospel.

    It sounds like you are simply asking for the Church to be the Church. Why do you need to brand it "the Benedict Option"?

    That's a great point, actually. If all the churches did what they were supposed to do, we wouldn't need the Ben Op. Thing is, they don't. The term "Benedict Option" symbolizes a historically conscious, antimodernist return to roots, an undertaking that occurs with the awareness that Christians have to cultivate a sense of separation, of living as what Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon call "resident aliens" in a "Christian colony," in order to be faithful to our calling. And, "Benedict Option" calls to mind monastic disciplines that we can appropriate in our own time.

    It also draws attention to the centrality of practices in shaping our Christian lives. The Reformed theologian James K.A. Smith, in his great books Imagining the Kingdom and Desiring the Kingdom , speaks of these things. A recent secular book by Matthew B. Crawford, The World Beyond Your Head , talks about the critical importance of practice as a way of knowledge. Here is Crawford writing about tradition and organ making:

    When the sovereignty of the self requires that the inheritance of the past be disqualified as a guide to action and meaning, we confine ourselves in an eternal present. If subjectivism works against the coalescing of communities and traditions in which genuine individuals can arise, does the opposite follow? Do communities that look to established forms for the meanings of things somehow cultivate individuality?

    … [C]onsider that when you go deep into some particular skill or art, it trains your powers of concentration and perception. You become more discerning about the objects you are dealing with and, if all goes well, begin to care viscerally about quality, because you have been initiated into an ethic of caring about what you are doing. Usually this happens by the example of some particular person, a mentor, who exemplifies that spirit of craftsmanship. You hear disgust in his voice, or see pleasure on his face, in response to some detail that would be literally invisible to someone not initiated. In this way, judgment develops alongside emotional involvement, unified in what Polanyi calls personal knowledge. Technical training in such a setting, though narrow in its immediate application, may be understood as part of education in the broadest sense: intellectual and moral formation.

    … What emerged in my conversations at Taylor and Boody [a traditional organ-making shop] is that the historical inheritance of a long tradition of organ making seems not to burden these craftspeople, but rather to energize their efforts in innovation. They intend for their organs still be be in use four hundred years from now, and this orientation toward the future requires a critical engagement with the designs and building methods of the past. They learn from past masters, interrogate their wisdom, and push the conversation further in an ongoing dialectic of reverence and rebellion. Their own progress in skill and understanding is thus a contribution to something larger; their earned independence of judgment represents a deepening of the craft itself. This is a story about the progressive possibilities of tradition, then.

    The Benedict Option is about how to rightly order the practices in our Christian lives, in light of tradition, for the sake of intellectual and moral formation in the way of Christ. You might even say that it's a story about the progressive possibilities of tradition, and a return to roots in defiance of a rootless age.

    [Sep 18, 2016] The dynamic interaction of neoliberalism and cultural nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
    "... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
    "... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.scribd.com

    Neoliberal Hegemony

    This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.

    Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in the international sphere.

    Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.

    Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being 'in the national interest.'

    Second, however, the nationalism that articulates these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders.

    As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy.

    Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally, the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.

    Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.

    This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality. This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied classes. Instability, uncertainty ...

    [Sep 18, 2016] What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
    "... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
    "... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
    "... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
    "... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
    "... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
    "... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
    "... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chauncey Gardiner

    What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.

    As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.

    diptherio

    Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense).

    Norb

    Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions.

    What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

    The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits.

    Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.

    flora

    If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.

    LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now, I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.

    Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.

    sd

    Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade? With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade?

    I Have Strange Dreams

    Other things to consider:
    – negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries where they are most needed)
    – environmental pollution
    – destruction of cultures/habitats
    – importation of western diet leading to decreased health
    – spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
    – resource wars
    – drugs
    – happiness
    How are these "externalities" calculated?

    [Sep 15, 2016] Mark Blyth On Neoliberalism, Brexit, and the Global Revolt Against the One Percent and their Unelected

    Jun 28, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "...a full 95% of the cash that went to Greece ran a trip through Greece and went straight back to creditors which in plain English is banks. So, public taxpayers money was pushed through Greece to basically bail out banks...So austerity becomes a side effect of a general policy of bank bailouts that nobody wants to own. That's really what happened, ok?

    Why are we peddling nonsense? Nobody wants to own up to a gigantic bailout of the entire European banking system that took six years. Austerity was a cover.

    If the EU at the end of the day and the Euro is not actually improving the lives of the majority of the people, what is it for? That's the question that they've brought no answer to.

    ...the Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons is a very rich area on Long Island that lies on low lying beaches. Very hard to defend a low lying beach. Eventually people are going to come for you.

    What's clear is that every social democratic party in Europe needs to find a new reason to exist. Because as I said earlier over the past 20 years they have sold their core constituency down the line for a bunch of floaters in the middle who don't protect them or really don't particularly care for them. Because the only offers on the agenda are basically austerity and tax cuts for those who already have, versus austerity, apologies, and a minimum wage."

    Mark Blyth

    Although I may not agree with every particular that Mark Blyth may say, directionally he is exactly correct in diagnosing the problems in Europe.

    And yes, I am aware that the subtitles are at times in error, and sometimes outrageously so. Many of the errors were picked up and corrected in the comments.

    No stimulus, no plans, no official actions, no monetary theories can be sustainably effective in revitalizing an economy that is as bent as these have become without serious reform at the first.

    This was the lesson that was given by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. There will be no lasting recovery without it; it is a sine qua non . One cannot turn their economy around when the political and business structures are systemically corrupt, and the elites are preoccupied with looting it, and hiding their spoils offshore.

    [Sep 15, 2016] How did the proud trade consensus crumble so quickly? by Thomas Frank

    Politico

    "But part of the answer lies in something Americans have a hard time talking about: class. Trade is a class issue. The trade agreements we have entered into over the past few decades have consistently harmed some Americans (manufacturing workers) while just as consistently benefiting others (owners and professionals). …

    To understand "free trade" in such a way has made it difficult for people in the bubble of the consensus to acknowledge the actual consequences of the agreements we have negotiated over the years."

    [Sep 15, 2016] The Dysfunctionality of Slavery and Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
    "... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
    "... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
    "... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
    May 18, 2015 | michaelperelman.wordpress.com

    Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change.

    ... ... ...

    On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract, "Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J. Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.

    ... ... ...

    By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts, he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which, indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly surpass England's industrial prowess.

    The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize. His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time, known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction, except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this process.

    Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the 1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.

    ... ... ...

    With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign, the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler, said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.

    In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry.

    One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of neoliberalism.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Globalization and Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure. ..."
    "... From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy. ..."
    "... Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. ..."
    "... The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. ..."
    "... This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it. ..."
    "... Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4 ..."
    "... The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival. ..."
    "... Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century. ..."
    "... Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance. ..."
    "... By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. ..."
    "... This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it. ..."
    "... Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism. ..."
    "... By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state. ..."
    "... Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. ..."
    "... Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. ..."
    "... Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18 ..."
    "... The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state. ..."
    "... If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism. ..."
    Jul 05, 2016 | people.umass.edu
    Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute Thompson Hall University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. Telephone 413-545-1248 Fax 413-545-2921 Email [email protected] August, 2000 This paper was published in Rethinking Marxism, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 64-79.

    Research assistance was provided by Elizabeth Ramey and Deger Eryar. Research funding was provided by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Globalization and Neoliberalism 1 For some two decades neoliberalism has dominated economic policymaking in the US and the UK. Neoliberalism has strong advocates in continental Western Europe and Japan, but substantial popular resistance there has limited its influence so far, despite continuing US efforts to impose neoliberal policies on them. In much of the Third World, and in the transition countries (except for China), the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure.

    Neoliberalism is an updated version of the classical liberal economic thought that was dominant in the US and UK prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s. From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy.

    Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance. Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. The state is assigned a very limited economic role: defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and regulating the money supply.1 State intervention to correct market failures is viewed with suspicion, on the ground that such intervention is likely to create more problems than it solves.

    The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. These recommendations include deregulation of business; privatization of public activities and assets; elimination of, or cutbacks in, social welfare programs; and reduction of taxes on businesses and the investing class. In the international sphere, neoliberalism calls for free movement of goods, services, capital, and money (but not people) across national boundaries. That is, corporations, banks, and individual investors should be free to move their property across national boundaries, and free to acquire property across national boundaries, although free cross-border movement by individuals is not part of the neoliberal program. How can the re-emergence of a seemingly outdated and outmoded economic theory be explained? At first many progressive economists viewed the 1970s lurch toward liberalism as a temporary response to the economic instability of that decade. As corporate interests decided that the Keynesian regulationist approach no longer worked to their advantage, they looked for an alternative and found only the old liberal ideas, which could at least serve as an ideological basis for cutting those state programs viewed as obstacles to profit-making. However, neoliberalism has proved to be more than just a temporary response. It has outlasted the late 1970s/early 1980s right-wing political victories in the UK (Thatcher) and US (Reagan). Under a Democratic Party administration in the US and a Labor Party government in the UK in the 1990s, neoliberalism solidified its position of dominance.

    This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it.

    The Problematic Character of Neoliberalism

    Neoliberalism appears to be problematic as a dominant theory for contemporary capitalism. The stability and survival of the capitalist system depends on its ability to bring vigorous capital accumulation, where the latter process is understood to include not just economic expansion but also technological progress. Vigorous capital accumulation permits rising profits to coexist with rising living standards for a substantial part of the population over the long-run.2 However, it does not appear that neoliberalism promotes vigorous capital accumulation in contemporary capitalism. There are a number of reasons why one would not expect the neoliberal model to promote rapid accumulation. First, it gives rise to a problem of insufficient aggregate demand over the long run, stemming from the powerful tendency of the neoliberal regime to lower both real wages and public spending. Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4

    The historical evidence confirms doubts about the ability of the neoliberal model to promote rapid capital accumulation. We will look at growth rates of gross domestic product (GDP) and of labor productivity. The GDP growth rate provides at least a rough approximation of the rate of capital accumulation, while the labor productivity growth rate tells us something about the extent to which capitalism is developing the forces of production via rising ratios of means of production to direct labor, technological advance, and improved labor skills.5 Table 1 shows average annual real GDP growth rates for six leading developed capitalist countries over two periods, 1950-73 and 1973-99. The first period was the heyday of state-regulated capitalism, both within those six countries and in the capitalist world-system as a whole. The second period covers the era of growing neoliberal dominance. All six countries had significantly faster GDP growth in the earlier period than in the later one.

    While Japan and the major Western European economies have been relatively depressed in the 1990s, the US is often portrayed as rebounding to great prosperity over the past decade. Neoliberals often claim that US adherence to neoliberal policies finally paid off in the 1990s, while the more timid moves away from state-interventionist policies in Europe and Japan kept them mired in stagnation. Table 2 shows GDP and labor productivity growth rates for the US economy for three subperiods during 1948-99.6 Column 1 of Table 2 shows that GDP growth was significantly slower in 1973-90 B a period of transition from state-regulated capitalism to the neoliberal model in the US B than in 1948-73. While GDP growth improved slightly in 1990-99, it remained well below that of the era of state-regulated capitalism. Some analysts cite the fact that GDP growth accelerated after 1995, averaging 4.1% per year during 1995-99 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000). However, it is not meaningful to compare a short fragment of the 1990s business cycle expansion to the longrun performance of the economy during 1948-73.7

    Column 2 of Table 1 shows that the high rate of labor productivity growth recorded in 1948- 73 fell by more than half in 1973-90. While there was significant improvement in productivity growth in the 1990s, it remained well below the 1948-73 rate, despite the rapid spread of what should be productivity-enhancing communication and information-management technologies during the past decade.

    The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival.

    The Structure of Competition and Economic Policy

    The processes through which the dominant economic ideology and policies are selected in a capitalist system are complex and many-sided. No general rule operates to assure that those economic policies which would be most favorable for capitalism are automatically adopted. History suggests that one important determinant of the dominant economic ideology and policy stance is the competitive structure of capitalism in a given era. Specifically, this paper argues that periods of relatively unconstrained competition tend to produce the intellectual and public policy dominance of liberalism, while periods of relatively constrained, oligopolistic market relations tend to promote interventionist ideas and policies.

    A relation in the opposite direction also exists, one which is often commented upon. That is, one can argue that interventionist policies promote monopoly power in markets, while liberal policies promote greater competition. This latter relation is not being denied here. Rather, it will be argued that there is a normally-overlooked direction of influence, having significant historical explanatory power, which runs from competitive structure to public policy. In the period when capitalism first became well established in the US, during 1800-1860, the government played a relatively interventionist role. The federal government placed high tariffs on competing manufactured goods from Europe, and federal, state, and local levels of government all actively financed, and in some cases built and operated, the new canal and rail system that created a large internal market. There was no serious debate over the propriety of public financing of transportation improvements in that era -- the only debate was over which regions would get the key subsidized routes.

    Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century.

    From roughly 1890 to 1903 a huge merger wave transformed the competitive structure of US capitalism. Out of that merger wave emerged giant corporations possessing significant monopoly power in the manufacturing, mining, transportation, and communication sectors. US industry settled down to a more restrained form of oligopolistic rivalry. At the same time, many of the new monopoly capitalists began to criticize the old Laissez Faire ideas and support a more interventionist role for the state.8 The combination of big business support for state regulation of business, together with similar demands arising from a popular anti-monopoly movement based among small farmers and middle class professionals, ushered in what is called the Progressive Era, from 1900-16. The building of a regulationist state that was begun in the Progressive Era was completed during the New Deal era a few decades later, when once again both big business leaders and a vigorous popular movement (this time based among industrial workers) supported an interventionist state. Both in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, big business and the popular movement differed about what types of state intervention were needed. Big business favored measures to increase the stability of the system and to improve conditions for profit-making, while the popular movement sought to use the state to restrain the power and privileges of big business and provide greater security for ordinary people. The outcome in both cases was a political compromise, one weighted toward the interests of big business, reflecting the relative power of the latter in American capitalism.

    Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance.

    What explains this political difference between large and small business? When large corporations achieve significant market power and become freed from fear concerning their immediate survival, they tend to develop a long time horizon and pay attention to the requirements for assuring growing profits over time.9 They come to see the state as a potential ally. Having high and stable monopoly profits, they tend to view the cost of government programs as something they can afford, given their potential benefits. By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.

    This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it.

    This switch in the dominant economic model first showed up in the mid 1970s in academic economics, as the previously marginalized Chicago School spread its influence far beyond the University of Chicago. This was soon followed by a radical shift in the public policy arena. In 1978- 79 the previously interventionist Carter Administration began sounding the very neoliberal themes B deregulation of business, cutbacks in social programs, and general fiscal and monetary austerity B that were to become the centerpiece of Reagan Administration policies in 1981. What caused the radical change in the political posture of big business regarding state intervention in the economy? This paper argues that a major part of the explanation lies in the effects of the globalization of the world capitalist economy in the post-World War II period.

    Globalization and Competition

    Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism.

    Table 3 shows the ratio of merchandise exports to gross domestic product for selected years from 1820 to 1992, for the world and also for Western Europe, the US, and Japan. Capitalism brought a five-fold rise in world exports relative to output from 1820-70, followed by another increase of nearly three-fourths by 1913. After declining in the interwar period, world exports reached a new peak of 11.2% of world output in 1973, rising further to 13.5% in 1992. The 1992 figure was over fifty per cent higher than the pre-World War I peak.

    Merchandise exports include physical goods only, while GDP includes services, many of which are not tradable, as well as goods. In the twentieth century the proportion of services in GDP has risen significantly. Table 4 shows an estimate of the ratio of world merchandise exports to the good-only portion of world GDP. This ratio nearly tripled during 1950-92, with merchandise exports rising to nearly one-third of total goods output in the latter year. The 1992 figure was 2.6 times as high as that of 1913.

    Western Europe, the US, and Japan all experienced significant increases in exports relative to GDP during 1950-92, as Table 3 shows. All of them achieved ratios of exports to GDP far in excess of the 1913 level. While exports were only 8.2% of the total GDP of the US in 1992, exports amounted to 22.0% of the non-service portion of GDP that year (Economic Report of the President, 1999, pp. 338, 444).

    Many analysts view foreign direct investment as the most important form of cross-border economic interchange. It is associated with the movement of technology and organizational methods, not just goods. Table 5 shows two measures of foreign direct investment. Column 1 gives the outstanding stock of foreign direct investment in the world as a percentage of world output. This measure has more than doubled since 1975, although it is not much greater today than it was in 1913. Column 2 shows the annual inflow of direct foreign investment as a percentage of gross fixed capital formation. This measure increased rapidly during 1975-95. However, it is still relatively low in absolute terms, with foreign direct investment accounting for only 5.2 per cent of gross fixed capital formation in 1995.

    Not all, or even most, international capital flows take the form of direct investment. Financial flows (such as cross-border purchases of securities and deposits in foreign bank accounts) are normally larger. One measure that takes account of financial as well as direct investment is the total net movement of capital into or out of a country. That measure indicates the extent to which capital from one country finances development in other countries. Table 6 shows the absolute value of current account surpluses or deficits as a percentage of GDP for 12 major capitalist countries. Since net capital inflow or outflow is approximately equal to the current account deficit or surplus (differing only due to errors and omissions), this indicates the size of net cross-border capital flows. The ratio nearly doubled from 1970-74 to 1990-96, although it remained well below the figure for 1910-14.

    Cross-border gross capital movements have grown much more rapidly than cross-border net capital movements.11 In recent times a very large and rapidly growing volume of capital has moved back and forth across national boundaries. Much of this capital flow is speculative in nature, reflecting growing amounts of short-term capital that are moved around the world in search of the best temporary return. No data on such flows are available for the early part of this century, but the data for recent decades are impressive. During 1980-95 cross-border transactions in bonds and equities as a percentage of GDP rose from 9% to 136% for the US, from 8% to 168% for Germany, and from 8% to 66% for Japan (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 10). The total volume of foreign exchange transactions in the world rose from about $15 billion per day in 1973 to $80 billion per day in 1980 and $1260 billion per day in 1995. Trade in goods and services accounted for 15% of foreign exchange transactions in 1973 but for less than 2% of foreign exchange transactions in 1995 (Bhaduri, 1998, p. 152).

    While cross-border flows of goods and capital are usually considered to be the best indicators of possible globalization of capitalism, changes that have occurred over time within capitalist enterprises are also relevant. That is, the much-discussed rise of the transnational corporation (TNC) is relevant here, where a TNC is a corporation which has a substantial proportion of its sales, assets, and employees outside its home country.12 TNCs existed in the pre-World War I era, primarily in the extractive sector. In the post-World War II period many large manufacturing corporations in the US, Western Europe, and Japan became TNCs.

    The largest TNCs are very international measured by the location of their activities. One study found that the 100 largest TNCs in the world (ranked by assets) had 40.4% of their assets abroad, 50.0% of output abroad, and 47.9% of employment abroad in 1996 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 125). While this shows that the largest TNCs are significantly international in their activities, all but a handful have retained a single national base for top officials and major stockholders.13 The top 200 TNCs ranked by output were estimated to produce only about 10 per cent of world GDP in 1995 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 122).

    By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state.

    While the earlier wave of globalization before World War I did produce a capitalism that was significantly international, two features of that earlier international system differed from the current global capitalism in ways that are relevant here. First, the pre-world War I globalization took place within a world carved up into a few great colonial empires, which meant that much of the so-called "cross-border" trade and investment of that earlier era actually occurred within a space controlled by a single state. Second, the high level of world trade reached before World War I occurred within a system based much more on specialization and division of labor. That is, manufactured goods were exported by the advanced capitalist countries in exchange for primary products, unlike today when most trade is in manufactured goods. In 1913 62.5% of world trade was in primary products (Bairoch and Kozul-Wright, 1998, p. 45). By contrast, in 1970 60.9% of world exports were manufactured goods, rising to 74.7% in 1994 (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 7).

    Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. A state that has the political will to exercise some control over movements of goods and capital across its borders still retains significant power to regulate business. The more important effect of globalization has been on the political will to undertake state regulation, rather than on the technical feasibility of doing so. Globalization has had this effect by changing the competitive structure of capitalism. It appears that globalization in this period has made capitalism significantly more competitive, in several ways. First, the rapid growth of trade has changed the situation faced by large corporations. Large corporations that had previously operated in relatively controlled oligopolistic domestic markets now face competition from other large corporations based abroad, both in domestic and foreign markets. In the US the rate of import penetration of domestic manufacturing markets was only 2 per cent in 1950; it rose to 8% in 1971 and 16% by 1993, an 8-fold increase since 1950 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 116).

    Second, the rapid increase in foreign direct investment has in many cases placed TNCs production facilities in the home markets of their foreign rivals. General Motors not only faces import competition from Toyota and Honda but has to compete with US-produced Toyota and Honda vehicles. Third, the increasingly integrated and open world financial system has thrown the major banks and other financial institutions of the leading capitalist nations increasingly into competition with one another.

    Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. More importantly, globalization tends to turn big business into small business. The process of globalization has increased the competitive pressure faced by large corporations and banks, as competition has become a world-wide relationship.17 Even if those who run large corporations and financial institutions recognize the need for a strong nationstate in their home base, the new competitive pressure they face shortens their time horizon. It pushes them toward support for any means to reduce their tax burden and lift their regulatory constraints, to free them to compete more effectively with their global rivals. While a regulationist state may seem to be in the interests of big business, in that it can more effectively promote capital accumulation in the long run, in a highly competitive environment big business is drawn away from supporting a regulationist state.

    Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18

    The above interpretation of the rise and persistence of neoliberalism attributes it, at least in part, to the changed competitive structure of world capitalism resulting from the process of globalization. As neoliberalism gained influence starting in the 1970s, it became a force propelling the globalization process further. One reason for stressing the line of causation running from globalization to neoliberalism is the time sequence of the developments. The process of globalization, which had been reversed to some extent by political and economic events in the interwar period, resumed right after World War II, producing a significantly more globalized world economy and eroding the monopoly power of large corporations well before neoliberalism began its second coming in the mid 1970s. The rapid rise in merchandise exports began during the Bretton Woods period, as Table 3 showed. So too did the growing role for TNC's. These two aspects of the current globalization had their roots in the postwar era of state-regulated capitalism. This suggests that, to some extent, globalization reflects a long-run tendency in the capital accumulation process rather than just being a result of the rising influence of neoliberal policies. On the other hand, once neoliberalism became dominant, it accelerated the process of globalization. This can be seen most clearly in the data on cross-border flows of both real and financial capital, which began to grow rapidly only after the 1960s.

    Other Factors Promoting Neoliberalism

    The changed competitive structure of capitalism provides part of the explanation for the rise from the ashes of classical liberalism and its persistence in the face of widespread evidence of its failure to deliver the goods. However, three additional factors have played a role in promoting neoliberal dominance. These are the weakening of socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries, the demise of state socialism, and the long period that has elapsed since the last major capitalist economic crisis. There is space here for only some brief comments about these additional factors.

    The socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries have declined in strength significantly over the past few decades. While Social Democratic parties have come to office in several European countries recently, they no longer represent a threat of even significant modification of capitalism, much less the specter of replacing capitalism with an alternative socialist system. The regulationist state was always partly a response to the fear of socialism, a point illustrated by the emergence of the first major regulationist state of the era of mature capitalism in Germany in the late 19th century, in response to the world=s first major socialist movement. As the threat coming from socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries has receded, so too has to incentive to retain the regulationist state.

    The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state.

    The occurrence of a major economic crisis tends to promote an interventionist state, since active state intervention is required to overcome a major crisis. The memory of a recent major crisis tends to keep up support for a regulationist state, which is correctly seen as a stabilizing force tending to head off major crises. As the Great Depression of the 1930s has receded into the distant past, the belief has taken hold that major economic crises have been banished forever. This reduces the perceived need to retain the regulationist state.

    Concluding Comments

    If neoliberalism continues to reign as the dominant ideology and policy stance, it can be argued that world capitalism faces a future of stagnation, instability, and even eventual social breakdown.20 However, from the factors that have promoted neoliberalism one can see possible sources of a move back toward state-regulated capitalism at some point. One possibility would be the development of tight oligopoly and regulated competition on a world scale. Perhaps the current merger wave might continue until, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century within the US and in other industrialized capitalist economies, oligopoly replaced cutthroat competition, but this time on a world scale. Such a development might revive big business support for an interventionist state. However, this does not seem to be likely in the foreseeable future. The world is a big place, with differing cultures, laws, and business practices in different countries, which serve as obstacles to overcoming the competitive tendency in market relations. Transforming an industry=s structure so that two to four companies produce the bulk of the output is not sufficient in itself to achieve stable monopoly power, if the rivals are unable to communicate effectively with one another and find common ground for cooperation. Also, it would be difficult for international monopolies to exercise effective regulation via national governments, and a genuine world capitalist state is not a possibility for the foreseeable future.

    If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism.

    A more likely source of a new era of state interventionism might come from one of the remaining two factors considered above. The macro-instability of neoliberal global capitalism might produce a major economic crisis at some point, one which spins out of the control of the weakened regulatory authorities. This would almost certainly revive the politics of the regulationist state. Finally, the increasing exploitation and other social problems generated by neoliberal global capitalism might prod the socialist movement back to life at some point. Should socialist movements revive and begin to seriously challenge capitalism in one or more major capitalist countries, state regulationism might return in response to it. Such a development would also revive the possibility of finally superceding capitalism and replacing it with a system based on human need rather than private profit.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Whats Behind The Revolt Against Global Integration?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ... ..."
    "... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
    "... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
    "... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
    "... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html ..."
    "... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
    "... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious, planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
    "... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
    "... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other trade is regulated trade. ..."
    "... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is, in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
    "... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
    "... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
    "... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something you should not forget. ..."
    "... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
    "... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
    "... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
    "... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
    "... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
    "... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
    "... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe. ..."
    Apr 11, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Larry Summers:
    What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been a pillar of the international order. ...

    This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...

    One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...

    Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...

    Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

    Tom aka Rusty : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:15 AM
    Is Summers really this naive?
    Jedgar Mihelic : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:21 AM
    I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
    pgl -> Jedgar Mihelic ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:28 AM
    Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
    pgl : Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists - for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.

    What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.

    Peter -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:12 AM
    The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
    likbez -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 04:48 PM
    pgl,

    And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html

    === quote ===

    One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape of external debt.

    When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.

    International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.

    In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.

    The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country, nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few, on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.

    Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level. And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved, the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private debt.

    Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.

    The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.

    Kgaard : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious, planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
    anne -> Kgaard... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:44 AM
    There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable, but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?

    Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our" homogeneity?

    I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?

    Kgaard -> anne... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....

    Also ... What is your definition of prejudice?

    Benedict@Large -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other trade is regulated trade.

    Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is, in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet.

    Has anyone been trying to hustle the wallets of the people who became ISIS? Oh please. That's a stupid question to even ask.

    So is free trade, as in regulated trade that is called the opposite of what it is, responsible for ISIS? Of course it is.

    Ben Groves -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:10 AM
    ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.

    It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated. My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".

    This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me feel safe".

    Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.

    To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something you should not forget.

    DrDick : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:35 AM
    I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
    pgl -> DrDick ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    OK - some substance finally. TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich.
    DrDick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:33 PM
    This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade" agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries.
    Denis Drew : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:38 AM
    " The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "

    " ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ... "

    +1

    Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then (and only then) support it externally across the world.

    Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.

    A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.

    Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get support for actions) ever gets done.

    Peter : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:31 AM
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/new_path_forward/

    I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.

    by Jared Bernstein

    April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am

    "...

    Here's Larry's view of the way forward:

    "The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

    Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""

    It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.

    It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both here and abroad."

    anne : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:12 AM
    "What's Behind The Revolt Against Global Integration?" -- Washington Post editors title.

    "Global trade should be remade from the bottom up" -- Lawrence Summers title.

    I find the difference in titles important in showing just how slanted Washington Post editors are.

    Longtooth : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 01:41 PM
    Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate.
    pgl -> Longtooth... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 01:46 PM
    Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little. We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about the compensation principle. Turn the table!
    kthomas -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    Not being rude, but I fail to understand your response.

    AFL-CIO? turn the table?

    Peter -> kthomas... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:51 PM
    It's okay. He's drunk again.
    New Deal democrat : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:07 PM
    "consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " -- "The Great Illusion" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion )
    That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.

    Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.

    George H. Blackford :
    Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world: http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm

    The export-led growth model that began in the 1990s seriously exacerbated this problem as it proved to be unsustainable: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm

    When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008, the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today. This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm

    This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the 1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm

    [Sep 15, 2016] How neoliberalism created an age of activism by Juan Cole

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. ..."
    "... young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity ..."
    "... In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state. ..."
    "... "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day. ..."
    "... While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society. ..."
    "... Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, ..."
    "... Engaging the Muslim World , is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website. ..."
    "... A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch . ..."
    "... The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. ..."
    Nov 15, 2011 | aljazeera.com

    Decades of neoliberal economic policies have concentrated wealth and are now spurring a global backlash.

    Politics, US & Canada, Latin America, Chile, Egypt

    ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.

    Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity

    ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.

    Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity of the white-collar criminals who have run riot in societies everywhere. They are objecting to high rates of unemployment, reduced social services, blighted futures and above all the substitution of the market for all other values as the matrix of human ethics and life.

    Pasha the Tiger

    In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state.

    Neoliberals chanted the mantra that everyone would benefit if the public sector were privatised, businesses deregulated and market mechanisms allowed to distribute wealth. But as economist David Harvey argues, from the beginning it was a doctrine that primarily benefited the wealthy, its adoption allowing the top one per cent in any neoliberal society to capture a disproportionate share of whatever wealth was generated.

    In the global South, countries that gained their independence from European colonialism after World War II tended to create large public sectors as part of the process of industrialization. Often, living standards improved as a result, but by the 1970s, such developing economies were generally experiencing a levelling-off of growth. This happened just as neoliberalism became ascendant in Washington, Paris and London as well as in Bretton Woods institutions like the International Monetary Fund. This "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day.

    Egypt and Tunisia, to take two countries in the spotlight for sparking the Arab Spring, were successfully pressured in the 1990s to privatise their relatively large public sectors. Moving public resources into the private sector created an almost endless range of opportunities for staggering levels of corruption on the part of the ruling families of autocrats Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis and Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. International banks, central banks and emerging local private banks aided and abetted their agenda.

    It was not surprising then that one of the first targets of Tunisian crowds in the course of the revolution they made last January was the Zitouna bank, a branch of which they torched. Its owner? Sakher El Materi, a son-in-law of President Ben Ali and the notorious owner of Pasha, the well-fed pet tiger that prowled the grounds of one of his sumptuous mansions. Not even the way his outfit sought legitimacy by practicing "Islamic banking" could forestall popular rage. A 2006 State Department cable released by WikiLeaks observed, "One local financial expert blames the [Ben Ali] Family for chronic banking sector woes due to the great percentage of non-performing loans issued through crony connections, and has essentially paralysed banking authorities from genuine recovery efforts." That is, the banks were used by the regime to give away money to his cronies, with no expectation of repayment.

    Tunisian activists similarly directed their ire at foreign banks and lenders to which their country owes $14.4bn. Tunisians are still railing and rallying against the repayment of all that money, some of which they believe was borrowed profligately by the corrupt former regime and then squandered quite privately.

    Tunisians had their own one per cent, a thin commercial elite, half of whom were related to or closely connected to President Ben Ali. As a group, they were accused by young activists of mafia-like, predatory practices, such as demanding pay-offs from legitimate businesses, and discouraging foreign investment by tying it to a stupendous system of bribes. The closed, top-heavy character of the Tunisian economic system was blamed for the bottom-heavy waves of suffering that followed: cost of living increases that hit people on fixed incomes or those like students and peddlers in the marginal economy especially hard.

    It was no happenstance that the young man who immolated himself and so sparked the Tunisian rebellion was a hard-pressed vegetable peddler. It's easy now to overlook what clearly ties the beginning of the Arab Spring to the European Summer and the present American Fall: the point of the Tunisian revolution was not just to gain political rights, but to sweep away that one per cent, popularly imagined as a sort of dam against economic opportunity.

    Tahrir Square, Zuccotti Park, Rothschild Avenue

    The success of the Tunisian revolution in removing the octopus-like Ben Ali plutocracy inspired the dramatic events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and even Israel that are redrawing the political map of the Middle East. But the 2011 youth protest movement was hardly contained in the Middle East. Estonian-Canadian activist Kalle Lasn and his anti-consumerist colleagues at the Vancouver-based Adbusters Media Foundation were inspired by the success of the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in deposing dictator Hosni Mubarak.

    Their organisation specialises in combatting advertising culture through spoofs and pranks. It was Adbusters magazine that sent out the call on Twitter in the summer of 2011 for a rally at Wall Street on September 17, with the now-famous hash tag #OccupyWallStreet. A thousand protesters gathered on the designated date, commemorating the 2008 economic meltdown that had thrown millions of Americans out of their jobs and their homes. Some camped out in nearby Zuccotti Park, another unexpected global spark for protest.

    The Occupy Wall Street movement has now spread throughout the United States, sometimes in the face of serious acts of repression, as in Oakland, California. It has followed in the spirit of the Arab and European movements in demanding an end to special privileges for the richest one per cent, including their ability to more or less buy the US government for purposes of their choosing. What is often forgotten is that the Ben Alis, Mubaraks and Gaddafis were not simply authoritarian tyrants. They were the one per cent and the guardians of the one per cent, in their own societies - and loathed for exactly that.

    Last April, around the time that Lasn began imagining Wall Street protests, progressive activists in Israel started planning their own movement. In July, sales clerk and aspiring filmmaker Daphne Leef found herself unable to cover a sudden rent increase on her Tel Aviv apartment. So she started a protest Facebook page similar to the ones that fuelled the Arab Spring and moved into a tent on the posh Rothschild Avenue where she was soon joined by hundreds of other protesting Israelis. Week by week, the demonstrations grew, spreading to cities throughout the country and culminating on September 3 in a massive rally, the largest in Israel's history. Some 300,000 protesters came out in Tel Aviv, 50,000 in Jerusalem and 40,000 in Haifa. Their demands included not just lower housing costs, but a rollback of neoliberal policies, less regressive taxes and more progressive, direct taxation, a halt to the privatisation of the economy, and the funding of a system of inexpensive education and child care.

    Many on the left in Israel are also deeply troubled by the political and economic power of right-wing settlers on the West Bank, but most decline to bring the Palestinian issue into the movement's demands for fear of losing support among the middle class. For the same reason, the way the Israeli movement was inspired by Tahrir Square and the Egyptian revolution has been downplayed, although "Walk like an Egyptian" signs - a reference both to the Cairo demonstrations and the 1986 Bangles hit song - have been spotted on Rothschild Avenue.

    Most of the Israeli activists in the coastal cities know that they are victims of the same neoliberal order that displaces the Palestinians, punishes them and keeps them stateless. Indeed, the Palestinians, altogether lacking a state but at the complete mercy of various forms of international capital controlled by elites elsewhere, are the ultimate victims of the neoliberal order. But in order to avoid a split in the Israeli protest movement, a quiet agreement was reached to focus on economic discontents and so avoid the divisive issue of the much-despised West Bank settlements.

    There has been little reporting in the Western press about a key source of Israeli unease, which was palpable to me when I visited the country in May. Even then, before the local protests had fully hit their stride, Israelis I met were complaining about the rise to power of an Israeli one per cent. There are now 16 billionaires in the country, who control $45bn in assets, and the current crop of 10,153 millionaires is 20 per cent larger than it was in the previous fiscal year. In terms of its distribution of wealth, Israel is now among the most unequal of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Since the late 1980s, the average household income of families in the bottom fifth of the population has been declining at an annual rate of 1.1 per cent. Over the same period, the average household income of families among the richest 20 per cent went up at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent.

    While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society.

    The indignant ones

    European youth were also inspired by the Tunisians and Egyptians - and by a similar flight of wealth. I was in Barcelona on May 27, when the police attacked demonstrators camped out at the Placa de Catalunya, provoking widespread consternation. The government of the region is currently led by the centrist Convergence and Union Party, a moderate proponent of Catalan nationalism. It is relatively popular locally, and so Catalans had not expected such heavy-handed police action to be ordered. The crackdown, however, underlined the very point of the protesters, that the neoliberal state, whatever its political makeup, is protecting the same set of wealthy miscreants.

    Spain's "indignados" (indignant ones) got their start in mid-May with huge protests at Madrid's Puerta del Sol Plaza against the country's persistent 21 per cent unemployment rate (and double that among the young). Egyptian activists in Tahrir Square immediately sent a statement of warm support to those in the Spanish capital (as they would months later to New York's demonstrators). Again following the same pattern, the Spanish movement does not restrict its objections to unemployment (and the lack of benefits attending the few new temporary or contract jobs that do arise). Its targets are the banks, bank bailouts, financial corruption and cuts in education and other services.

    Youth activists I met in Toledo and Madrid this summer denounced both of the country's major parties and, indeed, the very consumer society that emphasised wealth accumulation over community and material acquisition over personal enrichment. In the past two months Spain's young protesters have concentrated on demonstrating against cuts to education, with crowds of 70,000 to 90,000 coming out more than once in Madrid and tens of thousands in other cities. For marches in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, hundreds of thousands reportedly took to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona, among other cities.

    The global reach and connectedness of these movements has yet to be fully appreciated. The Madrid education protesters, for example, cited for inspiration Chilean students who, through persistent, innovative, and large-scale demonstrations this summer and fall, have forced that country's neoliberal government, headed by the increasingly unpopular billionaire president Sebastian Pinera, to inject $1.6bn in new money into education. Neither the crowds of youth in Madrid nor those in Santiago are likely to be mollified, however, by new dorms and laboratories. Chilean students have already moved on from insisting on an end to an ever more expensive class-based education system to demands that the country's lucrative copper mines be nationalised so as to generate revenues for investment in education. In every instance, the underlying goal of specific protests by the youthful reformists is the neoliberal order itself.

    The word "union" was little uttered in American television news coverage of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, even though factory workers and sympathy strikes of all sorts played a key role in them. The right-wing press in the US actually went out of its way to contrast Egyptian demonstrations against Mubarak with the Wisconsin rallies of government workers against Governor Scott Walker's measure to cripple the bargaining power of their unions.

    The Egyptians, Commentary typically wrote, were risking their lives, while Wisconsin's union activists were taking the day off from cushy jobs to parade around with placards, immune from being fired for joining the rallies. The implication: the Egyptian revolution was against tyranny, whereas already spoiled American workers were demanding further coddling.

    The American right has never been interested in recognising this reality: that forbidding unions and strikes is a form of tyranny. In fact, it wasn't just progressive bloggers who saw a connection between Tahrir Square and Madison. The head of the newly formed independent union federation in Egypt dispatched an explicit expression of solidarity to the Wisconsin workers, centering on worker's rights.

    At least, Commentary did us one favour: it clarified why the story has been told as it has in most of the American media. If the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were merely about individualistic political rights - about the holding of elections and the guarantee of due process - then they could be depicted as largely irrelevant to politics in the US and Europe, where such norms already prevailed.

    If, however, they centered on economic rights (as they certainly did), then clearly the discontents of North African youth when it came to plutocracy, corruption, the curbing of workers' rights, and persistent unemployment deeply resembled those of their American counterparts.

    The global protests of 2011 have been cast in the American media largely as an "Arab Spring" challenging local dictatorships - as though Spain, Chile and Israel do not exist. The constant speculation by pundits and television news anchors in the US about whether "Islam" would benefit from the Arab Spring functioned as an Orientalist way of marking events in North Africa as alien and vaguely menacing, but also as not germane to the day to day concerns of working Americans. The inhabitants of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan clearly feel differently.

    Facebook flash mobs

    If we focus on economic trends, then the neoliberal state looks eerily similar, whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, whether the government is nominally right of centre or left of centre. As a package, deregulation, the privatisation of public resources and firms, corruption and forms of insider trading and interference in the ability of workers to organise or engage in collective bargaining have allowed the top one per cent in Israel, just as in Tunisia or the US, to capture the lion's share of profits from the growth of the last decades.

    Observers were puzzled by the huge crowds that turned out in both Tunis and Tel Aviv in 2011, especially given that economic growth in those countries had been running at a seemingly healthy five per cent per annum. "Growth", defined generally and without regard to its distribution, is the answer to a neoliberal question. The question of the 99 per cent, however, is: Who is getting the increased wealth? In both of those countries, as in the US and other neoliberal lands, the answer is: disproportionately the one per cent.

    If you were wondering why outraged young people around the globe are chanting such similar slogans and using such similar tactics (including Facebook "flash mobs"), it is because they have seen more clearly than their elders through the neoliberal shell game.

    Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website.

    A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch.

    The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Global Capitalism Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism

    Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism. The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
    Notable quotes:
    "... over-accumulation ..."
    "... Cyclical crises ..."
    "... . Structural crises ..."
    "... systemic crisis ..."
    "... social reproduction. ..."
    "... crisis of humanity ..."
    "... 1984 has arrived; ..."
    "... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
    "... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
    "... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
    "... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
    May 27, 2014 | The World Financial Review

    World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history. Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions, limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of humanity is the only viable solution.

    The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis

    The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly, the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective, we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.

    The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1

    First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated, either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation. No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world, North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class. This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality, domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.

    Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises

    Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession" of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.

    Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the 1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis – in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces to the crisis are in great flux.

    Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural, ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness, values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships. The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions, perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions of the world, among other indicators.

    By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new "Dark Ages."2

    Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.

    This crisis of humanity shares a number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several features unique to the present:

    1. The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction. Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries" crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist, four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
    2. The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented, as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups. Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth, have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication, images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
    3. Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced, and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where will it now expand?
    4. There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion. This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
    5. There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.

    Global Police State

    How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in dispute.

    One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling) to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt. While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.

    Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5 The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.

    The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.

    About the Author

    William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996), Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism (2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008), and Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).

    [Sep 15, 2016] On Views Of The War On Syria by Debs is Dead>

    A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
    Notable quotes:
    "... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
    "... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
    "... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
    "... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
    "... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
    "... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
    "... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
    "... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
    "... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
    "... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
    "... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
    "... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
    "... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
    "... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
    "... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
    "... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
    "... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
    "... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
    "... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
    "... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
    "... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
    "... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
    "... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
    "... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
    "... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
    "... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
    "... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
    "... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
    "... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
    "... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
    "... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
    "... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
    "... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
    "... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
    "... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
    "... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
    "... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
    "... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
    "... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
    "... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
    "... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
    "... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
    "... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
    "... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
    "... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
    "... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
    "... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
    "... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
    "... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
    "... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
    "... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
    "... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
    "... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
    "... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
    "... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
    "... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
    "... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
    "... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
    "... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
    "... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
    "... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
    "... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
    "... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
    "... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
    "... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
    "... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
    "... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
    "... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
    Sep 15, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    lifted from a comment

    It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't so serious - Zionist.

    1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares wanting and discards.

    2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue - mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.

    3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.

    4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

    5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus. All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias and the FSA.

    When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were a lot smarter.

    On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty oppression by assholes any longer.

    6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached.

    I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division - if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded it.

    I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.

    As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.

    The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:

    If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?

    Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM | Permalink

    papa | Sep 12, 2016 3:51:57 AM | 1
    Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling, i see exactly the same.

    This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.

    lemur | Sep 12, 2016 4:30:41 AM | 2
    you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms.

    The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers)))

    ash123 | Sep 12, 2016 5:43:53 AM | 3
    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
    This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country.

    Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 5:47:26 AM | 4

    Debsisdead says:

    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago

    no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...

    when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights.

    so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.

    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 6:04:27 AM | 5
    This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s.

    Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012 (below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11 of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The Hague.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Formerly T-Bear | Sep 12, 2016 6:23:51 AM | 6
    |~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult to read.

    Reference Debsisdead comment:

    Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.

    Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas (neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously been co-opted).

    Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence involved.

    Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism; manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions that comprise spectrums.

    Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist, an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly settled became cause célèbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.

    I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war.

    The opinions expressed are my own.

    falcemartello | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:48 AM | 7
    Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education , public services.
    Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
    Mikael | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:56 AM | 8
    I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon. My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year old. I call major bullshit on your piece.
    Demeter | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:26 AM | 9
    If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering.

    What do you think would have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military field).

    I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship? Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.

    And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is why.

    And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years, and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.

    I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil, one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.

    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.

    Here is racism for you debsisdead.

    AtaBrit | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:59 AM | 10
    Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they lack a time frame.
    The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.

    An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.

    DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually being said.

    Cresty | Sep 12, 2016 8:41:04 AM | 12
    The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.

    You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country. They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account and your bold anti racism

    Northern Observer | Sep 12, 2016 8:52:18 AM | 14
    Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution.
    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 9:22:01 AM | 15
    Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated
    Jackrabbit | Sep 12, 2016 10:06:55 AM | 17
    Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon.

    Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" .

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:10:18 AM | 18
    "If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?" Passive-aggressive much?

    The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.

    TG | Sep 12, 2016 10:22:59 AM | 20
    "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.

    It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had.

    No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the weather.

    "The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.

    Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support, the result is always bad.

    Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this deserves mention?

    Diana | Sep 12, 2016 10:23:43 AM | 21
    Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school "oppression" analysis.
    juliania | Sep 12, 2016 10:26:32 AM | 22
    Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."

    I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm for diplomatic relations.

    I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts. But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the 9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.

    Can we please stop doing this?

    Wizzy | Sep 12, 2016 10:35:49 AM | 23
    After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic, the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.

    And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
    Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever, waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:38:01 AM | 24
    "The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."

    Cite?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 10:58:51 AM | 25
    DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model of virtue."

    It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria.

    The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem.

    Krollchem | Sep 12, 2016 11:35:06 AM | 28
    @ rg the lg 33

    Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.

    paul | Sep 12, 2016 11:40:49 AM | 29
    Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.

    So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.

    I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms. Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered with honor as Chavez is.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 12:16:07 PM | 33
    It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.

    Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says @25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.

    Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
    Things either are what they appear to be;
    or they neither are, nor appear to be;
    or they are, and do not appear to be;
    or they are not, and yet appear to be.
    Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task.

    ~Epictetus

    Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of identification.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 12:54:18 PM | 36
    Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?

    It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.

    No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse. Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya, except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).

    I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of, he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition' would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me. If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was. It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.

    I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored maybe id see your point.

    Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC. I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.

    And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling. It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that. At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent and anti democratic.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 1:01:58 PM | 37
    QUICK DOUBLE POST

    An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder how that fits in with OPs post.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12, 2016 1:02:25 PM | 38
    What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good". But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned AmeriKKKa's concern.

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 1:07:59 PM | 39
    @Shh, since you're so conveniently ensconced above the fray, perhaps you can see something we "nattering fuck wits" can't. Do tell.
    Stillnottheonly1 | Sep 12, 2016 1:47:35 PM | 40
    Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone else's shoes to understand their walk in life?

    In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the world with his/her drivel.

    To make it as concise as possible:

    What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine, Turkey and Africa as a whole.

    In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench of obfuscation.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 2:02:43 PM | 41
    @47 Hoarsewhisperer

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that is the western MSM.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 3:26:34 PM | 43
    It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing. In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war; but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.

    Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.

    The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.

    I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?] i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
    Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.

    Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless, despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.

    I call into question these two points:

    (1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
    Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected, misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit, to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities against the defenseless? What is the point?
    (2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.

    There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 4:01:33 PM | 46
    I very much agree with what Demeter wrote @ 14:
    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
    Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
    Kuma | Sep 12, 2016 4:05:35 PM | 47
    @9
    I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it.

    "Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"

    American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things.

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:11:58 PM | 48
    I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he is wrong. His remarks are out of date.

    No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive al-Qa'ida style view.

    The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported fascists.

    The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 4:18:12 PM | 50
    james says:

    must be a '''slow''' news day...

    yeah, did you read that the American Imperium bombed 6 Muslim countries last Saturday?

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:51:42 PM | 51
    Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
    The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar. Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian peace.
    fast freddy | Sep 12, 2016 4:53:30 PM | 52
    The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news.

    The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein.

    Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates and Manifest Destiny are problematic.

    Curtis | Sep 12, 2016 7:22:18 PM | 55
    I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails but what of the minority?
    BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism? In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US, look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
    Jen | Sep 12, 2016 7:39:57 PM | 57
    Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side or another.

    I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.

    I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know.

    Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.

    But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88% of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries) and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April 2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.

    The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 8:03:18 PM | 59
    Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name' the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that is the problem.

    It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 8:28:41 PM | 60
    fairleft, @75

    When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism, but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.

    Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".

    Kalen | Sep 12, 2016 8:31:13 PM | 61
    They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle instigated by US imperial delusions.

    But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because, living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with, so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were pampered by western elites.

    Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.

    Another interesting element that was touched upon is attitude to Israel and its US perceived role, but for that one needs deeper background starting from before 1948.
    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/history-revisited/

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 8:42:29 PM | 62
    I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all.

    He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well.

    Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact.

    Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would be invincible.

    redrooster | Sep 12, 2016 9:01:21 PM | 63
    Dear Debs is Dead,

    you wrote:

    "This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."

    Question to you:

    if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.

    If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help.

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 10:00:23 PM | 65
    #46 FecklessLeft

    And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire Syrian war.

    If Assad goes:

    1. Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
    2. Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?

    I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty level question, although it feels like a $64k one.

    Bill Hicks | Sep 12, 2016 10:31:21 PM | 66
    Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance, her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard, Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande, etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
    james | Sep 12, 2016 11:09:45 PM | 67
    @ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say 'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless, killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
    Jen | Sep 13, 2016 1:17:04 AM | 71
    OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels".
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097

    And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari

    the pair | Sep 13, 2016 2:12:09 AM | 72
    not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.

    of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).

    i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is.

    and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice. just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.

    [also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]

    as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist", be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?

    whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.

    bigmango | Sep 13, 2016 2:20:54 AM | 73
    I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still, I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.

    Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors.

    Harry | Sep 13, 2016 2:28:44 AM | 74
    The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).

    The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 13, 2016 3:11:57 AM | 77
    The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below. I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this site in the first place.

    Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor of ways, is really disheartening.

    There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.

    WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/05/syria-the-feckless-left-.html

    Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
    The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

    As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.

    I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.

    And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.

    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.

    somebody | Sep 13, 2016 5:07:06 AM | 80
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    This obviously is not the case. A recent take of the BBC with some real information on the realities of the war .

    "We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.

    "All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution. Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.

    "I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house. Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13, 2016 5:18:29 AM | 81
    ...
    .. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter.
    ...
    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...

    Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
    Did you forget?
    Did you not know?
    Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?

    AtaBrit | Sep 13, 2016 5:24:44 AM | 82
    @TG | 20

    "It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger ..."
    And yet you fail to mention the Muslim Brotherhood or the Turkish water wars ...

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 6:34:41 AM | 84
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-syria-idUSKCN11J0EY

    Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.

    The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire was holding at the start of its second day.

    Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside of Quneitra province.

    The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.

    The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone after the Israeli attack.

    Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."

    The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States, is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 9:33:38 AM | 89
    Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. T

    here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.

    Only the Saudis, or pushers of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's crusade.

    brian | Sep 13, 2016 9:55:45 AM | 90
    president Assad is a 'decent ruler' and thats the view of most syrians
    papillonweb | Sep 13, 2016 10:01:56 AM | 92
    Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians.

    There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their armaments while providing political cover.

    I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.

    TheRealDonald | Sep 13, 2016 10:08:27 AM | 93
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/un-condemns-assad-syria-abuse_us_57d7c49ce4b0fbd4b7bb50d8?section=&

    Now look what you've done, Debs.

    On to Sebastopol for the One Party!

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 10:25:10 AM | 94
    OT, but that was an interesting Sunni Islam conference in Grozny , because it excluded and then 'excommunicated' Salafism and Wahabbism. Amazing!

    "All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community. This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 11:04:04 AM | 96
    Josh Landis Syria Comment
    There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true.
    Noirette | Sep 13, 2016 12:25:52 PM | 99
    Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist' to a 'market' economy. Notes.

    > a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)

    > b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute for 'growing employment..'

    *opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)

    So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)

    1. all nos off the top of my head.

    2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate

    2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images and 'supporters' etc.

    http://www.planning.gov.sy/index.php?page=show&ex=2&dir=docs&lang=2&ser=2&cat=172&

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Global Economic Crisis and the Future of Neoliberal Globalization Rupture Versus Continuity by Ali Burak Güven, Ziya Öni

    papers.ssrn.com

    This article outlines the main elements of rupture and continuity in the global political economy since the global economic crisis of 2008-2009. While the current calamity poses a more systemic challenge to neoliberal globalization than genetically similar turbulences in the semi-periphery during the 1990s, we find that evidence for its transformative significance remains mixed. Efforts to reform the distressed capitalist models in the North encounter severe resistance, and the broadened multilateralism of the G-20 is yet to provide effective global economic governance. Overall, neoliberal globalization looks set to survive, but in more heterodox and multipolar fashion. Without tighter coordination between old and emerging powers, this new synthesis is unlikely to inspire lasting solutions to pressing global problems such as an unsustainable international financial architecture and the pending environmental catastrophe, and may even fail to preserve some modest democratic and developmental gains of the recent past.

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Myth of American Retreat by William Ruger

    Looks like this neocon Robert Lieber is completely detached from the reality. Cheap oil is coming to an end in this decade and with it the crisis hit neoliberal globalization and the US role as the capital of the global neoliberal empire. With far reaching consequences.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress. ..."
    "... The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion. ..."
    "... And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say? ..."
    "... The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. ..."
    "... President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Retreat and Its Consequences: American Foreign Policy and the Problem of World Order , Robert J. Lieber, Cambridge University Press, 152 pages

    The United States has been pursuing a grand strategy of primacy since at least the end of the Cold War. This hegemonic approach has sought, through active, deep engagement in the world, to preserve and extend the U.S.'s global dominance that followed the Soviet Union's collapse. In other words, it has aimed to turn the unipolar moment into a unipolar era. Maintaining this dominance has meant aggressive diplomacy and the frequent display, threat, and use of military power everywhere from the Balkans to the Baltics, from Libya to Pakistan, and from the Taiwan Straits to the Korean peninsula.

    Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress.

    Is it any wonder that more and more Americans question whether our foreign policy is working? Or that more and more Washington elites, though still a minority, are becoming dissatisfied with the status quo? Such challengers seek to reform the military budget and force structure to make them consistent with our real security needs. They also want to reduce ally free-riding and make sure that the full range of possible costs and consequences of our actions abroad get a more serious hearing so that we, in the immortal words of President Obama, "Don't do stupid shit."

    And yet Robert Lieber, in his slender new book Retreat and Its Consequences , thinks those who seek an alternative approach are dangerously misled. He sees any sign of realism and restraint-real, anticipated, or imagined-as a retreat with far-reaching negative implications. Lieber, a professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University, instead makes the case for doubling down on primacy and against the U.S. playing a "reduced" role in the world. He does so mainly by attempting to show the negative consequences of the Obama administration's supposed retrenchment while arguing for the importance of aggressive American global leadership.

    Unfortunately for the primacist cause, Retreat and Its Consequences is not a satisfactory rejoinder to its challengers. Lieber is unconvincing in both his indictment of opposing views and his case for deep engagement. The book frequently reads like a rehashing of attacks we've heard high and low since Bush departed office, from scholars like Peter Feaver of Duke University to the Beltway neoconservatives to the fear-mongering talking heads on cable news. More importantly, it trots out a deeply flawed argument that the United States under Obama is actually in retreat and shedding its global leadership.

    ♦♦♦

    Retreat and Its Consequences is the last book of Lieber's informal trilogy on recent U.S. foreign policy. In the first book in the series, The American Era (2005), Lieber argued in favor of the United States continuing in the post-9/11 era to lead the world through a grand strategy of "preponderance" and "active engagement." He claimed that such an approach would dovetail with the realities of that changed world, to the benefit of U.S. security and the international order alike. The next book, Power and Willpower in the American Future (2012), challenged the declinist perspective and made the case for why the U.S. could still exert global leadership despite facing a number of different challenges.

    Lieber begins this third book, Retreat and Its Consequences , by claiming that America's long-standing active engagement in global affairs has been increasingly questioned at home and that the U.S. has recently been retrenching and pulling back from its traditional leadership role. He describes this retrenchment in theory and practice, then briefly (and in more detail later in the book) paints a picture of a world gone bad as a consequence of this alleged retreat. He hangs most of his indictment on President Obama's foreign-policy approach, which Lieber claims reflects "a clear preference for reducing U.S. power and presence abroad" as well as "a deep skepticism about the use of force" and "a de-emphasis on relationships with allies."

    The middle section of the book provides chapter-long discussions of U.S. foreign relations with Europe, the Middle East, and the BRICS countries. In the Europe chapter, Lieber argues that our critical relationship with our European allies is suffering. He claims that the "Atlantic partnership has weakened as the United States has downplayed its European commitments and Europeans themselves have become less capable and more inclined to hedge their bets." The latter is due to Europe's own internal woes, including economic problems, military weakness (as well as growing pacifism), demographic challenges, and problems with the EU. The other half of the problem he lays, as is typical in this book, at the Obama administration's doorstep due to its de-emphasis on Europe and its weak behavior towards Putin's Russia.

    As for the Middle East, Lieber claims that the region and U.S. national interests there are suffering due to Obama's flawed retrenchment and disengagement strategy. Indeed, Lieber argues that Obama's transformative moves, only lightly described, have "contributed to the making of a more dangerous and unstable Middle East." He also discusses U.S. interests and history in the region, the sources of Middle East instability, and the "unexpected consequences" of the Iraq War-the rise of ISIS and Iran.

    Lieber's main point regarding the BRICS is that these countries have not helped and will not be able to help sustain the current global order. Indeed, he thinks these states have their own different priorities and, to the extent they benefit from the current system, will try to free ride as much as possible. Lieber uses these cases as still more reasons why the U.S. cannot disengage from its global leadership role even as economic power continues to diffuse.

    In the penultimate chapter, Lieber returns to his allegation that the U.S. has been retreating from the world and our leadership role-and tries to show that it has had dangerous consequences. In the process, he discusses U.S. policies toward Russia, China, Iraq and Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Cuba. In all these cases, Lieber finds evidence of failure and worsening conditions due to Obama's retrenchment and his aversion to using American power. He also claims that the Obama administration has cut our military while failing to provide a focused articulation of what goals it needs to meet.

    Lieber ends by returning to the theme of Power and Willpower in the American Future , namely that the U.S., despite its challenges, still has the capacity to pursue an active hegemonic grand strategy. He takes issue with the declinists and argues yet again that the U.S. ought to lead the world; otherwise, it "is likely to become a more disorderly and dangerous place, with mounting threats not only to world order and economic prosperity, but to its own national interests and homeland security."

    ♦♦♦

    Lieber's book isn't without its lucid moments. First, he is on sound footing when he notes that the BRICS are not fully committed to the current American-led international order. Furthermore, he is also right about the need for our European allies to increase their own capabilities-though one wishes he had paused to consider how this is an unsurprising result of U.S. security guarantees that incentivize free-riding.

    Second, Lieber also helpfully challenges the declinist view prevalent in some circles. The United States certainly has its challenges, with staggering debt and deficits, not to mention a stifling regulatory regime. But the U.S. continues to enjoy many strengths and advantages, especially relative to the other near-great powers in the system. (And in international politics, it is relative power that matters most.) Yet while Lieber gets the condition of the patient right in this instance, the good doctor does not convincingly argue for the necessity of his preferred prescription. That the U.S. may not be in relative decline or in as much future trouble as some might claim does not imply that the U.S. should continue to follow primacy. Rather, one could argue that it is precisely because of some of our continued advantages that his grand strategy is not required. When discussing the BRICS, Lieber admits that China suffers from some grave problems that may prevent it from becoming a serious challenger to American dominance. This raises the question of why the United States must do-and risk-so much to ensure our security or that of our allies in Asia.

    Despite these positives, Retreat and Its Consequences and the overarching approach that has guided Lieber's policy views for so long suffer from a number of critical flaws. Most importantly, the argument of the book is simply based on a mistaken and endlessly repeated premise that the United States has significantly retreated from the world and that this has been a key source of so many problems in it. Basically, Lieber, as we've heard so often from others, is arguing that the administration has pursued restraint, the world has gone to hell, restraint is responsible for our woes-and thus we must return to primacy. Admittedly, Obama, especially in his second term, has exercised greater discretion in how he has managed our global engagement and leadership. And he may in his heart of hearts have some sympathy with those who have counseled greater realism. But neither make for a policy of retreat.

    Indeed, the United States under Obama has continued to pursue a variant of primacy despite what Lieber and others keep saying in their critiques. The United States is still committed to defending over 60 other countries and commanding the global commons. It still has a forward-deployed military living on a globe-girdling network of hundreds of military bases. In fact, it has recently sent more troops and equipment to Iraq, Eastern Europe, and even Australia. The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion.

    And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say?

    Finally, Lieber's claim that disengagement and retrenchment is to blame for problems in the greater Middle East is rich given how the primacist approach he favors was to a great extent responsible for the problems in the first place. The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. It is especially noteworthy that the relative increase of Iranian influence Lieber bemoans was an entirely predictable result of that short-sighted campaign. And we haven't likely seen all of the poisonous fruit from what is happening in Yemen. In short, Lieber and his fellow primacists have advocated for policies in the Middle East-including the war in Iraq-that are a big part of the problem, not the solution.

    Our country needs challenges and alternatives to the status quo rather than boilerplate justifications of the policies that have failed to make us safer over the past 25 years. Regardless of what Lieber would have us believe, President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders.

    William Ruger is the vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Obama's Futile Efforts at 'Reassuring' Bad Clients

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain. ..."
    "... Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The U.S. is preparing to increase the amount of aid it provides to yet another wealthy client:

    President Barack Obama will unveil on Wednesday a massive new military aid package for Israel, one which - at a reported $38 billion over 10 years - would be the largest such deal in U.S. history.

    But is it enough to buy Obama the love of his fiercest pro-Israel critics?

    Not a chance.

    Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain.

    It is also a fact that many of Obama's "pro-Israel" critics have never accepted and will never accept that he is actually "pro-Israel" as they are, and so they dismiss anything he does as a trick, a bribe, or an insult. Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. The same goes for hawks that take it for granted that Obama supposedly neglects and abandons "allies" elsewhere in the region. There is nothing Obama can to make them believe that he doesn't do this, but that doesn't seem to stop him from frittering away more resources to placate governments that do little or nothing for the U.S.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Its not hard to see the thinking behind BIG from the Silicon Valley, elite perspective

    Notable quotes:
    "... A growing body of research indicates that the financial and psychological damage from a period of joblessness can be significant and long-lasting, especially for people who remain out of work for an extended period. ..."
    "... Friedman is just doing his job. The Saddam's WMDs paper endorsed Hillary on Jan 31st, and is part of the campaign of lies, deceptions and cover-ups. ..."
    "... As with television, it's healthier not to pollute one's mind with NYT propaganda. Reading the idiotic headlines is enough to realize that the "content" is crap. ..."
    "... Predictably, the comments on the NYT op-ed (by the "Suck on this, Iraq!" Friedman) are more thoughtful and reality-based than the author's column. ..."
    "... Libya and Syria and Ukraine were NOT just bad judgment calls. However, they were three consecutive bad judgment calls, with no good ones to offset. That still matters. ..."
    "... Libya and Syria and Ukraine were also lies, coming from the mouth of Hillary, and harming the country by tossing us into more wars. ..."
    "... I really wonder how Friedman and the other NYT Iraq war cheerleaders can look at themselves in the mirror each morning. And excellent point about Snowden, of course. ..."
    Jun 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    diptherio , June 1, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    It's not hard to see the thinking behind BIG from the Silicon Valley, elite perspective. They understand that putting everybody out of work from robotics or out-sourcing is a sure-fire way to create massive discontent. They think this is a clever way of keeping the losers contented (enough to not revolt) while maintaining their elevated position within the system. They don't care what the system looks like, really, just so long as they get to sit on top. They think this is a way to avert the revolution that they know, from reading Marx and thinking about it a little, their actions are sure to lead to, ceteris paribus .

    However, I think they underestimate the extent to which our continual trade deficits are predicated on the US dollar being the world's reserve currency. That status may not be in danger in the short term, but I think it's doomed to extinction over the medium term, as the BRICS and other countries maneuver their way out from under the thumb of the petro-dollar.

    But the up-side is that they're mainstreaming an MMT understanding of macroeconomics and, as old John used to say, "ideas have a way of taking on a life of their own." Also, some poor people might actually end up being benefited as a side-effect of the elites trying to keep the lower orders manageable. I mean, that's really what the New Deal was about, no? FDR wasn't fighting for the working man, he just realized that exploiting them too much could crash the whole system and be much worse for his class, the elites, than a little Social Security was. FDR wasn't looking to overturn class relations, but maintain them. He just had a more nuanced understanding of self-interest than many of his class peers (that oughta get some people fuming). Still, whatever the motivation, the programs had the practical effect of making a lot of people's lives better. Why shouldn't it be the same in this situation?

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Not that I'm foily, but if you combine the abolition of cash, BIG in the form of a digital deposit, retail tracking everywhere, and the precedent (from ObamaCare) of a mandate to participate in certain markets, you can concoct quite a dystopia….

    diptherio , June 1, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Yeah, the "BIG Brother" jokes are just too easy.

    I think we need to have a movement to defend cash. Small business owners should lead the charge, since card fees hit them the hardest. I see a possible coalition…anti-surveillance activists and guys like the owner of the pizza joint I frequent whose register bears a sign that reads "Cards accepted, Cash preferred."

    diptherio , June 1, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Also, a BIG would be a great excuse to start-up the Postal Bank. Everybody will get an account tied to their SSN that their BIG gets deposited in, accessible (in cash) at any post office. It might just be sell-able…at least to the public, if not to Wall Street.

    Romancing the Loan , June 1, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Take it another step and have "consumer choice" in lieu of voting. I like it; a good sci-fi writer needs to get on this.

    ChiGal , June 1, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    Whenever I hear about TPTB doing away with cash I am reminded of Margaret Atwood's prescient (from the 80s I think!) novel about a patriarchal dystopian future, The Handmaid's Tale – freezing the bank accounts is how it all started.

    aletheia33 , June 1, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    "A growing body of research indicates that the financial and psychological damage from a period of joblessness can be significant and long-lasting, especially for people who remain out of work for an extended period."

    quelle surprise! are poor, working, and middle-class people's well-being actually closely tied to how many days in their lives they can work? hoocoodanode?

    jrs , June 1, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    I hear they have really low well being in Europe with their 6 weeks vacations and way more holidays and stuff. They throw themselves off bridges at the start of every vacation season. Nah it's tied to having an income or not, not how many days they work.

    aletheia33 , June 1, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    right, thanks!

    i always forget about that because i've always worked as in independent contractor, staying sane by pretending benefits and paid holidays and vacations are not all that important in life. and i must say, lately i do see TPTB cashing in on my idea, bigtime. i should have placed some bets on that happening…

    polecat , June 1, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    I haven't worked a paying job for about 14 years….the wife works the day gig, while I maintain the abode, do household repairs, garden, tend to the bees & chickens…..etc. …… I'm 'working' my way on the downslope of collapse…'avoiding the rush' as John M Greer is fond of saying…..

    ….still sane!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    That only happens to Sapiens humans.

    A cat's well-being is rarely tied to how many days it is out of work.

    Thus, I suspect either 1. we are not that superior or 2. we have been brainwashed.

    Or both.

    aletheia33 , June 1, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    i meant, in our current industrialized, work-ethic-based western society. which not coincidentally has had a lousy mental and physical health outcome for millions of people over time.
    but never mind. a rising water floats all boats.
    until it doesn't.

    C , June 1, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    'Hillary's fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she made on issues that will not impact the future of either my family or my country. Private email servers? Cattle futures? Goldman Sachs lectures? All really stupid, but my kids will not be harmed by those poor calls. Debate where she came out on Iraq and Libya, if you will, but those were considered judgment calls, and if you disagree don't vote for her" [The Moustache of Understanding, New York Times]. You tell 'em, Tommy! Who cares about corruption? Corruption had nothing to do with Iraq!

    Of course they won't. You are well-off, well-connected, and work for a virtual organ of the state that has backed her every move. You and your framily are on the inside track and will of course be protected.

    It is everyone else that will be screwed.

    Jim Haygood , June 1, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Friedman is just doing his job. The Saddam's WMDs paper endorsed Hillary on Jan 31st, and is part of the campaign of lies, deceptions and cover-ups.

    Journo-hos … the only surprise is that you can buy them so cheap.

    As with television, it's healthier not to pollute one's mind with NYT propaganda. Reading the idiotic headlines is enough to realize that the "content" is crap.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Sounds like everyone should work for an organ (or a virtual organ, either way) of the state. Just make sure you're well-connected (the importance of being social – don't just bury yourself in books).

    Pavel , June 1, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Predictably, the comments on the NYT op-ed (by the "Suck on this, Iraq!" Friedman) are more thoughtful and reality-based than the author's column. Here is a sample:

    Thomas Friedman on lies that hurt the country? Let's start that with the Iraq War.

    I agree that the emails probably didn't hurt the country, even if they were illegal and even if she does lie about them. However, Snowden did not hurt the country either, he told the truth, and Hillary goes after him with a vengeance for doing that in ways that benefited the country, that the NYT of Pentagon Papers days should support. She does that even while she lies about her emails, and that is a relevant character issue for the power she seeks.

    Libya and Syria and Ukraine were NOT just bad judgment calls. However, they were three consecutive bad judgment calls, with no good ones to offset. That still matters.

    Libya and Syria and Ukraine were also lies, coming from the mouth of Hillary, and harming the country by tossing us into more wars.

    –NYT comment by Mark Thomason

    I really wonder how Friedman and the other NYT Iraq war cheerleaders can look at themselves in the mirror each morning. And excellent point about Snowden, of course.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Bill Black We Send Teachers to Prison for Rigging the Numbers, Why Not Bankers

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
    "... he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national security issues. ..."
    "... Hence teachers weren't divisive enough and therefore are/were seen as part of the "problem". ..."
    Apr 02, 2015 | naked capitalism

    Yves here. One has to wonder if the prosecutorial investment in bringing down a public school test-cheating ring has less to do with concern about the students and more to do with charter schools.

    By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives

    The New York Times ran the story on April Fools' Day of a jury convicting educators of gaming the test numbers and lying about their actions to investigators.

    ATLANTA - In a dramatic conclusion to what has been described as the largest cheating scandal in the nation's history, a jury here on Wednesday convicted 11 educators for their roles in a standardized test cheating scandal that tarnished a major school district's reputation and raised broader questions about the role of high-stakes testing in American schools.

    On their eighth day of deliberations, the jurors convicted 11 of the 12 defendants of racketeering, a felony that carries up to 20 years in prison. Many of the defendants - a mixture of Atlanta public school teachers, testing coordinators and administrators - were also convicted of other charges, such as making false statements, that could add years to their sentences.

    This was complicated trial that took six months to present and required eight days of jury deliberations. It was a major commitment of investigative and prosecutorial resources. But it was not investigated and prosecuted by the FBI and AUSAs, but by state and local officials. In addition to the trial success, the prosecutors secured 21 guilty pleas.

    Atlanta's public schools, of course, did not engage in "the largest cheating scandal in the nation's history." The big banks' cheating scandals left the Atlanta educators in the dust.

    The two obvious questions are why the educators cheated and how they got caught. "High-stakes testing" cannot explain the scandal because we have had such tests for over 50 years. The article explains the real drivers – compensation, promotions, fear, and ego (aka "reputation").

    "Officials said the cheating allowed employees to collect bonuses and helped improve the reputations of both Dr. Hall and the perpetually troubled school district she had led since 1999.

    Investigators wrote in the report that Dr. Hall and her aides had 'created a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation' that had permitted "cheating - at all levels - to go unchecked for years."

    Any reader familiar with my work should be running over in their mind Citigroup's vastly larger cheating frauds that senior managers produced by using exactly the same tactics to produce hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud.

    How did people become suspicious and decide to conduct a real investigation? They realized that the reported results were too good to be true. That too is directly parallel to Citi, where massive purchases of "liar's" loans known to be 90% fraudulent supposedly led to massive profits.

    The dozen educators who stood trial, including five teachers and a principal, were indicted in 2013 after years of questions about how Atlanta students had substantially improved their scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test, a standardized examination given throughout Georgia.

    In 2009, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution started publishing a series of articles that sowed suspicion about the veracity of the test scores, and Gov. Sonny Perdue ultimately ordered an investigation.

    Wow, a newspaper did a series of articles, and documented a scandal built on deceit. Imagine if the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were to do an "unsparing" investigation into banking fraud – and into Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to prosecute. What if they actually looked at culpability in the C-suites?

    The inquiry, which was completed in 2011, led to findings that were startling and unsparing: Investigators concluded that cheating had occurred in at least 44 schools and that the district had been troubled by "organized and systemic misconduct." Nearly 180 employees, including 38 principals, were accused of wrongdoing as part of an effort to inflate test scores and misrepresent the achievement of Atlanta's students and schools.

    The investigators wrote that cheating was particularly ingrained in individual schools - at one, for instance, a principal wore gloves while she altered answer sheets - but they also said that the district's top officials, including Superintendent Beverly L. Hall, bore some responsibility.

    Dr. Hall, who died on March 2, insisted that she had done nothing wrong and that her approach to education, which emphasized data, was not to blame. "I can't accept that there's a culture of cheating," Dr. Hall said in an interview in 2011. "What these 178 are accused of is horrific, but we have over 3,000 teachers."

    But a Fulton County grand jury later accused her and 34 other district employees of being complicit in the cheating. Twenty-one of the educators reached plea agreements; two defendants, including Dr. Hall, died before they could stand trial.

    Of course, Hall's "approach to education" did not "emphasize data" – it emphasized faux data – like Citi's accounting alchemists under Robert Rubin who transmuted fraudulent net liabilities (liar's loans) into supposedly wondrously valuable assets that had zero risk (Super Senior CDO tranches).

    A more general point is in order. Atlanta is the culmination of destructive national trends and failing to mention Houston in the story was unfortunate. First, the "reinventing government" movement decided the public sector was bad and the private sector was magnificent and said that the public sector should adopt private sector approaches including quite specifically "performance pay" based on quantitative measures. This brought to the public sector the perverse incentives that were ruining the private sector and about to bring on Enron-era fraud epidemic and then the most recent three fraud epidemics. Second, we were assured by proponents of the change that a concern for "reputation" would trump any perverse incentives. What the proponents failed to see, of course, was that in both the private and public sectors the way to create a superb reputation was to report inflated data.

    Reputation, instead of the "trump" ensuring good conduct, was a leading motive to engage in bad conduct. Third, we were told that giving public administrators far more power to squash teachers was the key to success in education. Lord Acton warned that absolute power leads to absolute corruption whether in Atlanta or Citi's C-suite.

    Houston should have been mentioned because the modern movement toward educational fraud began in Houston under Rod Paige – who became Secretary of Education based on massive fraudulent misrepresentation of data. Paige kicked off the testing insanity, claiming it would produce objective, fact-based policies based on what educational measures actually worked. As a famous takedown of Paige's claims ends – the lesson is that it was too good to be true. President Bush, however, bought it hook, line, sinker, bobber, rod, and the boat Paige rowed out in.

    In any event, if Fulton County, Georgia can jail educators who lie and gimmick the data, Holder can send the elite bankers to prison on the same grounds.

    lakewoebegoner, April 2, 2015 at 10:41 am

    *** One has to wonder if the prosecutorial investment in bringing down a public school test-cheating ring has less to do with concern about the students and more to do with charter schools. ***

    I believe it's even simpler than that…..prosecuting teachers is perfect fodder for the local 11 o'clock news-you're prosecuting publiclly paid low-hanging fruit, the crime is understandable (versus explaining accounting fraud or intentional misvaluation of assets) and of course-my gosh, think of the children!

    NotTimothyGeithner, April 2, 2015 at 11:07 am

    Local DAs have incentive to prosecute large cases, and Holder made sure to make token plea deals with the banks. A successful state AG who brought down a major financial player would destroy the Obama Administration just by existing two years into the first term because there would be no excuse. Plenty of loyal Team Blue voters if pressed will explain the lack of prosecution as a GOP plot, but with a counter example in the papers they would be more demoralized than they are.

    RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    Neither Team Blue or Team Red voters want to confront reality and truly see and acknowledge what's going on. The crooks in the District of Criminals have perfected their Kabuki Show of "hiding" behind each other's skirts and blaming the other side for all kinds of ills and perfidy. Tribalistic authoritarians can be lazy and not have to think for themselves and really DO something; just pass the clicker; lets all watch some "reality" tv show instead. Talk about the matrix….

    An example is my rightwing family members just recently celebrating quite a bit that Harry Reid has announced his retirement – as IF that'll be this amazingly good thing. Like: what will happen then? HOW, exactly, will "things get better" just bc they can't kick Harry Reid around anymore.

    Disclaimer: no love lost on my part vis Harry Reid. He's as much of a crook and worthless waste of space as all of the others, no matter which Team Jacket they wear. My take? What possible difference will it make if Reid retires or stays in the Senate indefinitely?

    RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 10:59 am

    Teachers have no money. Bankers have a TON of money. Sucks to be in the 99s.

    Good comments. Right now, too, teachers have been deliberately painted to be the evilest of the vile because unions! get paid too much! can't be fired! blah de blah…. it's something easy for the masses to grasp – all those dreadful overpaid teachers who can't be fired "robbing" us of our taxes, while allegedly doing a totally shitty job. Yeah right. Of course privatized school teachers would most definitely do a "better" jawb.

    It's all "look over there!!!!!" while the bankers are the ones robbing us blind deaf dumb stupid etc.

    And yes, Charter Schools! Another way for the crooks at the top to rip off the 99s! woot!

    And the beat down goes on…..

    djrichard, April 2, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    I remember back when the Supreme Court was debating W vs Gore, I put it to my neighbors that W would be under the influence of big oil and other powers that be. One of my neighbors countered that Gore would be under the influence of teachers. I was the minority opinion in that conversation.

    RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    No love lost on my part vis Gore, but seriously??? LIke Gore is "under the influence" of teachers??? Yeah, unions, but really? Like it's just so ridiculous. Teachers v Big Oil. Uh, er, that's pretty much like David v Goliath, but in this case Goliath/BigOil has totally crushed David/the 99s.

    djrichard, April 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    I'm surprised I found this, but I think this captures it.

    Bush's bully-boy campaign tactics play to his strengths, albeit unstated and unlovely ones. Many of the polls of the president have shown that while people don't necessarily agree with the specific policies he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national security issues.

    This was from W v Kerry days. But I think the same principle was operating during W v Gore. During 2004, the idea was to continue to inflict W on the middle east. During 2000, I think the idea was to inflict W on the "deserving elements" inside the US (whatever those deserving elements are/were at the time).

    Teachers if anything represent a "big tent" mind-set, one in which there are no losers, or vice-versa one in which everyone is deserving of winning. Hence teachers weren't divisive enough and therefore are/were seen as part of the "problem".

    [Sep 13, 2016] The people dont want a phony Democrat

    Now the idea that Hillary can beat Trump looks pretty questionable. Probably corrupt honchos at DNC now realized that by sinking Sanders they sunk the Party.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, 1952 ..."
    "... Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate 'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our third party… the Up Yours party! ..."
    "... Trump's support sure looks like a big middle finger salute to the party establishment more than anything else. ..."
    "... You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and the Grey Lady's fish wrap. ..."
    "... - Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump How shameless is that? ..."
    "... I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux Nooz Lite like the plague. ..."
    "... It's now owned by the corporations anyway. ..."
    "... Post owner Jeff Bezos was rated "Worst boss in the world" by the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation), ..."
    "... Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it. ..."
    "... The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
    "... Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state." When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of what the psychologists call projection. ..."
    "... That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring of power." ..."
    "... murdering people a central tenet of one's life? ..."
    "... Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses, it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls, nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan, which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant (which itself is interesting). ..."
    "... Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward. She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all! ..."
    "... Banner ad from the HC campaign on my email site today "Stand with Hillary to fight Trump." ..."
    Mar 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    DakotabornKansan , March 9, 2016 at 6:53 am

    Yesterday was one of those days when there was a settlement.

    "It is a pity that Wall Street, with its ability to control all the wealth of the nation and to hire the best law brains in the country, has not produced some statesmen, some men who could see the dangers of bigness and of the concentration of the control of wealth. Instead of working to meet the situation, they are still employing the best law brains to serve greed and self-interest. People can only stand so much and one of these days there will be a settlement." – Senator Harry S. Truman, Congressional Record, 1937

    "The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, 1952

    shinola , March 9, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Your mention of Truman makes me go "Hmm… are we looking at a Truman vs Dewey moment?"

    Mike Mc , March 9, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate 'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our third party… the Up Yours party!

    shinola , March 9, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Trump's support sure looks like a big middle finger salute to the party establishment more than anything else.

    Bernie has an actual platform so his support may have more substance (although I'm not adverse to signalling Ms. Clinton to just f**k off & die).

    Pat , March 9, 2016 at 8:27 am

    You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and the Grey Lady's fish wrap.

    Pavel , March 9, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Here is similar grossly biased "reporting": On The Hill's home page today there is an article link:

    Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump
    Sanders also tops Trump in a hypothetical general election matchup.

    From the article itself:

    Democrat Hillary Clinton would defeat Republican presidential rival Donald Trump by double digits in a hypothetical general election matchup, according to a poll released Wednesday.

    Clinton would edge out Trump by 13 points in a one-on-one vote, 51 percent to 38 percent , in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey.

    Trump, the controversial GOP front-runner, would lose even more soundly to Bernie Sanders should the Independent Vermont senator secure the Democratic nomination.

    Sanders bests Trump by 18 points, 55 to 37 percent. Sanders picked up a surprise win over Clinton in Michigan on Tuesday, though Clinton expanded her overall delegate lead.

    [my emphasis]

    - Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump How shameless is that?

    RUKidding , March 9, 2016 at 11:12 am

    I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux Nooz Lite like the plague. A lot of their stenographers also work for Fox (really). It's a pointless exercise in futility to waste my valuable time and brain cells listen to Faux Nooz National Propaganda Radio.

    It's now owned by the corporations anyway.

    tegnost , , March 9, 2016 at 12:56 pm
    NPR here in san diego said it was a win for hill because she got more delegates when missippi and michigan are added together…

    ...Comments re sanders not having congressional support are actually even more true with trump, he will face considerable obstruction, while clinton will take the reins from obama on the fly and drive the buggy full tilt down the road to neo libbercon utopia

    Lord Koos , March 9, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    The Washington Post published 16 anti-Bernie pieces in 16 hours - http://www.fair.org/static/bernie-static.html

    Post owner Jeff Bezos was rated "Worst boss in the world" by the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation),

    Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it.

    Keith , March 9, 2016 at 7:46 am

    ...Capitalism is essentially the same as every other social system since the dawn of civilisation.

    The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure.

    The nature of the Leisure Class, to which the benefits of every system accrue, was studied over 100 years ago.

    "The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions", by Thorstein Veblen.

    (The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight. It was written a long time ago but much of it is as true today as it was then. This is the source of the term conspicuous consumption.)

    We still have our leisure class in the UK, the Aristocracy, and they have been doing very little for centuries.

    The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone else doing all the work.

    Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:

    a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends and rent.
    b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.

    All this was much easier to see in Capitalism's earlier days.

    Malthus and Ricardo never saw those at the bottom rising out of a bare subsistence living. This was the way it had always been and always would be, the benefits of the system only accrue to those at the top.

    It was very obvious to Adam Smith:

    "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."

    Like most classical economists he differentiated between "earned" and "unearned" wealth and noted how the wealthy maintained themselves in idleness and luxury via "unearned", rentier income from their land and capital.

    We can no longer see the difference between the productive side of the economy and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side. This is probably why inequality is rising so fast, the mechanisms by which the system looks after those at the top are now hidden from us.

    In the 19th Century things were still very obvious.

    1) Those at the top were very wealthy
    2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
    3) Slavery
    4) Child Labour

    Immense wealth at the top with nothing trickling down, just like today.

    This is what Capitalism maximized for profit looks like.

    Labour costs are reduced to the absolute minimum to maximise profit.

    The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.

    The function of the system is still laid bare.

    The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure.

    The majority only got a larger slice of the pie through organised Labour movements.

    By the 1920s, mass production techniques had improved to such an extent that relatively wealthy consumers were required to purchase all the output the system could produce and extensive advertising was required to manufacture demand for the chronic over-supply the Capitalist system could produce.

    They knew that if wealth concentrated too much there would not be enough demand.

    Of course the Capitalists could never find it in themselves to raise wages and it took the New Deal and Keynesian thinking to usher in the consumer society.

    In the 1950s, when Capitalism had healthy competition, it was essential that the Capitalist system could demonstrate that it was better than the competition.

    The US was able to demonstrate the superior lifestyle it offered to its average citizens.

    Now the competition has gone, the US middle class is being wiped out.

    The US is going third world, with just rich and poor and no middle class.

    Raw Capitalism can only return Capitalism to its true state where there is little demand and those at the bottom live a life of bare subsistence.

    Capitalism is a very old system designed to maintain an upper, Leisure, class. The mechanisms by which parasitic, rentier, "unearned", income are obtained need to kept to an absolute minimum by whatever means necessary (legislation, taxation, etc ..)

    Michael Hudson's book "Killing the Host" illustrates these problems very well.

    When you realise the true nature of Capitalism, you know why some kind of redistribution is necessary and strong progressive taxation is the only way a consumer society can ever be kept functioning. The Capitalists never seem to recognise that employees are the consumers that buy their products and services and are very reluctant to raise wages to keep the whole system going.

    A good quote from John Kenneth Galbraith's book "The Affluent Society", which in turn comes from Marx.

    "The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path to his own destruction"

    Marx made some mistakes but he got quite a lot right.

    Jeez, no one told me that global employees are the global consumers.
    So as we all increase profits by cutting labour costs we are effectively cutting our own throats.
    You got it.

    Massinissa , March 10, 2016 at 12:22 am Jim Haygood , March 9, 2016 at 10:15 am

    "[CLINTON] The sooner I could become your nominee, the more I could begin to turn my attention to the Republicans."

    Translation: [CLINTON] "The sooner I could become your nominee, the more I could begin to steer my platform HARD RIGHT."

    Fascism: it's okay when we do it!

    Carolinian , March 9, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state." When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of what the psychologists call projection.

    That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring of power."

    ekstase , March 9, 2016 at 4:09 pm
    murdering people a central tenet of one's life?

    Really, this is one of Earth's oldest taboos, and yet it has become cool to flaunt your not-caring-about it like that is some badge of honor, and better qualifies you for office. How about if say kindness, and honesty, and "first, do no harm," were exalted into the same high positions? Everything would be flipped on its head, and in my opinion, we'd be a lot better for it. It's not silly.

    dk , March 9, 2016 at 9:04 am

    I was in the bag for Bernie from day one, but I like to look ahead and see what I'm getting myself into. My own expectations of B. Obama were quite low in 2008 but he managed to underperform them (while the Republicans came through in grand style).

    So what does a thoughtful person see ahead with a President Bernie? Can we cast a clear eye? How does this play out?

    I'm thinking of looking to possible comparisons to previous (J. Carter, '76) and current (J. Corbyn across the pond, in progress) cases of, well, political outsider from the left end up at the head of the table (and maybe some similar qualities of temperament), and what happened then.

    If memory serves (and please set me straight if it doesn't) Carter, always something of a loner, had a hard time getting traction with Congress, as well as considerably confusion and derision from the (nascent, burgeoning) neo-con right that came after, and from within his own party, and the press. I believe I see a similar overall pattern (again, correct me) for Corbyn, only more so: press is skeptical to derisive, and Labor is still procession what it all really means for them (how much of this is sheer denial of inevitable transformation and how much is stubborn inertial durability is not clear to me). Lessons here might serve not only to anticipate some obvious pitfalls, but perhaps to sidestep (or even strategically use) some of them.

    A Bernie presidency would represent a huge challenge for the Dem establishment, not completely different from what the Republican party is going through but with different specifics (and also a later start). Without a continuing and active grassroots network (writing, marching, contributing, putting up candidates, etc), I think Bernie would be dead in the water come 2017. And accepting a largely negative reaction from business, how much will be a unified front, and what kind of internecine squabbling could take place?

    Can a post-presidential grassroots activist network flip Congress in two years (it took the Tea Party 4-6)? I don't think Sanders has a second term without significant success in his first? The stakes are even higher; 2020 is a census year, as in: redistricting time.

    Also, the disenfranchised usually get hit the hardest when systems shift gears (for example, loss of some good policies in the ACA rollout, not to mention the website). Given a hostile business front that will try to punish the vulnerable, what is the blowback on a $15 minimum wage.

    Thoughts? Links? Take your time, no rush (yet). Lambert?

    *ducks and covers*

    washunate , March 9, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses, it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls, nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan, which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant (which itself is interesting).

    For example, to pick on the YouGov poll that underestimated younger voter support for Sanders. It was conducted a week ago, and the poll found that 1/3 of Dem primary voters had not firmly decided on their candidate at that time. YouGov also included a sample that was 30% for those under 45, whereas exit polling from CNN suggests actual turnout for those under 45 was more like 45%. And it gave a 32 point advantage to Sanders in the under 30 crowd, whereas CNN's exit poll suggested an actual spread of more like 62 points.

    When things go as expected, the various assumptions and simplifications hold. But that very bias makes it virtually impossible to predict discontinuous change, since by definition, that is assumed away by the modeling.

    Anne , March 9, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    But isn't the takeaway there that she lost the independents in large numbers? How does she win a general election without young voters and independents? My guess is she would pivot in her usual clumsy manner away from the more left-leaning positions she's been pushed to take, and go back to her comfort zone as a center-right Rockefeller-style Republican with a (D) after her name.

    I am less concerned that she is screwed than that the Dem establishment would rather screw us all over in order to protect their comfortable positions in the power structure.

    washunate , March 9, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward. She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all!

    Independents have been breaking hard for Sanders (not just in Michigan). In CNN's exit polling, for example, in SC – a state Clinton won by a huge margin – Sanders still actually won voters under 30 (by 8 points) and Independents (by 7 points). Go to a state that was competitive, like Massachusetts, and it's a 30 point spread for voters under 30 and a 33 point spread on Independents. CNN didn't even do exit polling in places like Minnesota and Kansas. In Oklahoma, Sanders won under 30 voters by 65 points and Independents by 48.

    marym , March 9, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Banner ad from the HC campaign on my email site today "Stand with Hillary to fight Trump."

    [Sep 13, 2016] Bill Black The Clintons Have Not Changed

    Notable quotes:
    "... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
    "... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
    "... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
    "... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
    "... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
    "... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
    "... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
    "... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
    "... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
    Mar 04, 2016 | naked capitalism

    Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.

    ...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is "partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 4:03 am

    HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the Democratic nominee.

    Chris A , March 4, 2016 at 6:27 am

    From wsws.org:

    "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.

    Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond.

    Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"

    From Bill Van Auken/Wsws.org

    RP , March 4, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Honduras isn't exactly a feather in her cap either

    KYrocky , March 4, 2016 at 9:19 am

    The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy, as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what should be the public sphere of our government.

    Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse.

    MIchael C. , March 4, 2016 at 9:32 am

    The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill, grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way election time.

    Deloss Brown , March 4, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look, for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?

    John , March 4, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Trump probably left of Clinton in many ways. Probably less corrupt.

    jrs , March 4, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.

    I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.

    AnEducatedFool , March 4, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card to justify their vote.

    Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.

    I do not know how she can win if she loses Ohio.

    perpetualWAR , March 4, 2016 at 11:03 am

    If the Democrats choose to give us Hillary, I will vote Republican.

    hreik , March 4, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    If the Democrats choose to give us Hillary, I'll write in Sanders.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.

    AnEducatedFool , March 4, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Excellent article. I hope Sanders will offer Bill Black a job in his administration. I've noticed that Black was often on panels held by Sanders.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of doing business.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Neoliberal pseudo theories vs tobin

    Notable quotes:
    "... We don't get to do many controlled experiments in economics, so history is mainly what we have to go on. ..."
    "... What did orthodox salt-water macroeconomists believe about disinflation on the eve of the Paul Volcker contraction? As it happens, we have an excellent source document: James Tobin's "Stabilization Policy Ten Years After," * presented at Brookings in early 1980. ..."
    "... Unemployment shot up faster than in Tobin's simulation, then came down faster, because the Fed didn't follow the simple rule he assumed. But the basic shape - a clockwise spiral, with inflation coming down thanks to a period of very high unemployment - was very much in line with what standard Keynesian macro said would happen. ..."
    "... trade between any two regional economies is roughly proportional to the product of their GDPs and inversely related to distance. Neat. ..."
    Sep 02, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne said...

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/the-triumph-of-backward-looking-economics/

    September 1, 2015

    The Triumph of Backward-Looking Economics

    By Paul Krugman

    We don't get to do many controlled experiments in economics, so history is mainly what we have to go on. Unfortunately, many people who imagine that they know how the economy works go with what they think they heard about history, not with what actually happened. And I'm not just talking about the great unwashed; quite a few well-known economists seem not to have heard about FRED, or at least haven't picked up the habit of doing a quick scan of the actual data before making assertions about facts.

    And there's one decade in particular where people are weirdly unaware of the realities: the 1980s. A lot of this has to do with Reaganolatry: the usual suspects have repeated so often that it was a time of extraordinary, incredible success that I often encounter liberals who believe that something special must have happened, that somehow the events were at odds with what the prevailing macroeconomic models of the time said would happen.

    But nothing special happened, aside from the unexpected willingness of the Federal Reserve to impose incredibly high unemployment in order to bring inflation down.

    What did orthodox salt-water macroeconomists believe about disinflation on the eve of the Paul Volcker contraction? As it happens, we have an excellent source document: James Tobin's "Stabilization Policy Ten Years After," * presented at Brookings in early 1980. Among other things, Tobin laid out a hypothetical disinflation scenario based on the kind of Keynesian model people like him were using at the time (which was also the model laid out in the Dornbusch-Fischer and Robert Gordon textbooks).

    These models included an expectations-augmented Phillips curve, ** with no long-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment - but expectations were assumed to adjust gradually based on experience, rather than changing rapidly via forward-looking assessments of Fed policy.

    This was, of course, the kind of model the Chicago School dismissed scathingly as worthy of nothing but ridicule, and which was more or less driven out of the academic literature, even as it continued to be the basis of a lot of policy analysis.

    So here was Tobin's picture:

    [Picture]

    Here's what actually happened:

    [Graph]

    Unemployment shot up faster than in Tobin's simulation, then came down faster, because the Fed didn't follow the simple rule he assumed. But the basic shape - a clockwise spiral, with inflation coming down thanks to a period of very high unemployment - was very much in line with what standard Keynesian macro said would happen. On the other hand, there was no sign whatsoever of the kind of painless disinflation rational-expectations models suggested would happen if the Fed credibly announced its disinflation plans.

    anne said...

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/gravity/

    September 1, 2015

    Gravity
    By Paul Krugman

    Now that's fun: Adam Davidson tells us * about trade in the ancient Near East, as documented by archives found in Kanesh - and reports that the volume of trade between Kanesh and various trading partners seems to fit a gravity equation: trade between any two regional economies is roughly proportional to the product of their GDPs and inversely related to distance. Neat.

    But what does the seemingly universal applicability of the gravity equation tell us? Davidson suggests that it's an indication that policy can't do much to shape trade. That's not where I would have gone, and it's not where those who have studied the issue closely ** have gone.

    Here's my take: Think about two cities with the same per capita GDP - we can relax that assumption in a minute. They will trade if residents of city A find things being sold by residents of city B that they want, and vice versa.

    So what's the probability that an A resident will find a B resident with something he or she wants? Applying what one of my old teachers used to call the principle of insignificant reason, a good first guess would be that this probability is proportional to the number of potential sellers - B's population.

    And how many such desirous buyers will there be? Again applying insignificant reason, a good guess is that it's proportional to the number of potential buyers - A's population.

    So other things equal we would expect exports from B to A to be proportional to the product of their populations.

    What if GDP per capita isn't the same? You can think of this as increasing the "effective" population, both in terms of producers and in terms of consumers. So the attraction is now the product of the GDPs.

    Is there anything surprising about the fact that this relationship works pretty well? A bit. Standard pre-1980 trade theory envisaged countries specializing in accord with their comparative advantage - England does cloth, Portugal wine. And these models suggest that how much countries trade should have a lot to do with whether they are similar or not. Cloth exporters shouldn't be selling much to each other, but should instead do their trading with wine exporters. In reality, however, there's basically no sign of any such effect: even seemingly similar countries trade about as much as a gravity equation says they should.

    Calibrated models of trade have long dealt with this reality, somewhat awkwardly, with the so-called Armington assumption, *** which simply assumes that even the apparently same good from different countries is treated by consumers as a differentiated product - a banana isn't just a banana, it's an Ecuador banana or a Saint Lucia banana, which are imperfect substitutes. The new trade theory some of us introduced circa 1980 - or as some now call it, the "old new trade theory" - does a bit more, and possibly better, by introducing monopolistic competition and increasing returns to explain why even similar countries produce differentiated products.

    And there's also a puzzle about both the effect of distance and the effect of borders, both of which seem larger than concrete costs can explain. Work continues.

    Does any of this suggest the irrelevance of trade policy? Not really. Changes in trade policy do have obvious effects on how much countries trade. Look at what happened when Mexico opened up starting in the late 1980s, as compared with Canada, which was fairly open all along - and which, like Mexico, mainly trades with the US:

    [Graph]

    So what does gravity tell us? Simple Ricardian comparative advantage is clearly incomplete; the process of international trade is subtler, with invisible as well as visible costs. Not trivial, but not too unsettling. And gravity models are very useful as a benchmark for assessing other effects.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-vcs-of-bc.html

    ** https://www2.bc.edu/~anderson/GravitySlides.pdf

    *** http://wits.worldbank.org/wits/wits/witshelp/Content/SMART/Demand%20side%20the%20Armington.htm

    anne -> anne...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-vcs-of-bc.html

    August 29, 2015

    The V.C.s of B.C.
    By ADAM DAVIDSON

    One morning, just before dawn, an old man named Assur-idi loaded up two black donkeys. Their burden was 147 pounds of tin, along with 30 textiles, known as kutanum, that were of such rare value that a single garment cost as much as a slave. Assur-idi had spent his life's savings on the items, because he knew that if he could convey them over the Taurus Mountains to Kanesh, 600 miles away, he could sell them for twice what he paid.

    At the city gate, Assur-idi ran into a younger acquaintance, Sharrum-Adad, who said he was heading on the same journey. He offered to take the older man's donkeys with him and ship the profits back. The two struck a hurried agreement and wrote it up, though they forgot to record some details. Later, Sharrum-­Adad claimed he never knew how many textiles he had been given. Assur-idi spent the subsequent weeks sending increasingly panicked letters to his sons in Kanesh, demanding they track down Sharrum-Adad and claim his profits.

    These letters survive as part of a stunning, nearly miraculous window into ancient economics. In general, we know few details about economic life before roughly 1000 A.D. But during one 30-year period - between 1890 and 1860 B.C. - for one community in the town of Kanesh, we know a great deal. Through a series of incredibly unlikely events, archaeologists have uncovered the comprehensive written archive of a few hundred traders who left their hometown Assur, in what is now Iraq, to set up importing businesses in Kanesh, which sat roughly at the center of present-day Turkey and functioned as the hub of a massive global trading system that stretched from Central Asia to Europe. Kanesh's traders sent letters back and forth with their business partners, carefully written on clay tablets and stored at home in special vaults. Tens of thousands of these records remain. One economist recently told me that he would love to have as much candid information about businesses today as we have about the dealings - and in particular, about the trading practices - of this 4,000-year-old community.

    Trade is central to every key economic issue we face. Whether the subject is inequality, financial instability or the future of work, it all comes down to a discussion of trade: trade of manufactured goods with China, trade of bonds with Europe, trade over the Internet or enabled by mobile apps. For decades, economists have sought to understand how trade works. Can we shape trade to achieve different outcomes, like a resurgence of manufacturing or a lessening of inequality? Or does trade operate according to fairly fixed rules, making it resistant to conscious planning?

    Economists, creating models of trade, have faced a challenge, because their data have derived exclusively from the modern world. Are their models universal or merely reflections of our time? It's a crucial question, because many in our country would like to change our trading system to protect American jobs and to improve working conditions here and abroad. The archives of Kanesh have proved to be the greatest single source of information about trade from an entirely premodern milieu.

    In a beautifully detailed new book - ''Ancient Kanesh,'' written by a scholar of the archive, Mogens Trolle Larsen, to be published by Cambridge University Press later this year - we meet dozens of the traders of Kanesh and their relatives back home in Assur. Larsen has been able to construct family trees, detailing how siblings and cousins, parents and spouses, traded with one another and often worked against one another. We meet struggling businessmen, like Assur-idi, and brilliant entrepreneurs, like Shalim-Assur, who built a wealthy dynasty that lasted generations. In 2003, while covering the war in Iraq, I traveled to many ancient archaeological sites; the huge burial mounds, the carvings celebrating kings as relatives to the gods, all gave the impression of a despotic land in which a tiny handful of aristocrats and priests enjoyed dictatorial control. But the Kanesh documents show that at least some citizens had enormous power over their own livelihoods, achieving wealth and power through their own entrepreneurial endeavors.

    The details of daily life are amazing, but another scholar, Gojko Barjamovic, of Harvard, realized that the archive also offered insight into something potentially more compelling. Many of the texts enumerate specific business details: the price of goods purchased and sold, the interest ate on debt, the costs of transporting goods and the various taxes in the many city-states that the donkey caravans passed on the long journey from Assur to Kanesh. Like most people who have studied Kanesh, Barjamovic is an Assyriologist, an expert in ancient languages and culture. Earlier this year, he joined some economists, as well as some other Assyriologists and archaeologists, on a team that analyzed Kanesh's financial statistics. The picture that emerged of economic life is staggeringly advanced. The traders of Kanesh used financial tools that were remarkably similar to checks, bonds and joint-stock companies. They had something like venture-capital firms that created diversified portfolios of risky trades. And they even had structured financial products: People would buy outstanding debt, sell it to others and use it as collateral to finance new businesses. The 30 years for which we have records appear to have been a time of remarkable financial innovation....

    anne said...

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/multipliers-what-we-should-have-known/

    September 1, 2015

    Multipliers: What We Should Have Known
    By Paul Krugman

    There's a very nice interview * with Olivier Blanchard, who is leaving the International Monetary Fund, in which among other things Olivier says the right thing about changing one's mind:

    "With respect to outside, the issue I have been struck by is how to indicate a change of views without triggering headlines of 'mistakes,' 'Fund incompetence,' and so on. Here, I am thinking of fiscal multipliers. The underestimation of the drag on output from fiscal consolidation was not a 'mistake' in the way people think of mistakes, e.g. mixing up two cells in an excel sheet. It was based on a substantial amount of prior evidence, but evidence which turned out to be misleading in an environment where interest rates are close to zero and monetary policy cannot offset the negative effects of budget cuts. We got a lot of flak for admitting the underestimation, and I suspect we shall continue to get more flak in the future. But, at the same time, I believe that we, the Fund, substantially increased our credibility, and used better assumptions later on. It was painful, but it was useful."

    Indeed. There are a lot of people out there whose idea of a substantive argument is "you used to say X, now you say Y" - never mind the reasons why you changed your view, and whether it was right to do so.It's important not to fall into the trap of being afraid to let new evidence or analysis speak.

    One thing I would say, however, is that on this particular issue the Fund should have known better. Olivier says that the evidence "turned out to be misleading in an environment where interest rates are close to zero and monetary policy cannot offset the negative effects of budget cuts", but didn't we know that? I certainly did. **

    And let me also beat one of my favorite drums: the prediction that multipliers would be much larger in a liquidity trap came out of IS-LMish macro (or, to be fair, New Keynesian models) and has been overwhelmingly confirmed by experience. So this was yet another victory for Keynesian analysis, the success story nobody will believe.

    * http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/RES083115A.htm

    ** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/depression-multipliers/

    anne -> anne...

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/depression-multipliers/

    November 10, 2009

    Depression Multipliers
    By Paul Krugman

    Barry Eichengreen and Kevin O'Rourke have lately been scoring a series of research coups, based on the combination of historical perspective and a global view. Most famously, they showed that on a global basis the first year of the current crisis was every bit as severe * as the first year of the Great Depression.

    Now they and collaborators have a new piece on policy effects, ** especially fiscal multipliers.

    The background here is that there are two problems with estimating multipliers relevant to our current situation. First, you need to look at what happens under liquidity-trap conditions - and except in Japan,these haven't prevailed anywhere since the 1930s. The second is that in the United States, fiscal policy was never forceful enough to provide a useful natural experiment. We didn't have a really big fiscal expansion until World War II; and WWII isn't a good experiment because the surge in defense spending was accompanied by government policies that suppressed private demand, such as rationing and restrictions on investment. (I really, really don't understand why this point has been so hard to get across.)

    What E&R do here is use a broad international cross-section to overcome this problem. This works because a number of countries had major military buildups during the 1930s - fiscal expansions that can be regarded as exogenous to the economic situation, since they were

    "driven above all by Hitler's rearmament programmes and other nations' efforts to match the Nazis in this sphere, and by one-off events like Italy's war in Abyssinia."

    What do E&R find? Initial fiscal multipliers of 2 or more, although they shrink over time. Yes, fiscal expansion is expansionary.

    * http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421

    ** http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~eichengr/great_dep_great_cred_11-09.pdf

    So how does the decade of the 1980s end up being perceived as a defeat for Keynesians? To see it that way you have to systematically misrepresent both what happened to the economy and what people like Tobin were saying at the time. In reality, Tobinesque economics looks very good in the light of events.

    * http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1980-1/1980a_bpea_tobin.PDF

    ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

    In economics, the Phillips curve is a historical inverse relationship between rates of unemployment and corresponding rates of inflation that result in an economy. Stated simply, decreased unemployment, (i.e. increased levels of employment) in an economy will correlate with higher rates of inflation.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

    Sep 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Brad DeLong:
    Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression' : ... Back before 2008, I used to teach my students that during a disturbance in the business cycle, we'd be 40 percent of the way back to normal in a year. The long-run trend of economic growth, I would say, was barely affected by short-run business cycle disturbances. There would always be short-run bubbles and panics and inflations and recessions. They would press production and employment away from its long-run trend -- perhaps by as much as 5 percent. But they would be transitory.
    After the shock hit, the economy would rapidly head back to normal. The equilibrium-restoring logic and magic of supply and demand would push the economy to close two-fifths of the gap to normal each year. After four years, only a seventh of the peak disturbance would remain.
    In the aftermath of 2008, Stiglitz was indeed one of those warning that I and economists like me were wrong. Without extraordinary, sustained and aggressive policies to rebalance the economy, he said, we would never get back to what before 2008 we had thought was normal.
    I was wrong. He was right. ...

    [Sep 11, 2016] Trump is afraid the neoliberal imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs ..."
    "... Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive. ..."
    "... I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012. ..."
    "... No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong . ..."
    "... The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world. ..."
    "... In the case of Mexico, because Peña Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni. ..."
    "... To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently. ..."
    "... The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back. ..."
    "... The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for? ..."
    "... I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush. ..."
    "... They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud. ..."
    "... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
    "... Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race? ..."
    "... Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. ..."
    "... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
    Aug 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Lupita 08.04.16 at 4:23 am 167

    I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs .

    Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive.

    I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012.

    Layman 08.04.16 at 11:59 am

    Rich P: "Neoliberals often argue that people should be glad to lose employment at 50 so that people from other countries can have higher incomes "

    I doubt this most sincerely. While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.04.16 at 12:03 pm

    "I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument."

    No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong .

    engels 08.04.16 at 12:25 pm

    While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument

    Maybe this kind of thing rom Henry Farrell? (There may well be better examples.)

    Is some dilution of the traditional European welfare state acceptable, if it substantially increases the wellbeing of current outsiders (i.e. for example, by bringing Turkey into the club). My answer is yes, if European leftwingers are to stick to their core principles on justice, fairness, egalitarianism etc

    http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/31/talking-turkey-over-welfare/

    Lupita 08.04.16 at 2:42 pm

    Large numbers of low-income white southern Americans consistently vote against their own economic interests. They vote to award tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations, to cut unemployment benefits, to bust unions, to reward companies for outsourcing jobs, to resist wage increases, to cut funding for health care for the poor, to cut Social Security and Medicare, etc.

    The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world.

    Why might this be?

    In the case of Mexico, because Peña Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni.

    Patrick 08.04.16 at 4:32 pm

    To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently.

    They see it as little different from letting your kid move back on after college and smoke weed in your basement. They don't generally mind people being on unemployment transitionally, but they're supposed to be a little embarrassed about it and get it over with as soon as possible. They not only worry that increased government social spending will incentivize bad behavior, they worry it will destroy the cultural values they see as vital to Americas past prosperity. They tend to view claims about historic or systemic injustice necessitating collective remedy because they view the world as one in which the vagaries of fate decree that some are born rich or poor, and that success is in improving ones station relative to where one starts. Attempts at repairing historical racial inequity read as cheating in that paradigm, and even as hostile since they can easily observe white people who are just as poor or poorer than those who racial politics focuses upon. Left wing insistence on borrowing the nastiest rhetoric of libertarians ("this guy is poor because his ancestors couldn't get ahead because of historical racial injustice so we must help him; your family couldn't get ahead either but that must have been your fault so you deserve it") comes across as both antithetical to their values and as downright hostile within the values they see around them.

    All of this can be easily learned by just talking to them.

    It's not a great world view. It fails to explain quite a lot. For example, they have literally no way of explaining increased unemployment without positing either that everyone is getting too lazy to work, or that the government screwed up the system somehow, possibly by making it too expensive to do business in the US relative to other countries. and given their faith in the power of hard work, they don't even blame sweatshops- they blame taxes and foreign subsidies.

    I don't know exactly how to reach out to them, except that I can point to some things people do that repulse them and say "stop doing that."

    bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 5:50 pm

    The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back.

    The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for?

    There is serious deficit of both trust and information among the poor. Poor whites hardly have a monopoly; black misleadership is epidemic in our era of Cory Booker socialism.


    bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 7:05 pm

    Politics is founded on the complex social psychology of humans as social animals. We elevate it from its irrational base in emotion to rationalized calculation or philosophy at our peril.


    T 08.04.16 at 9:17 pm

    @Layman

    I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush.

    They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud.

    So, is your argument is that Trump even more racist? That kind of goes against the whole point of the OP. Not saying that race doesn't matter. Of course it does. But Trump has a 34% advantage in non-college educated white men. It just isn't the South. Why does it have to be just race or just class?


    Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm

    "I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"

    My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income.

    This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition), and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency , they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.

    T 08.05.16 at 3:12 pm

    @patrick @layman

    Patrick, you're right about the Trump demographic. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

    Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race?

    Are the folks that voted for the other candidates in the primary less racist so Trump supporters are just the most racist among Republicans? Cruz less racist? You have to explain the shift within the Republican party because that's what happened.

    Anarcissie 08.06.16 at 3:00 pm

    Faustusnotes 08.06.16 at 1:50 pm @ 270 -

    Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. While Berne's theories are a bit too nifty for me to love them, I have observed a lot of the behaviors he predicts. If one wanted to be sociobiological, it is not hard to hypothesize evolutionary pressures which could lead to this sort of behavior being genetically programmed. If a group of humans, a notably combative primate, does not have strong social cohesion, the war of all against all ensues and everybody dies. Common affections alone do not seem to provide enough cohesion.

    In an earlier but related theory, in the United States, immigrants from diverse European communities which fought each other for centuries in Europe arrived and managed to now get along because they had a major Other, the Negro, against whom to define themselves (as the White Race) and thus to cohere sufficiently to get on with business. The Negro had the additional advantage of being at first a powerless slave and later, although theoretically freed, was legally, politically, and economically disabled - an outsider who could not fight back very effectively, nor run away. Even so, the US almost split apart and there continue to be important class, ethnic, religious, and regional conflicts. You can see how these two theories resonate.

    It may be that we can't have communities without this dark side, although we might be able to mitigate some of its destructive effects.

    bruce wilde r 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm

    I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.

    Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)

    Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.

    For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.

    engels 08.07.16 at 1:02 am

    But how did that slavery happen

    Possible short answer: the level of technological development made slavery an efficient way of exploiting labour. At a certain point those conditions changed and slavery became a drag on further development and it was abolished, along with much of the racist ideology that legitimated it.

    Lupita 08.07.16 at 3:40 am

    But how did that slavery happen

    In Mesoamerica, all the natives were enslaved because they were conquered by the Spaniards. Then, Fray Bartolomé de las Casas successfully argued before the Crown that the natives had souls and, therefore, should be Christianized rather than enslaved. As Bruce Wilder states, this did not serve the interests of the slaveholding elite, so the African slave trade began and there was no Fray Bartolomé to argue their case.

    It is interesting that while natives were enslaved, the Aztec aristocracy was shipped to Spain to be presented in court and study Latin. This would not have happened if the Mesoamericans were considered inferior (soulless) as a race. Furthermore, the Spaniards needed the local elite to help them out with their empire and the Aztecs were used to slavery and worse. This whole story can be understood without recurring to racism. The logic of empire suffices.

    [Sep 11, 2016] After Neoliberalism

    The current turmoil within Republican Party is connected with shirking of middle class by neoliberalism. So peons are now less inclined to support top 0.1%.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is a billionaire, but his base of support rests among the people once identified by the sociologist Donald Warren as "middle American radicals." Nearly 40 years ago, Warren's idea was adapted by the hard-right political thinker Sam Francis as the basis for paleoconservatism-a conservatism very unlike that of the postwar conservative movement, one that would champion the class interests and cultural attitudes of middle- and lower-income whites. ..."
    "... the Democratic Leadership Council, the policy group that paved the way for Bill Clinton's nomination, was founded in 1985 precisely to move the Democratic Party toward "market-based solutions. ..."
    "... That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. What is more remarkable is the weakness of the bipartisan establishment, whose conventional wisdom is no longer meekly accepted by the rank and file of either party. Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy. But that orthodoxy no longer commands the loyalty of a sufficient number of voters to preclude a phenomenon like Trump. Nor does DLC-style neoliberalism appear to be the consensus among Democrats any longer. ..."
    "... A void is opening in American politics, and Trump and Sanders are only the first to try to fill it. Neither of them may succeed. Yet it is hard to see any source of renewal for the crumbling establishment they are fighting to replace. ..."
    "... "At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic. " ..."
    "... There are several holes in the 2016 is ending the Neoliberal changes: ..."
    "... Sanders road to the nomination is limited and HRC is taking 65 – 70% next week. Sanders had a good run but the Democratics winnowed down to two candidates in October. ..."
    "... Finally, isn't the neoliberalism built on the changes made in the Reagan Revolution? ..."
    "... I don't see as strong of a break from orthodoxy in the Democrat party. Hillary will win the nomination and will validate within the Democrat party the ideology of spreading the democracy gospel around the world through force, and the domestic policy of open borders for future Democrat voters. Its less certain that she will win the general election. ..."
    "... To save the republic and constitutional government, these wars in the Middle East and elsewhere must be ended, we must get out of that region, and the government must be made to perform the basic duty of securing our own borders and finding and expelling those here illegally. ..."
    "... A government perpetually at war is a danger to the republic. It has squandered our money and blood in foreign adventures half way around the world and undermined our liberties and dignity here at home while shirking its own basic duty. ..."
    "... The source of all of this republic's woes is an absence of competent, responsible leadership. Neither of the 2 government parties has come close to providing this at the national level. ..."
    "... One difference between Trump an Sanders is that The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters. ..."
    "... The Cubano Twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear to be a pair of Neoconservative Big Money Donor Financed Bookends. ..."
    "... Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. ..."
    "... I'm sorry folks. Reaganomics is the era we may see coming to an end – perhaps. And what did Bush Senior call it?: 'Voodoo Economics.' ..."
    "... But Reagan succeeded in creating massive deficits and building up a military that was then primed for war. He was absolutely counter to Dwight Eisenhower in almost every respect (who was arguably the last Great Republican President). ..."
    "... The rise of Wall Street and unregulated finance also took place under Reagan's watch. Declining investment in infrastructure. The power of lobbyists became massive in the 80s after being relatively tame prior. This all set the stage. ..."
    "... That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. ..."
    "... "Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy." ..."
    "... I am not inclined to give the "Tea Party much credit. They have been part of the very problem. ..."
    "... Sadly, I think it is accurate that blacks have come to the rescue of Sec. Clinton. It is sad, but it is understandable. ..."
    "... Pres. Reagan has been saddled with the term "Reaganonmics". When in fact, it never existed as designed and as result was never fully implemented. Reality got in the way and as such subverted a good deal of the intent. It is incorrect to posit the model as top down. The model is as old as the country – keep money in people's hands and it will flow and redistribute throughout the country. There's just no incentives created for those with the most to reinvest in their community the US. ..."
    "... I think the observations concerning how the financial industry have been totally unaccountable to the law, best practices and basic math are spot on. I embrace WS, but they cannot become so unmoored from the country that has bestowed luxurious benefits (loopholes) as to operate outside that frame without consequence. I am unsure of the monetary efficacy that investing in investing. If one is going bandy about "law and order" then to have any genuine legs – it's an across the board application. ..."
    Feb 26, 2016 | The American Conservative
    This year is shaping up to be the most unconventional moment in American politics in a generation.

    A race that mere months ago seemed to promise yet another Bush vs. another Clinton has so far given us instead the populist insurgencies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Whether or not either of them gets his party's nomination, the neoliberal consensus of the past two decades seems about to shatter. Free trade, immigration, waging war for democracy, and even the relative merits of capitalism and "democratic socialism" have all come into question. Perhaps more fundamentally, so has the right of Clintons and Bushes-and those like them-to rule.

    Trump is a billionaire, but his base of support rests among the people once identified by the sociologist Donald Warren as "middle American radicals." Nearly 40 years ago, Warren's idea was adapted by the hard-right political thinker Sam Francis as the basis for paleoconservatism-a conservatism very unlike that of the postwar conservative movement, one that would champion the class interests and cultural attitudes of middle- and lower-income whites. The Pat Buchanan presidential campaigns of 1992 and 1996 put Francis's ideas to the test. They fell short of propelling Buchanan to the GOP nomination, and by the end of the 1990s there was nary a trace of paleo ideology to be found among conservatives or Republicans. The return of the Bush family to power in 2000 seemed to confirm that nothing had changed after a decade of skirmishes.

    Now suddenly there's Trump. And on the left, there's Sanders, a throwback to a time when progressives embraced the socialist label. That had fallen out of fashion even before the end of the Cold War-indeed, the Democratic Leadership Council, the policy group that paved the way for Bill Clinton's nomination, was founded in 1985 precisely to move the Democratic Party toward "market-based solutions."

    That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. What is more remarkable is the weakness of the bipartisan establishment, whose conventional wisdom is no longer meekly accepted by the rank and file of either party. Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy. But that orthodoxy no longer commands the loyalty of a sufficient number of voters to preclude a phenomenon like Trump. Nor does DLC-style neoliberalism appear to be the consensus among Democrats any longer.

    A void is opening in American politics, and Trump and Sanders are only the first to try to fill it. Neither of them may succeed. Yet it is hard to see any source of renewal for the crumbling establishment they are fighting to replace. Just as the end of the Cold War marked the passing of an era, and partially or wholly transformed the left and right alike, so another era is drawing to a close now, with further political mutations to come. Trump and Sanders need not be the future, but what Bush and Clinton represent is already past-no matter who wins in November.

    Conservatives of Burkean temperament view all of this warily. There is an opportunity here to replace stale ideologies with a prudence that is ultimately more principled than any mere formula can be. But there is also the risk that the devil we know is only making way for another we don't. At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic.


    May It Be So, February 26, 2016 at 1:05 am

    "At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic. "

    Amen.

    My people have been here for hundreds of years, and I love my country with a depth of feeling that is difficult to convey. Our hard-pressed republic is our most precious possession, and it must be defended and shepherded through the coming peril. That will require wisdom, strength, and courage, and all the little platoons.

    will require wisdom, strength, and courage, and all the little platoons.

    delia ruhe, February 26, 2016 at 2:17 am

    "At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve …."

    I think a lot of thoughtful Americans know what to conserve: the constitution. With the possible exception of the Second Amendment, the constitution has been virtually torched in its entirety. I just have to shake my head when I listen to the debate over whether or not Apple should be required by law to write a program to destroy the feature on its multi-million dollar product, the iPhone, for which consumers buy it - security in their private information and communication. And the Fourth Amendment, be damned.

    How comes it that America - of all countries - is having that debate? Were all those American security agencies always that amoral and I just didn't notice?

    The American constitution is not an instruction manual, it's a statement of principles - fundamental principles upon which the massive superstructure of law rests. Torch the constitution and it suddenly becomes easy not to call to account those leaders who authorize and order torture, those bankers who bring the world economy to its knees through fraud, those presidents who commit war crimes through the practice of drone-murdering people because they are merely suspected of terrorism. And it's just as easy to disenfranchise voters with impunity by arguing on the basis of a rash of voter fraud that everyone knows does not exist.

    If the country no longer recognizes a constitution upon which laws prohibiting on pain of punishment these and other crimes against democracy, then what you've got is a nation of men - barbarians living in a state of nature - not a nation of laws.

    Blas Piñar February 26, 2016 at 8:12 am

    I agree with this editorial, but, as delia ruhe points out, this republic has not been "healthy and humane" for quite some time. It's time for a national renewal. I never thought Trump would be the agent of this renewal. There's plenty to dislike about him, but if he's what it takes to right the ship and either restore a "healthy and humane" republic or create the conditions for someone else to do so afterwards, then so be it.

    collin, February 26, 2016 at 9:27 am

    There are several holes in the 2016 is ending the Neoliberal changes:

    1) Sanders road to the nomination is limited and HRC is taking 65 – 70% next week. Sanders had a good run but the Democratics winnowed down to two candidates in October.

    2) Why is Trump that much different that Perot? The Perot movement was minimized by a strong economy and the unemployment rate is getting low in 2016.

    3) What if there isn't another Trump? To whip the radical middle took Trump to pull additional voters, there might not be another in 2020.

    4) Is the number of radical middle voters slightly decreasing every election cycle?

    5) Finally, isn't the neoliberalism built on the changes made in the Reagan Revolution?

    pitchfork, February 26, 2016 at 9:32 am

    At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic.

    Amen to that.

    Johann, February 26, 2016 at 10:18 am

    I don't see as strong of a break from orthodoxy in the Democrat party. Hillary will win the nomination and will validate within the Democrat party the ideology of spreading the democracy gospel around the world through force, and the domestic policy of open borders for future Democrat voters. Its less certain that she will win the general election.

    JR Chloupek, February 26, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Want to solve the political-economy differences between citizens of collectivist and individualist temperament? Eliminate all tax exemptions secretly written into the tax code for individuals and organizations (they are identified by language that applies only to that individual or organization), then invest the proceeds for five years into a sovereign wealth trust fund that pays $25,000 per year, adjusted for inflation, to all legal citizens beginning at age 21 (or pass legislation directing the Federal Reserve to deposit $10 Trillion dollars directly into the fund-quantitative easing for the people, if you will).

    This money would be used by citizens to cover life-cycle risk to income from any source: job loss, divorce, illness, transportation and home repairs, macroeconomic chaos, or anything else life throws as a person. The funds would be retrievable as a person chooses: yearly, monthly, weekly, or in a $50,000 lump sum once every three years. In addition, replace all income-based taxes for individuals and organizations with a .005% tax on all transactions cleared through the banking system, similar to the automated payments transaction tax advocated by Wisconsin professor Edgar Feige. This would allow the supply of products and services to roughly match the increased demand generated by the basic income guarantee, thereby avoiding or mitigating the business cycle and inflationary source of current economic problems.

    The precise mechanism for this proposal is based on the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend program, which takes monies from state-owned oil fields and invests prudently in a diverse portfolio world-wide. In turn, this concept is based on the "topsy-turvy nationalization" idea proposed by English economist James E. Meade, who suggested governments purchase a 50% share of all publicly-traded stocks, then pay a "social dividend" (Social Security for All) out of the earnings from these investments to all citizens. Professor James A. Yunker proposed a similar idea in his book Pragmatic Market Socialism, finding under a general equilibrium analysis that output and equity, as measured by a utilitarian social welfare function, both increased when income smoothing was financed by pre-distributed social dividends rather than by increased taxes.

    Under this proposal, both conservatives and liberals would achieve what they say they desire: non-paternalistic held for people's income fluctuations for liberals, and real incentives to invest and work for conservatives. Some might say this mechanism for socializing both risk and reward cannot be implemented, as human nature suggests that people might not accept a policy that also benefits rivals. Nonetheless, if we want a political-economic modus vivendi, here is a solution.

    Of course, there would still be problems faced by out society, and "solving" the economic aspect of our malaise will not by itself generate nirvana. But give people and organizations real security that does not also support apathy (i.e., both equity and efficiency, as the economist call it), and you would go a long way towards making the culture war less harsh (it is mostly based on economic fears projected onto the "other"). In the socio-political complex, one must honor humanity as it is , not as we wish, or are comfortable with in our own lives. Replace neoliberalism with a respect for both tradition and change.

    a free people, February 26, 2016 at 10:57 am

    @delia ruhe & may it be so – I fervently agree with you and the editors.

    To save the republic and constitutional government, these wars in the Middle East and elsewhere must be ended, we must get out of that region, and the government must be made to perform the basic duty of securing our own borders and finding and expelling those here illegally.

    A government perpetually at war is a danger to the republic. It has squandered our money and blood in foreign adventures half way around the world and undermined our liberties and dignity here at home while shirking its own basic duty.

    Rossbach, February 26, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    The source of all of this republic's woes is an absence of competent, responsible leadership. Neither of the 2 government parties has come close to providing this at the national level. Everyone knows this, but now – for the first time in at least 5 decades – people are starting to discuss it openly. It really is a breath of fresh air.

    Clint, February 26, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    One difference between Trump an Sanders is that The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters.

    The Cubano Twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear to be a pair of Neoconservative Big Money Donor Financed Bookends.

    Trump / No Trump, February 26, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    "The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters."

    That's a problem with which the Democrat base must must come to grips. Across the great political and cultural gulf that separates us, I salute those honorable and decent Democrats and liberals who make the attempt.

    But it is instructive to consider the very different trajectories of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street, having ebbed from front pages and headlines long since, has now virtually disappeared into Sanders' wickering campaign.

    But the Tea Party kept at it. It has been stirring the pot for over six years now, menacing the establishment, chronically kicking out incumbents (including disappointing or coopted Tea Party incumbents), and continuing to drive broad political developments.

    Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Rather, it is the widely ridiculed and derided Tea Party tendency (not to be confused with the various attempts at cooptation by groups using the name) that proved to be adults with staying power, real agents of change. The pacts born of deep concern for the republic made years ago in hearts, homes, conversations among friends and coworkers, over the Web on sites like this one, is alive and well.

    Trump or no Trump, that is cause for hope.

    Reagan, February 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    I'm sorry folks. Reaganomics is the era we may see coming to an end – perhaps. And what did Bush Senior call it?: 'Voodoo Economics.'

    The Soviets were not defeated by our military build-up – the fact that their factories were turning out unusable junk and exploding TVs was what defeated them. China saw the writing on the wall earlier in 1979.

    But Reagan succeeded in creating massive deficits and building up a military that was then primed for war. He was absolutely counter to Dwight Eisenhower in almost every respect (who was arguably the last Great Republican President).

    The rise of Wall Street and unregulated finance also took place under Reagan's watch. Declining investment in infrastructure. The power of lobbyists became massive in the 80s after being relatively tame prior. This all set the stage.

    We all have confirmation biases (fueled by a personal history) in how we choose to interpret history and how we bookend things.

    The concluding paragraph is excellent. I pray we are not entering even darker times and that there can be renewal for the American Republic.

    sps, February 26, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    "Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc."

    Only because older voters, particularly older black voters keep propping it up. Not exactly a firm foundation. Sanders margins among young voters along with the successful political work done by actual political groups (rather than disruptive groups) like the Working Families Party show who is going to inherit the Democratic Party.

    Clint, February 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    But the Tea Party kept at it.

    Yes we did.

    Chris 1, February 26, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising.

    Understatement of the year.

    Andrew, February 26, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    I've long wanted to read the Donald Warren book but it has been out of print and unavailable at Amazon. If anyone knows of any online bookseller that has used copies, please tell.

    Mike Schuder, February 27, 2016 at 10:40 am

    My Daddy used to say, "You'll never be conservative until you have something to conserve"…..

    AndyG, February 27, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Thanks to @Blas another first on the pages of TAC: the words "Trump" and "Humane" used in relation to one another.
    And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any sort of populist reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across the aisle.

    Punch and Judy, February 27, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    @AndyG "And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any sort of populist reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across the aisle."

    What a laugh.

    "Across the aisle" from the Tea Party congressmen are Democrats who say "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable. You must not only tolerate what is repugnant to you, you must accept it or I'll have you arrested. The Federal judiciary is the engine of democracy. I only enforce laws I like. Only a fanatic would try to balance or reduce the federal budget. It's as impossible and absurd as controlling immigration. Wall Street is just fine as long as it hires lots of Diversity Officers, and the only people who oppose globalism and the corporations who fill my campaign coffers are racists and bigots."

    As to populist reforms that TP Republicans and Democrat dissidents might have cooperated on, like reimposition of Glass-Steagel, or laws requiring vigorous prosecution of Wall Street criminals and Wall Street-owned government officials, or reining in the NSA, or ending the Middle East wars, the establishments of both parties have collaborated to crush their efforts. Just ask Rand Paul (R) and Ron Wyden (D).

    Of course the Tea Party base is still fighting back hard. It's engaged in mortal combat with the GOP establishment. God willing and with perseverence it may prevail.

    And what are those "across the aisle", the congressional Democrats, doing? Other than politely watching Sanders sputter into oblivion as they prepare for HRC's coronation? And what is the Democrat base doing other than making that possible? Most of them aren't even going to the polls

    Clint, February 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any sort of populist reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across the aisle

    You're welcome. And do expect The Tea Party to continue to work with Trump to follow a different form of Populism from that of Socialistic Democrats.

    the unworthy craftsman, February 28, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Trump/No Trump said:

    "Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Rather, it is the widely ridiculed and derided Tea Party tendency (not to be confused with the various attempts at cooptation by groups using the name) that proved to be adults with staying power, real agents of change."

    I was heavily involved with the original Zucotti Park Occupy encampment, doing outreach to unions and the working class. There was quite a bit of hope for this in the early heady days of Occupy; but in the end, the priorities of a movement run by and for impoverished and entitled graduate students won out. Around this time I started to understand that the center of gravity of real radicalism in this country was on the "right".

    EliteCommInc., February 28, 2016 at 11:07 am

    The problem for me is several fold.

    "Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy."

    If you are having to measure it in degrees of this or ht, then there's a good chance you don't represent what it is that you partially represent. In my view conservative is not hodge podge, it's a mechanism or an a priori vie point by which one approaches most or all of their life.

    My guess is that people are not responding o a conservative orthodoxy because they just don't see one. In my view Sen Cruz and Dr. Caron and even (CEO) Mrs. Fiorina have the closest ties to a conservative view. Where i seems to come undone is on the issue of (needlessly) aggressive foreign policy. Mr. Trump is a conservative now, but his life has not fully reflected as much.

    The traditional conservative

    1. very pro the "common man" Does not oppose wealth, but that is not a goal in of itself.
    2. does not pretend that that there is not objective realities - there are facts that matter – Truth is not relative even if opinions, ideas and tastes are.
    3. prudence to change, why and what it's consequences.
    4. fairness, fair play and undying desire or justice
    5. economic efficiency (not just frugality)
    6. a definitive sense of country and kinsmen – even if he or she thinks they are less their cup of tea and morality –
    7. a belief in a divine being with whom one is dynamically involved with – while Christianity is my own preference it need not be the sole belief that a conservative adhere's to.
    8. I have to comprehend the community benefit for killing children in the womb, much it's complete undermining of what innocents means. It makes little practical sense for a community that pushes the choice of homosexual expression a some kind norm when it adds nothing of community value beyond individual satisfaction. That a dynamic which is retrograde to community flourishing should be a national agenda is also incomprehensible

    ___________________

    I am not inclined to give the "Tea Party much credit. They have been part of the very problem. Though I guess, the shift to another direction is a positive sign. As I recall the Tea Party was the last to give up the ghost that the invasion of Iraq was worthwhile and certainly a leap from conservative thought and practice, in almost every respect.

    It dawned them rather belated that the PA and HMS was going to come back to haunt them. And yet for those who are Christian , what they should have known is that in the end, it is just such programs that will be used to round them and send them packing - yet, they have been all for extreme forms of government when it suited them. Now that democrats are using those against their interests, they are suddenly awake - suddenly they are about the Constitution. Yet they have been all to happy to abandon the same when it comes those who come into contact with police. When Republicans should have embraced civil protections, they shunned it as though such concerns were unconstitutional the powers that began turned their sights on them. Hard to claim some populist mandate unless the so called populism benefits your interests alone. I am dubious that this is some kind middle and lower class uprising in the Republican party - the support for Mr. Trump appears to be much broader.
    _________________

    Sadly, I think it is accurate that blacks have come to the rescue of Sec. Clinton. It is sad, but it is understandable. I was walking on campus yesterday. And having lived in these community for some time, it struck me as deeply depressing that there were large groups of Asians and Hispanics groups and it was starkly distressing to realize that that for all of this country's embrace of diversity, blacks remain non existent on campus. Considering that education is the now the bastion of democratic and liberal life, blacks seem very ill served by the people they support. I doubt the Rose Law firm is going to abandon overseeing contracts to support cheap labor which will most impact negatively the lives of no few blacks. But if you don't have th gumption to fight, the democratic broad rode is a sensible choice. Fear of losing what you don't have is a liberal/democratic tote bag.

    I remain hopeful that one day, blacks will wake up and reject the liberal bait and switch spoon fed them.
    _________________________

    Unfortunately,

    Pres. Reagan has been saddled with the term "Reaganonmics". When in fact, it never existed as designed and as result was never fully implemented. Reality got in the way and as such subverted a good deal of the intent. It is incorrect to posit the model as top down. The model is as old as the country – keep money in people's hands and it will flow and redistribute throughout the country. There's just no incentives created for those with the most to reinvest in their community the US.
    _____________

    I think the observations concerning how the financial industry have been totally unaccountable to the law, best practices and basic math are spot on. I embrace WS, but they cannot become so unmoored from the country that has bestowed luxurious benefits (loopholes) as to operate outside that frame without consequence. I am unsure of the monetary efficacy that investing in investing. If one is going bandy about "law and order" then to have any genuine legs – it's an across the board application.

    [Sep 11, 2016] "Equity," an intelligent and enthralling thriller set in a shark tank of New York investment bankers, hedge-fund executives and tech entrepreneurs,

    Notable quotes:
    "... The film, directed by Meera Menon and written by Amy Fox , is as ruthless and hypnotic a study of a cutthroat species as the documentary I saw about the carnivorous fish. Maybe it is even more so, as it is a story of alpha females, as well as males. ..."
    "... a movie implicitly critical of Wall Street and explicitly damning of hedge funds. ..."
    truthdig.com

    Not long ago, I saw a documentary about sharks in the wild. The male bites the frisky female on her flank, both to show his interest and to subdue her as he attempts penetration. Initially the female resists; one was filmed wriggling free of a series of circling males until she becomes exhausted and an alpha male has his way with her.

    According to the narrator, shark reproduction favors the most powerful males and strongest females. Over time, the female evolves tougher skin to endure, or perhaps elude, the male love bite.

    If that's what happens in the open sea, what must it be like in tighter quarters?

    "Equity," an intelligent and enthralling thriller set in a shark tank of New York investment bankers, hedge-fund executives and tech entrepreneurs, imagines just that.

    The film, directed by Meera Menon and written by Amy Fox, is as ruthless and hypnotic a study of a cutthroat species as the documentary I saw about the carnivorous fish. Maybe it is even more so, as it is a story of alpha females, as well as males.

    This female-driven production about driven females stars Anna Gunn ("Breaking Bad") as banker Naomi Bishop, the firm rainmaker lately experiencing a drought. Sarah Megan Thomas is Erin Manning, her assistant, and Alysia Reiner ("Orange is the New Black") plays Samantha, an assistant U.S. attorney investigating Gunn's firm. That storyline provides one of the plot's conflicts. Another is that banker and assistant each want promotions and are denied.

    At the outset, it's hard to like Naomi. She announces herself as the female Gordon Gekko (the character Michael Douglas played in "Wall Street"). While he exhorted that "greed is good," she forthrightly admits that she "likes money." She likes the numbers, likes the adrenaline rush of risking it on a new venture and, most of all, she likes the power it represents.

    She makes few concessions to femininity and none to glamor. Her body is womanly, rather than girlish, her clothes purely functional. Naomi lets off steam by slipping into boxing gloves and taking the stuffing out of the punching bag. She is in control of her emotions.

    At the outset, it's easy to like Erin and Samantha, both model-slim and flirty (even though both are married). From Erin's perspective, Naomi is the boss from hell. From Samantha's, the banker is insufficiently idealistic. "Equity" asks us at first to align with the younger women because, well, they look like the sexy creatures of most Hollywood films. But as it continues, the movie asks us to question our first impressions. It's a film about not making snap judgments, in business, in love or in life.

    Is there a difference when women are behind both the camera and the story? In this case, yes and no. It's no surprise that this movie features a trio of three-dimensional women at its center. For the most part, though, its male characters are generic and cardboard-flat. There's entitled hedge-fund guy Michael (James Purefoy), Naomi's mentor and boyfriend, all about the money and the game. There's the entitled tech entrepreneur Ed (Samuel Roukin), who is all about the money and the sex. The one good guy is a warm and supportive U.S. attorney who steers Samantha toward remaining in her ethical lane. Here is a movie implicitly critical of Wall Street and explicitly damning of hedge funds.

    Despite the one-dimensional men, I was surprised by the film's deceptions and detours. The greatest asset of "Equity" is Gunn, whose face is a Kabuki mask and whose skin is impenetrable as that of a female shark. While watching her I thought once or twice that hers was a one-note performance. But by movie's end, I realized it was a symphony of invincibility and vulnerability.

    [Sep 10, 2016] As Resistance Mounts, TPP Becoming 2016 Elections Third Rail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    As the White House prepares for its final " all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly trade deal.

    "[I]n 2016," the Guardian reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become the most sensitive controversy in D.C."

    Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had, not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."

    ... ... ...

    Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.

    To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights, faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."

    Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis (Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."

    [Sep 10, 2016] Removing a governments control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession

    Notable quotes:
    "... The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession. ..."
    "... He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace ..."
    "... Mundell was also the driving force for Reagan's supply side economics. ..."
    Jun 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pookah Harvey , June 26, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    According to investigative journalist Greg Palast; Nobel winning economist Robert Mundell, who is thought to be the father of the Euro, designed the EU to take macroeconomics away from elected politicians and forcing deregulation were part of the plan .

    The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession.

    "It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians," he said. "[And] without fiscal policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is by the competitive reduction of rules on business."

    He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace

    Mundell was also the driving force for Reagan's supply side economics.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Be afraid, Donald Trump. Were about to see the best of Barack Obama

    All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful "bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history sweetened with $200k speeches.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
    "... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
    "... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
    "... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
    "... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
    "... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
    "... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
    "... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
    "... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
    "... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
    "... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
    "... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
    "... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
    "... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
    "... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
    "... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
    "... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
    "... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
    "... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
    "... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
    "... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
    "... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
    "... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
    "... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
    "... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
    "... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
    "... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
    "... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
    "... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
    "... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    slorter

    The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!

    kittehpavolvski

    So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing hitherto?

    waitforme

    So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes?

    ForestTrees

    Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency.

    ForestTrees -> Glenn J. Hill 31m ago

    Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    HelenPatterson

    'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with????

    What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.

    And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

    Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.

    He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.

    Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!

    ID7715785

    Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder.

    ninjamia

    Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.

    J.K. Stevens -> ninjamia

    Sit back and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

    fflambeau

    Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.

    And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For him it is a slogan.

    Larry Robinson

    Obama's presidency:
    1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up.
    2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
    3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it)
    4. Stagnant income for average family
    5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income.
    6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up.
    7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore.
    ... ...

    Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over.

    shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson

    $500 million worth of arm supply?

    hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor

    while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused, chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years long and beyond into the 2nd term.

    BostonCeltics

    Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome of incompetence.

    Mats Almgren

    Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing death and destruction thoughout the world.

    With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.

    It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and Britain.

    Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren

    Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?

    Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed.

    NewWorldWatcher

    The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS. He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.

    Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher

    Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.

    trundlesome1

    Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary?

    Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.

    zootsuitbeatnick

    "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries.

    That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
    Try to be at least a little reality-based.

    hadeze242

    the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing) with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written & endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.

    NewWorldWatcher

    In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2 odds. The worse loss in recent history!

    Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher

    From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know it ain't over till it's over.

    Larry Robinson

    Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.

    Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it shows WEAKNESS.

    Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors to pull the string constantly? Ouch.

    It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.

    raffine

    The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.

    Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine

    The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.

    PortalooMassacre

    Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.

    guy ventner -> synechdoche

    "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter?

    Ron Shuffler

    "Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
    But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:

    Here's what your favorite President actually did:

    1. Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians.
    2. Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
    3. Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    4. Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
    5. Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.)
    6. Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did.
    7. Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
    8. Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
    9. Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
    10. Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
    11. Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color,
    12. Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have closed it down with a phone call).
    13. Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state.
    14. Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
    15. Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
    16. Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.

    Which of these things make you "so proud?"

    BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler

    You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it.
    At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Larry Robinson

    It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad - a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.

    Lafcadio1944

    What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.

    The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!

    But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.

    This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on.

    I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly violate the law - not a chance.

    babymamaboy

    Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world.

    It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess that's what passes for US leadership these days.

    urgonnatrip

    Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.

    How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the trend but somehow I doubt it.

    KerryB -> urgonnatrip

    You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-).

    zolotoy -> KerryB

    Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?

    AgnosticKen

    TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Is Hillary a Sociopath

    This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
    "... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
    "... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
    "... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
    "... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    Apr 01, 2008 | dailykos.com

    Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly.

    She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement as for political gain.

    Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v. set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality, enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."

    What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work. Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled me.

    In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.

    Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she

    1. "landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
    2. "helped bring peace to Ireland"
    3. "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"

    The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch, with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."

    It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.

    Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as the NAFTA waffler.

    Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.

    Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq.

    Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.

    In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone.

    More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises

    [Sep 10, 2016] The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent. ..."
    "... The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.politico.com

    Memo: From Nick Hanauer
    To: My Fellow Zillionaires

    You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.

    Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

    But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

    I see pitchforks.

    At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

    But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

    Memo: From Nick Hanauer
    To: My Fellow Zillionaires

    You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.

    Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

    But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

    I see pitchforks.

    At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

    But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

    And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won't last.

    If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.

    Many of us think we're special because "this is America." We think we're immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring-or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I've had many of you tell me to my face I'm completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

    Here's what I say to you: You're living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we're somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that's not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible-for everybody. But especially for us.
    ***

    The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression-so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks-that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It's not just that we'll escape with our lives; it's that we'll most certainly get even richer.

    The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts.

    What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let's do it all over again. We've got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.

    It's when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas-by advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call "middle-out" economics. It's the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become economic orthodoxy across party lines-and has so screwed the American middle class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real people who are dependent on one another.

    Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle class creates us rich people, not the other way around.

    On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an article I wrote called "The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage." Forbes labeled it "Nick Hanauer's near insane" proposal. And yet, just weeks after it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a $15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen, you ask?

    It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers-and need more employees. We reminded them that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers wouldn't have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of likely Seattle voters in a recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.

    The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That's why you've got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?

    The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor.

    Because here's an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.

    The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We've had 75 years of complaints from big business-when the minimum wage was instituted, when women had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We're all going to go bankrupt. I'll have to close. I'll have to lay everyone off. It hasn't happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated, business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.
    Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle, our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle. The fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky untried policy for us. It's doubling down on the strategy that's already allowing our city to kick your city's ass.

    It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an hour, which is now the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person's income do you think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway, and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she's not going out to eat at restaurants. Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother's Day.

    Is this issue more complicated than I'm making out? Of course. Are there many factors at play determining the dynamics of employment? Yup. But please, please stop insisting that if we pay low-wage workers more, unemployment will skyrocket and it will destroy the economy. It's utter nonsense. The most insidious thing about trickle-down economics isn't believing that if the rich get richer, it's good for the economy. It's believing that if the poor get richer, it's bad for the economy.

    I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the way. Or let the market set the price. But here's the thing. When those who set bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald's, pay their workers close to the minimum wage, what they're really saying is that they'd pay even less if it weren't illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely will not do the right thing. That's why our economy can only be safe and effective if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system, with its speed limits and stop signs.

    Wal-Mart is our nation's largest employer with some 1.4 million employees in the United States and more than $25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won't (and shouldn't) volunteer to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages-not just ask politely.

    We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators. It's simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don't buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my "manager pants." I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn't do the country much good.

    So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won't admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we'd be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that Somalia and Congo don't have good entrepreneurs. It's just that the best ones are selling their wares off crates by the side of the road because that's all their customers can afford.

    So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people, one that could appeal to the right as well as left-to libertarians as well as liberals? First, I'd ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially, not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight years to do it, and they failed miserably.

    Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't shrink government with wishful thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don't need food stamps. They don't need rent assistance. They don't need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won't need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.

    This is, in other words, an economic approach that can unite left and right. Perhaps that's one reason the right is beginning, inexorably, to wake up to this reality as well. Even Republicans as diverse as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum recently came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, in defiance of the Republicans in Congress.

    ***

    One thing we can agree on-I'm sure of this-is that the change isn't going to start in Washington. Thinking is stale, arguments even more so. On both sides.

    But the way I see it, that's all right. Most major social movements have seen their earliest victories at the state and municipal levels. The fight over the eight-hour workday, which ended in Washington, D.C., in 1938, began in places like Illinois and Massachusetts in the late 1800s. The movement for social security began in California in the 1930s. Even the Affordable Health Care Act-Obamacare-would have been hard to imagine without Mitt Romney's model in Massachusetts to lead the way.

    Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn't seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats say fairness-and lose every time.

    But just because the two parties in Washington haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean we rich folks can just keep going. The conversation is already changing, even if the billionaires aren't onto it. I know what you think: You think that Occupy Wall Street and all the other capitalism-is-the-problem protesters disappeared without a trace. But that's not true. Of course, it's hard to get people to sleep in a park in the cause of social justice. But the protests we had in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis really did help to change the debate in this country from death panels and debt ceilings to inequality.

    It's just that so many of you plutocrats didn't get the message.

    Dear 1%ers, many of our fellow citizens are starting to believe that capitalism itself is the problem. I disagree, and I'm sure you do too. Capitalism, when well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter. That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people like us don't. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the minimum wage isn't bad for capitalism. It's an indispensable tool smart capitalists use to make capitalism stable and sustainable. And no one has a bigger stake in that than zillionaires like us.

    The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down economics.

    What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?

    My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows. They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, "There but for the grace of Jeff go I." Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances, are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made us, rather than the other way around.

    Or we could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Blood Feud The Clintons vs. the Obamas

    Notable quotes:
    "... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
    "... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
    "... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
    "... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
    "... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
    "... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
    "... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
    "... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
    "... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
    Amazon.com
    Daniel Berger

    5.0 out of 5 stars Klein documents how the Obama-Clinton feud evolved and deepened. July 8, 2014

    The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving book. It's a good political beach read.

    It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination, with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged on it.

    There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations. The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009.

    I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations, there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.

    The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing. It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through, but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.

    The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies.

    The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction. Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his administration "rudderless".

    He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much. She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.

    You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine, but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting Hillary not long afterwards.

    Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.

    It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have raised a billion dollars for the run.

    There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition?

    His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South, the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected.

    Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified, will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women; she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways. Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have to do much work.

    Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already sees him losing his clout and political capital.

    The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies - a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons, think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary, for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and acquiesce.

    Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election: what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest political mind of his time.

    PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies, nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies." Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still think they planted a lot of this.

    The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
    "... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
    amazon.com

    Bloody Feud presents in grisly details the sanguinary slugfest between the Obamas and Clintons over power in the White House, July 5, 2014

    By C. M Mills

    Verified Purchase(What's this?)

    This review is from: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas (Hardcover)

    Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.

    Among the revelations of Mr Klein":

    1. The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
    2. The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated 2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
    3. Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
    4. Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse.
    5. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
    6. Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
    7. Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
    8. Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the Kennedy family.
    9. Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack and covered up to protect their butts.
    10. Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic Party.

    Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.

    All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation should read this book and have their eyes opened.

    Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!

    [Sep 10, 2016] Hillary and privatization of Social Security

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter. ..."
    "... Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great. If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now. ..."
    "... He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections ..."
    "... Never heard of this parasite, so thanks for the heads up. I'm sure HRC will find some very useful role for him in her admin. ..."
    "... BlackRock is a blight. Ugh. Just gets worse by the day. ..."
    "... Don't count out Jamie, nor Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Some role too for Samantha Powers. Ugh. ..."
    "... The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say, "I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to any of a hundred reasons. ..."
    "... Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    roadrider , March 3, 2016 at 10:05 am

    Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter.

    Yes, I know this is Dayen's quote and not Yves'.

    But I'm disturbed every time I see this argument about "desk work" vs "manual labor" WRT working longer. Its true of course but fails to recognize that many who sit behind desks are also being forced out of their jobs (and yes, this includes "business executives" too) well before 65, have little chance of being hired for anything else and thus don't really have a choice to work longer. Unless you're part of the super elite you're not much better off than the manual laborer when it comes to staying employed past your mid to late fifties, let alone your mid to late sixties.

    RUKidding , March 3, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    I'm extremely lucky (and know it and am grateful) to have what is viewed as a "desk job" as I approach my golden years. I am able to and plan to keep working possibly into my early '70s. Why? Well for one thing: because I can. For another, to save as much as possible just in case. Child of Depression Era parents, yadda yadda. And if I can pass on something to my nieces and nephews… well good.

    The problem as I see it is not so much that I am able to continue working into my 70s but that my ability to do so, combined with that sinking feeling that I really should and need to due to current circumstances, is that I am preventing someone younger from ascending the ladder. And at this time, someone would definitely be hired or promoted to take my place.

    Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great. If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now.

    Jim Young , March 3, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Can't find the details but I think I recall some startling tid bits about W.T. Grant advising Reagan's commission on overhauling military retirement pay (part of which was greatly increasing allowances for food clothing and housing that were not included in retirement pay calculations). We had the odd situations of retirees that retired early enough (grandfathered, I think), that got higher retirement pay (based on 50% of base pay which, for them, was a far higher percentage of their total pay) than those of us who retired later, at higher total pay, but a lower percentage of base pay, such that the earlier retirees cost of living raises outpaced our keeping up with inflation).

    After the deed was done, I thought I heard that only four or five W.T. Grant employees that had built up substantial seniority that would have provided healthy retirement pay were able to remain employed until they reached 65 years of age (and that they were essentially senior executives at or near the top).

    The more common case seemed to be like my friend's father, a master of many trades, seemingly a most effective employee in any position assigned, as well as being a well regarded President of the Lions Club and active in other civic minded organizations, promoted into a management position at Uniroyal, seemingly to exempt him from union protection. They found his capabilities "inadequate" at 17.5 years, just when he would have started accumulating substantial retirement benefits.

    He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections (in my case, the once great Kodak).

    RUKidding , March 3, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Never heard of this parasite, so thanks for the heads up. I'm sure HRC will find some very useful role for him in her admin.

    Privatizing SS & Medicare? Shazam! Let's do it!!11!!

    BlackRock is a blight. Ugh. Just gets worse by the day.

    Blurtman , March 3, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Don't count out Jamie, nor Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State.

    RUKidding , March 3, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Some role too for Samantha Powers. Ugh.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 3, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say, "I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to any of a hundred reasons.

    Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Globalization, Rise of Neo-Nationalism and the Bankruptcy of the Left

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
    "... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
    "... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
    "... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
    "... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
    "... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
    "... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
    "... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
    "... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
    "... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
    "... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
    "... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | www.liveleak.com
    On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.

    The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control, for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.

    In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear") launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will come in earnest.

    The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii] but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

    Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism

    As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further 'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.

    Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.

    In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.

    The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites.

    This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of 'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical) nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them are as follows:

    a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;

    b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process;

    c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands.

    Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends, which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.

    The rise of the neo-nationalist movement

    Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle', for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"), hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]

    The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.

    The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft" (that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist "NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization. This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement.

    But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long ago!):

    "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage".[vi]

    In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:

    "The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial policies  . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]

    As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies, which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called, apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]

    For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat) to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable friend.

    Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]

    Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization' of European politics."[xiii]

    However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist, xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation at all!

    The bankruptcy of the Left

    It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).

    Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.

    Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".

    Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.

    Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii] of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against the rising movement for national sovereignty.

    This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!

    The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:

    Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]

    The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" , Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.

    On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy' was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft" who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]

    Neo-nationalism and immigration

    So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist "NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.

    But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.

    However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.

    It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.

    National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!

    So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.

    In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe, Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact, unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.

    To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance. Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then fight for the ideal society, as they see it.

    Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/ Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over 25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.

    This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press, The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action

    Notes:

    Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times, 24/5/2016

    The original source of this article is Global Research. Copyright © Takis Fotopoulos , Global Research, 2016

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalization-the-massive-rise-of-neo-nationalism-and-the-bankruptcy-of-the-left/5527157

    [Sep 09, 2016] Michael Greenberger: Setting the Stage For the Next Wall Street Crisis

    Financial oligarchy rule is now indisputable and subservience of politicians in congress and administration is close to absolute. Financial oligarchy is the dominant power under neoliberalism. No question about it. As Andrew Mellon (US Treasury Secretary, 1921 to 1932) used to say "Strong men have sound ideas, and the force to make these ideas effective." Making Al Capone famous quote more modern, "You can get more with a kind word and money than you can with a kind word alone."
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing. ..."
    "... Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand , cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done. ..."
    "... I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign. ..."
    Feb 10, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

    Michael Greenberger has long been one of my favorite commenters on regulation, and in particular on futures price manipulation.

    Within the context of the uphill battle against the status quo, Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton may have looked 'good' as regulators, but all in all they looked better only by comparison with some very horrible alternatives. Chilton, as you may recall, did not waste much time going through the revolving door to put on the feedbag from the HFT crowd.

    I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing.

    Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand, cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done.

    No matter what she says, no matter what promises she may make, no matter what identity branding they may choose to spin for her, I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign.

    Further, the only major difference between the parties now is that the Republicans have sold out wholesale to the moneyed interests, whereas the Dems have been doing it one despicable betrayal at a time. They merely wear different masks. Money conquers all with this venal brood of vipers.

    Financial reform comes with political campaign money reform. The two are inseparable.


    Posted by Jesse at 1:24 PM

    [Sep 05, 2016] Trump predicts landslide support from black voters if he gets to seek a second term as president

    [Dec 05, 2016] | latimes.com

    "You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose" by voting for Trump? the candidate asked. "At the end of four years, I guarantee I will get over 95% of the African American vote."

    The statement – highly unlikely given how poorly Republicans fare among black voters – continues a theme the GOP presidential nominee has pounded this week as he courted African American voters. He said Democrats take black voters for granted and have ignored their needs while governing cities with large African American populations.

    "America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, who sees communities of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," he said of his Democratic opponent.

    ... ... ...

    Trump argued that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's policies on issues such as immigration and refugee resettlement harm African Americans.

    [Sep 05, 2016] The power of neoliberal brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.

    [Dec 05, 2016] | economistsview.typepad.com

    nikbez: August 28, 2016 at 10:06 AM

    That's simply naïve:

    === quote ===
    It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind, and that this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help feeling a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are seeing, in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time.
    === end of quote ==

    This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda, the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.

    And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.

    This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:

    1. High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity). "Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.

    2. "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own present and future market value.

    3. Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.

    4. The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.

    5. Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was in the USSR.

    6. "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who decide about level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that previously were prerogative of the state.

    So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism" of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.

    The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up the USSR) and far right ideologies.

    It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time. Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and, specifically, the neoliberal globalization.

    [Sep 05, 2016] We Dont Need Trump or Brexit to Reject the Credo of Neoliberal Market Inevitability

    Notable quotes:
    "... As the de facto test subjects for the inexorable media-fueled march of this ubiquitous global model, disparate groups worldwide have become the unwitting faces of revolt against inevitability. Anonymized behind the august facades of global financial institutions, neoliberal capitalism under TINA has produced political rage, confusion, panic and a worldwide search for scapegoats and alternatives across the political spectrum. ..."
    "... McWorld cuts its destructive path under a self-promoting presumption of historic inevitability, because after more than four decades of the TINA narrative, the underlying rationale of market predestination is no longer economic. It is theological. ..."
    "... Descriptions such as "free-market fundamentalism" and "market orthodoxy" are not mere figures of speech. They point to a deeper, technologically powered religious metamorphosis of capitalism that needs to be understood before a meaningful political response can be mounted. One does not have to be Christian, nor Catholic, to appreciate Pope Francis' warnings against the danger to Christian values from "a deified market" with its "globalization of indifference." The pope is explicitly acknowledging a new theology of capital whose core ethos runs counter to the values of both classical and religious humanism. ..."
    "... Under the radically altered metaphysics of theologized capitalism, market outcomes are sacred and inevitable. Conversely, humanity and the natural world have been desacralized and defined as malleable forms of expendable and theoretically inexhaustible capital. Even life-sustaining ecosystems and individual human subjectivity are subsumed under a market rubric touted as historically preordained. ..."
    "... Economic historian Karl Polanyi warned in 1944 that a false utopian belief in the ability of unfettered markets to produce naturally balanced outcomes would produce instead a dystopian "stark utopia." Today's political chaos represents a spontaneous and uncoordinated eruption of resistance against this encroaching sense of inevitable dystopianism. As Barber noted, what he refers to as "Jihad" is not a strictly Islamic phenomenon. It is localism, tribalism, particularism or sometimes classical republicanism taking a stand, often violently, acting as de facto social and political antibodies against the viral contagions of McWorld. ..."
    "... The historically ordained march of theologized neoliberal capitalism depends for its continuation on a belief by individuals that they are powerless against putatively inevitable forces of market-driven globalization. ..."
    "... One lesson nonetheless seems clear. The "power of the powerless" has been awakened globally. Whether this awakening will spark a movement towards equitable, ecologically sustainable democratic self-governance is an open question. ..."
    Jul 06, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

    In the wake of the June 23 Brexit vote, global media have bristled with headlines declaring the Leave victory to be the latest sign of a historic rejection of "globalization" by working-class voters on both sides of the Atlantic. While there is an element of truth in this analysis, it misses the deeper historical currents coursing beneath the dramatic headlines. If our politics seem disordered at the moment, the blame lies not with globalization alone but with the "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) philosophy of neoliberal market inevitability that has driven it for nearly four decades.

    British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher introduced the TINA acronym to the world in a 1980 policy speech that proclaimed "There Is No Alternative" to a global neoliberal capitalist order. Thatcher's vision for this new order was predicated on the market-as-god economic philosophy she had distilled from the work of Austrian School economists such as Friedrich Hayek and her own fundamentalist Christian worldview. Western political life today has devolved into a series of increasingly desperate and inchoate reactions against a sense of fatal historical entrapment originally encoded in Thatcher's TINA credo of capitalist inevitability. If this historical undercurrent is ignored, populist revolt will not produce much-needed democratic reform. It will instead be exploited by fascistic nationalist demagogues and turned into a dangerous search for political scapegoats.

    The Rebellion Against Inevitability

    Thatcher's formulation of neoliberal inevitability manifested itself in a de facto policy cocktail of public sector budget cuts, privatization, financial deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, globalization of capital flows and militarization that were the hallmarks of her administration and a template for the future of the world's developed economies. After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, whose coercive state socialism represented capitalism's last great power alternative, the underlying philosophy of economic inevitability that informed TINA seemed like a prescient divination of cosmic design, with giddy neoconservatives declaring the "end of history" and the triumph of putatively democratic capitalism over all other historical alternatives.

    Nearly four decades later, with neoliberalism having swept the globe in triumph through a mix of technological innovation, exploitative financial engineering and brute force, eclipsing its tenuous democratic underpinnings in the process, disgraced British Prime Minister David Cameron maintained his devotion to TINA right up to the moment of Brexit. In a 2013 speech delivered as his government was preparing a budget that proposed 40 percent cuts in social welfare spending , sweeping privatization, wider war in Central Asia and continued austerity, he lamented that "If there was another way, I would take it. But there is no alternative." Although they may want a change of makeup or clothes, every G7 head of state heeds TINA's siren song of market inevitability.

    As the de facto test subjects for the inexorable media-fueled march of this ubiquitous global model, disparate groups worldwide have become the unwitting faces of revolt against inevitability. Anonymized behind the august facades of global financial institutions, neoliberal capitalism under TINA has produced political rage, confusion, panic and a worldwide search for scapegoats and alternatives across the political spectrum.

    The members of ISIS have rejected the highest ideals of Islam in their search for an alternative. Environmental activists attempt to counter the end-of-history narrative at the heart of TINA with the scientific inevitability of global climate-induced ecological catastrophe. Donald Trump offers a racial or foreign scapegoat for every social and economic malady created by TINA, much like the far-right nationalist parties emerging across Europe, while Bernie Sanders focuses on billionaires and Wall Street. Leftist movements such as Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece also embody attempted declarations of revolt against the narrative of inevitability, as do the angry votes for Brexit in England and Wales.

    Without judging or implying equality in the value of these varied expressions of resistance, except to denounce the murderous ethos of ISIS and any other call to violence or racism, it is clear that each offers seeming alternatives to TINA's suffocating inevitability, and each attracts its own angry audience.

    "Jihad" vs. "McWorld" and the New Theology of Capital

    Benjamin Barber's 1992 essay and subsequent book, Jihad vs. McWorld , is a better guide to the current politics of rage than the daily news media. Barber describes a historic post-Soviet clash between the identity politics of tribalism ("Jihad") and the forced financial and cultural integration of corporate globalism ("McWorld").

    McWorld is the financially integrated and omnipresent transnational order of wired capitalism that has anointed itself the historic guardian of Western civilization. It is viciously undemocratic in its pursuit of unrestricted profits and violently punitive in response to any hint of economic apostasy. (See Greece .) This new economic order offers the illusion of modernity with its globally wired infrastructure and endless stream of consumerist spectacles, but beneath the high-tech sheen, it is spiritually empty , predicated on permanent war , global poverty and is destroying the biosphere .

    McWorld cuts its destructive path under a self-promoting presumption of historic inevitability, because after more than four decades of the TINA narrative, the underlying rationale of market predestination is no longer economic. It is theological. A historic transformation of market-based economic ideology into theology underpins modern capitalism's instrumentalized view of human nature and nature itself.

    Descriptions such as "free-market fundamentalism" and "market orthodoxy" are not mere figures of speech. They point to a deeper, technologically powered religious metamorphosis of capitalism that needs to be understood before a meaningful political response can be mounted. One does not have to be Christian, nor Catholic, to appreciate Pope Francis' warnings against the danger to Christian values from "a deified market" with its "globalization of indifference." The pope is explicitly acknowledging a new theology of capital whose core ethos runs counter to the values of both classical and religious humanism.

    Under the radically altered metaphysics of theologized capitalism, market outcomes are sacred and inevitable. Conversely, humanity and the natural world have been desacralized and defined as malleable forms of expendable and theoretically inexhaustible capital. Even life-sustaining ecosystems and individual human subjectivity are subsumed under a market rubric touted as historically preordained.

    This is a crucial difference between capitalism today and capitalism even 50 years ago that is not only theological but apocalyptic in its refusal to acknowledge limits. It has produced a global, social and economic order that is increasingly feudal, while also connected via digital technologies.

    Economic historian Karl Polanyi warned in 1944 that a false utopian belief in the ability of unfettered markets to produce naturally balanced outcomes would produce instead a dystopian "stark utopia." Today's political chaos represents a spontaneous and uncoordinated eruption of resistance against this encroaching sense of inevitable dystopianism. As Barber noted, what he refers to as "Jihad" is not a strictly Islamic phenomenon. It is localism, tribalism, particularism or sometimes classical republicanism taking a stand, often violently, acting as de facto social and political antibodies against the viral contagions of McWorld.

    Pessimistic Optimism

    The historically ordained march of theologized neoliberal capitalism depends for its continuation on a belief by individuals that they are powerless against putatively inevitable forces of market-driven globalization. It is too early to know where the widely divergent outbreaks of resistance on display in 2016 will lead, not least because they are uncoordinated, often self-contradictory or profoundly undemocratic, and are arising in a maelstrom of confusion about core causation.

    One lesson nonetheless seems clear. The "power of the powerless" has been awakened globally. Whether this awakening will spark a movement towards equitable, ecologically sustainable democratic self-governance is an open question. Many of today's leading political theorists caution against an outdated Enlightenment belief in progress and extol the virtues of philosophic pessimism as a hedge against historically groundless optimism. Amid today's fevered populist excitements triggered by a failure of utopian faith in market inevitability, such cautionary thinking seems like sound political advice. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .

    Michael Meurer is the founder of Meurer Education, a project offering classes on the US political system in Latin American universities while partnering with local education micro-projects to assist them with publicity and funding. Michael is also president of Meurer Group & Associates, a strategic consultancy with offices in Los Angeles and Denver.

    See also:

    [Sep 04, 2016] Neoliberalism is every bit the wellspring of neofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
    "... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
    "... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
    "... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
    "... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
    "... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Cranky Observer 09.03.16 at 6:28 pm

    = = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =

    It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.

    bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
    In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.

    Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe, it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.

    If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.

    All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different from the one presented by Will G-R.

    Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design of political and social institutions.

    Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform. Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.

    Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds on "normal" politics.

    Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution.

    I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.

    Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty years later.

    It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed.

    If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.

    Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus in American politics in the late 1950s.

    What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success.

    It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.

    Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.

    Rich Puchalsky 09.03.16 at 11:09 pm
    I write more about this over at my blog (in a somewhat different context).
    John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
    RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did advisedly. You say
    The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
    Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy implications.
    likbez 09.04.16 at 4:18 pm
    I would say that neoliberalism is closer to market fundamentalism, then market liberalism. See, for example:
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Articles/definitions_of_neoliberalism.shtml

    === quote ===
    Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets" as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime (pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players. Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.

    The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft" methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.

    Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.

    Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social system were made:

    1. Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
    2. Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
    3. Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This idea has two major variations:
      • Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
      • Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism - "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism Common Dreams )

    The first two are the most popular.

    likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm

    bruce,

    @117

    Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:

    "It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism."

    "What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success."

    Moreover as Will G-R noted:

    "neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."

    Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.

    [Sep 04, 2016] New IMF Paper Challenges Neoliberal Orthodoxy

    Notable quotes:
    "... The article cheekily flags the infamous case of the Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman's followers in Pinochet's Chile, as having been falsely touted as a success. If anything, the authors are too polite in describing what a train wreck resulted. A plutocratic land grab and speculation-fueled bubble led quickly to a depression, forcing Pinochet to implement Keynesian policies, as well as rolling back labor "reforms," to get the economy back on its feet. ..."
    "... Overly mobile capital , meaning unrestricted cross-border money flows. The IMF paper points out that while the neoliberals claim that freely mobile money helps growth, there's not much concrete evidence to support that. By contrast, higher levels of capital flows lead to more instability and more frequent and severe financial and economic crisis. Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart determined that high levels of international capital flows were strongly correlated with bigger and nastier financial crises. The BIS also made a persuasive, well-documented case that excessive "financial elasticity" which means lots of cross-border funds mobility that can quickly collapse, was the cause of the 2008 crisis. ..."
    "... It's also hard to see how highly mobile money can be a plus, particularly for smaller and even not so small economies. Look at the how much the yen has moved over the past decade. How can investors in things that would actually make an economy more productive (foreign direct investment, such as factories and other operations) make any kind of accurate assessment of returns to cross border investment with so much foreign exchange volatility? And that uncertainty will lead a foreign investor to require a higher rate of return. Similarly, even if there were measurable benefits from highly mobile money movements, the costs of the busts need to be offset against that. It's pretty hard to see how you "offset" the cost of the blowup just past, whose total cost is estimated at one times global GDP. ..."
    "... The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis, finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon, they risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control. With Trump and Le Pen at the barricades, the IMF wake-up call may be too late. ..."
    "... Call me a cynic, but something tells me this won't change anything for the people currently suffering under the IMF yoke. IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic look at the world, but it hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to immiserate the majority of the population. ..."
    "... you finally figured out that neo-liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be? Well what a bunch of frickin' geniuses! ..."
    "... The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve the poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain their legitimacy and control. ..."
    "... even worse, it just proves that they are able to learn to speak the right language about the economy. while we peons wait on for the inevitable co-optation and corruption of it towards elite ends once again. ..."
    "... All power flows from the barrel of a gun. ..."
    "... Jefferson – Nice treason going eh? Boy some overconfident are in for a shock. The French army thought they were the shit until longbowmen showed up. Enough said. As to this article. No, there is no free lunch. There could be a free snack if the money was directed at productive endeavors. But they did not and now trust and the social contract is totally broken. Even Larry Summers by 2010 was calling for a new one. That all said, the last 40 years elite did get some good advancements in science and medicine done. I'll give credit where it is due but the empire building shit isn't a plus, that is for sure. ..."
    "... Something that always bears repeating is that a split in elite factions is essential to implementing real change. Access to power, money, and influence is what is needed to move society in any direction. Thru my own experience in life, I find most people are not sociopaths, they generally will direct their actions in benevolent manner if the overall social convention is to do so. This is why leadership is so important, and points to the true crisis of our time. We have a crisis of leadership. ..."
    "... The split in elite thinking is showing itself because we have reached a crisis point and the elite are finally feeling the heat. While it is easy to paint these class divisions with a broad brush, there is an underlying dynamic of the classes that has been lost in recent years. The sense of duty to ones people and nation. What we have now, at least in America, is a confused mess. You cannot serve the nation by impoverishing its people. ..."
    "... Like Lord Ashby's observations that it typically takes 200 years before new knowledge makes its way into policies and institutions. Reduce that time somewhat due to internet, but even so his point is well made. He argues that policies and institutions only incorporate the new knowledge once a significant percentage of the general public has already accepted it. This says to me that new thinking has to happen from the ground up, and we should not expect it to happen from the top down. ..."
    "... What's the old saying – "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ..."
    "... "Unrestricted cross-border money flows" absolutely shouts dynamic instability from the get go and how could it be otherwise? Foreign direct investment also smells of absentee cross-border slum lord -ism; out of sight out of mind irresponsibility. Common currency (the Euro) wipes out fault tolerance and resiliency in the system and hard wires contagion. Nobody even discusses trade imbalance instability from so-called "free trade". ..."
    "... Neoliberal policy is to replace men, with whatever combined circuit is most efficient. It's not rocket science. ..."
    "... Yves may wish to weigh in with a more detailed explanation (here is a recent treatment of the "neoliberal thought collective" ) but "Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules" for rules of thumb that will enable you to detect neoliberals in your ordinary dealings in comment sections and on the twitter. If your interlocutor, for example, has a dogmatic faith in the workings of markets, you're dealing with a neoliberal. ..."
    "... I would say neoliberalism has been the dominant ideology, across the board, since the mid-70s (in other words, pre-Reagan). I'd have a hard time finding any policy that fits within the Overton Window of permitted discourse of DC, from left to right, that is not neoliberal, scholastics-level fine-grained faction-driven distinctions aside. The current stasis of the Overton Window is being challenged a bit by the Sanders campaign (from the left) and the Trump campaign (from the right), granting for a moment that politics are bipolar. Too long an answer, I know! ..."
    "... Please see Recent Items. We have a post on the Mirowski's paper on the Neoliberal Though Collective prominently displayed. ..."
    "... How about this; hyper aggressive top down global economic integration no matter what the fallout. ..."
    "... Keep the masses ignorant, wanting and distracted. Under the current social system, you are offered a choice: Be "SMART" and join in on the looting, or be exploited as one to the sheep. It seems humanity must evolve to a third position- one of collective benefit and sustainability or end in extinction. ..."
    "... Neither a swindler nor a sucker be. Neither a looter nor a victim be. ..."
    "... The Central Banks produced low inflation figures in the US, while massive inflation was occurring in the costs of housing, education and healthcare causing the cost of living to sky rocket. This fictitious inflation figure targeting seems to be a rather pointless exercise. There is no point in producing low inflation figures while the cost of living is sky rocketing. A global youth now sit at home with their parents unable to afford to move out due to high mortgage payments and rent. They are not starting families and the demographic problems are going to get a whole lot worse. Why is global aggregate demand so low? Suppressed wages with sky rocketing costs of living. Neo-Liberalism really is just silly. ..."
    "... A look at the UK. We have followed the US idea of paid further education. One of the first things the US banks did in 2008 was to get the Government to back student loans as they were beginning to default on a large scale. In the UK we have linked repayments to RPI and not the CPI figure the Central Bank targets. The usual silliness for masking the rising costs of living and an opportunity to rip off young people. Another idea, unregulated, trickle down capitalism, which we had in the UK in the 19th Century. In the 19th Century those at the top were very wealthy those at the bottom lived in abject poverty, no trickledown. The first regulations to deal with wealthy UK businessman seeking profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour. ..."
    "... If we abolish Free Trade and restore Protectionism, the American minimum wage won't HAVE to compete with China. Free Trade is the new Slavery. Protectionism is the new Abolition. ..."
    "... The IMF is trying to wash its own face now. Too late. Both the IMF and the WB must stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity. ..."
    May 27, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    While the IMF's research team has for many years chipped away at mainstream economic thinking, a short, accessible paper makes an even more frontal challenge. It's caused such a stir that the Financial Times featured it on its front page . We've embedded it at the end of this post and encourage you to read it and circulate it.

    The article cheekily flags the infamous case of the Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman's followers in Pinochet's Chile, as having been falsely touted as a success. If anything, the authors are too polite in describing what a train wreck resulted. A plutocratic land grab and speculation-fueled bubble led quickly to a depression, forcing Pinochet to implement Keynesian policies, as well as rolling back labor "reforms," to get the economy back on its feet.

    The papers describes three ways in which neoliberal reforms do more harm than good.

    Overly mobile capital , meaning unrestricted cross-border money flows. The IMF paper points out that while the neoliberals claim that freely mobile money helps growth, there's not much concrete evidence to support that. By contrast, higher levels of capital flows lead to more instability and more frequent and severe financial and economic crisis. Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart determined that high levels of international capital flows were strongly correlated with bigger and nastier financial crises. The BIS also made a persuasive, well-documented case that excessive "financial elasticity" which means lots of cross-border funds mobility that can quickly collapse, was the cause of the 2008 crisis.

    It's also hard to see how highly mobile money can be a plus, particularly for smaller and even not so small economies. Look at the how much the yen has moved over the past decade. How can investors in things that would actually make an economy more productive (foreign direct investment, such as factories and other operations) make any kind of accurate assessment of returns to cross border investment with so much foreign exchange volatility? And that uncertainty will lead a foreign investor to require a higher rate of return. Similarly, even if there were measurable benefits from highly mobile money movements, the costs of the busts need to be offset against that. It's pretty hard to see how you "offset" the cost of the blowup just past, whose total cost is estimated at one times global GDP.

    Thus the paper argues that the heretical idea of capital controls can make sense as a way to choke off a credit bubble stoked by foreign investment.

    Austerity . The IMF article argues that while small countries may have no choice other than to curtail their overall level of indebtedness, this is not a one-size-fits-all prescription. For larger countries, running larger deficits, particularly after a financial crisis, is a better option than belt-tighening.

    This section of the article is frustrating, since it utterly fails to distinguish fiat currency issuers from states that are not monetary sovereigns. It also blandly accepts the idea that high levels of indebtedness are bad, when government debt increases typically make up for shortfalls in private sector investment and demand. Recall that in the supposedly virtuous Clinton budget surplus years, households, which are normally net savers in aggregate, managed to make up for the Federal government fiscal drag by going on a big debt party. But it does have some zingers, at least by the standards of policy wonkery:

    Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs due to supply-side channels, they also hurt demand-and thus worsen employment and unemployment. The notion that fiscal consolidations can be expansionary (that is, raise output and employment), in part by raising private sector confidence and investment, has been championed by, among others, Harvard economist Alberto Alesina in the academic world and by former European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet in the policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation have been followed, on average, by drops rather than by expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent of GDP increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage point and raises by 1.5 percent within five years the Gini measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013)

    Depicting "fiscal consolidation" as snake oil is radical, at least among Serious Economists.

    Increasing inequality . The paper gratifyingly says that both austerity and highly mobile capital increase inequality, and inequality is a negative for growth. And it firmly says Something Must Be Done:

    The evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more open to redistribution than they are.Of course, apart from redistribution, policies could be designed to mitigate some of the impacts in advance-for instance, through increased spending on education and training, which expands equality of opportunity (so-called predistribution policies). And fiscal consolidation strategies-when they are needed-could be designed to minimize the adverse impact on low-income groups. But in some cases, the untoward distributional consequences will have to be remedied after they occur by using taxes and government spending to redistribute income. Fortunately, the fear that such policies will themselves necessarily hurt growth is unfounded.

    Mind you, this article is far from ideal. For instance, careful readers will see that it treats the debunked loanable funds theory as valid.

    In some ways, the fact that this article was written at all, and that it is apparently fomenting debate in policy circles is more important than the details of its argument, since it does not break new ground. Instead, it takes some of the findings and analysis of heterodox and forward-thinking development economists and distills them nicely.

    The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis, finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon, they risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control. With Trump and Le Pen at the barricades, the IMF wake-up call may be too late.

    diptherio , May 27, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Call me a cynic, but something tells me this won't change anything for the people currently suffering under the IMF yoke. IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic look at the world, but it hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to immiserate the majority of the population. Talk is cheap, in other words. The IMF has caused so much suffering and been responsible for propagandizing so much BS over the years that reports like this just don't move me at all. Oh really , I think, you finally figured out that neo-liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be? Well what a bunch of frickin' geniuses!

    Too little, too late.

    diptherio , May 27, 2016 at 10:23 am

    The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis, finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon, they risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control.

    The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve the poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain their legitimacy and control.

    nony mouse , May 27, 2016 at 10:40 am

    i concur wholeheartedly with both of your above statements.

    even worse, it just proves that they are able to learn to speak the right language about the economy. while we peons wait on for the inevitable co-optation and corruption of it towards elite ends once again.

    congrats on your podseries, by the way.

    drb48 , May 27, 2016 at 11:09 am

    The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve the poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain their legitimacy and control.

    Yep.

    Indrid Cold , May 27, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    All power flows from the barrel of a gun.

    Quantum Future , May 27, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    Jefferson – Nice treason going eh? Boy some overconfident are in for a shock. The French army thought they were the shit until longbowmen showed up. Enough said. As to this article. No, there is no free lunch. There could be a free snack if the money was directed at productive endeavors. But they did not and now trust and the social contract is totally broken. Even Larry Summers by 2010 was calling for a new one. That all said, the last 40 years elite did get some good advancements in science and medicine done. I'll give credit where it is due but the empire building shit isn't a plus, that is for sure.

    TheCatSaid , May 27, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    That Tampa exercise is really something. Maybe it was a practice run to take out Maduro, since they "messed it up" with Chavez. Or a warning to Others who don't play nice with the USA.

    Yves Smith Post author , May 27, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    The IMF research side and the IMF program side operate separately from each other. However, IMF research does influence other economists and media coverage. You are not going to see changes in policy anywhere until you see changes in orthodox thinking.

    And splits within the elites are a necessary but not sufficient condition for change. We are seeing the start of a real split in the elites.

    norb , May 28, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Something that always bears repeating is that a split in elite factions is essential to implementing real change. Access to power, money, and influence is what is needed to move society in any direction. Thru my own experience in life, I find most people are not sociopaths, they generally will direct their actions in benevolent manner if the overall social convention is to do so. This is why leadership is so important, and points to the true crisis of our time. We have a crisis of leadership.

    Two points that need to be driven home again and again. Government policy implemented in the service of the people and the notion that the middle class was created thru public policy, not some natural occurrence. It was a choice.

    The split in elite thinking is showing itself because we have reached a crisis point and the elite are finally feeling the heat. While it is easy to paint these class divisions with a broad brush, there is an underlying dynamic of the classes that has been lost in recent years. The sense of duty to ones people and nation. What we have now, at least in America, is a confused mess. You cannot serve the nation by impoverishing its people.

    True wealth, happiness, and stability can only be achieved through bonds of respect forged between the ruling class and citizens. Without this functioning ideal, you will have strife and hardship. The elite must make a choice. Keep doubling down on their oppression of the working class, or decide they have a duty to humanity.

    In the end, responsibility for ones actions in life cannot be avoided forever. As the destruction of inequality grows ever more apparent, the elite must face their conscience or the mob, it would seem to me, any sane person would rather choose the former than the later.

    Plenue , May 27, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    "IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic look at the world, but it hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to immiserate the majority of the population."

    Not directly related to this subject, but this reminds me of book reviews. I have any number of books that challenge orthodoxy of one kind or other (like, say, David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years) that feature quotes from reviews on the covers and first few pages that praise the book as 'groundbreaking', 'important' etc. But then as far as I can see the publications that issued those reviews absorb none of the new wisdom and continue parroting the status quo. Hell, sometimes these books get awards or selected as best books of the year before whatever information they contain is completely ignored.

    TheCatSaid , May 27, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    Like Lord Ashby's observations that it typically takes 200 years before new knowledge makes its way into policies and institutions. Reduce that time somewhat due to internet, but even so his point is well made. He argues that policies and institutions only incorporate the new knowledge once a significant percentage of the general public has already accepted it. This says to me that new thinking has to happen from the ground up, and we should not expect it to happen from the top down.

    fresno dan , May 27, 2016 at 11:20 am

    What's the old saying – "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

    And I'd say with something like economics, something much more similar to a religion than a science, its more like "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so"

    Synoia , May 27, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Such heresy!!!!

    Options:

    1. Ignore it until it goes away.
    2. Publish a counter example.
    3. Claim that disaster will entail, and We Are Doing The Best We Can in an uncertain world, and debt is bad because It Must Be Repaid.
    4. Have an election, and Nothing Can Be Done until after the election (which is never in the US because there is always an election looming)
    5. Sex scandal. (The authorities have an ample supply, due to their pervasive surveillance)
    6. If all else fails, then terrorism, because existential enemies, carefully built on a continuing basis, and must have war, like Syria.
    7. Refer it to a committee for further study.

    Minnie Mouse , May 27, 2016 at 11:25 am

    "Unrestricted cross-border money flows" absolutely shouts dynamic instability from the get go and how could it be otherwise? Foreign direct investment also smells of absentee cross-border slum lord -ism; out of sight out of mind irresponsibility. Common currency (the Euro) wipes out fault tolerance and resiliency in the system and hard wires contagion. Nobody even discusses trade imbalance instability from so-called "free trade".

    Mustsign topost , May 27, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    "For instance, careful readers will see that it treats the debunked loanable funds theory as valid."

    They know it's wrong, page 50 of https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/03/pdf/fd0316.pdf

    Both feel like a cry for help and a warning to outsiders that the IMF is indeed a hammer.

    JerseyJeffersonian , May 27, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    And we, the preterite [Def.: A person not elected to salvation by God.], are the nail for which that hammer was intended.

    Synoia , May 27, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    preterite: A person not elected to salvation by God? Not what my search says:

    noun
    1. a tense of verbs used to relate past action, formed in English by inflection of the verb, as jumped, swam
    2.a verb in this tense
    adjective
    3. denoting this tense
    Word Origin
    C14: from Late Latin praeteritum (tempus) past (time, tense), from Latin praeterīre to go by, from preter- + īre to go

    Tom Allen , May 27, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Add Pynchon to your search, or Calvinism. One blog post says:

    Expat asks, what is Pynchon talking about when he refers to the "preterite?" Let me take a hasty stab at an answer.

    As I recall, the Calvinists thought that there were three kinds of people: the elect, the preterite, and the damned. The elect are going to heaven. The damned very clearly are not. The preterite can't be sure, so they do their very best to act like elect, since if they act like the damned they won't be happy in the end.

    JerseyJeffersonian , May 27, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    Oxford English Dictionary, Noun, Definition #3

    3. Theol. A person not elected to salvation by God. Cf. preterition n. 3. rare.
    1864 Fraser's Mag. May 533/2 The reprobates who are damned because they were always meant to be damned, and the preterites who are damned because they were never meant to be saved.
    2006 http://www.adequacy.org 5 Dec. (O.E.D. Archive) Weren't the Elect who interbred with Preterites committing bestiality? Are they not therefore condemned to Hell?

    Admittedly rare, but as with Tom Allen nested in the comments, I came upon this meaning through reading Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, and taking in his ruminations upon the Calvinist classes of humans, the elect, the damned, and the preterite. Fit in very nicely with the story line. Fits in all too well with the way of the world, in my opinion.

    Synoia , May 29, 2016 at 2:57 am

    I'd conclude the Calvinists misused a word. The Latin root seems to Indictate this.

    If we are not chosen, then I'd also assery we are the dammed.

    The Calvinists indeed there is some hope for salvation for their definition of preterite.

    However, the Calvinists have a harsh, unforgiving creed, and consequently do not appear to me to meet our Lord's definitions, especially the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and certainly miss "judge not."

    Synoia , May 29, 2016 at 3:01 am

    I'd conclude the Calvinists misused a word. The Latin root seems to Indictate this.

    If we are not chosen, then I'd also assert we are the dammed.

    The Calvinists indeed there is some hope for salvation for their definition of preterite.

    However, the Calvinists have a harsh, unforgiving creed, and consequently do not appear to me to meet our Lord's definitions, especially the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and certainly miss "judge not."

    ke , May 27, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Neoliberal policy is to replace men, with whatever combined circuit is most efficient. It's not rocket science. Last time we approached -Johnson & Johnson, your bait and swap inversion specializing in the baby slave trade, Yves was talking about credit unions and I was talking about Proctor & Gamble.

    I have no use for peer friends, and recognize no enemy among a herd. Labor is a tribe, with as many different spirits / passion as possible, NOT a pyramid of rotated peer pressure groups, under the all seeing eye of debt as money.

    Theories are like people, NOT R&D is r&d. I have been teaching young women AI programming right in front of your eyes, essentially what I would teach my daughters, funny, just as if they were at my armchair, before dinner, after she played with mommy all day. Serious time.

    Just because you are surrounded physically, doesn't mean that you are the prisoner.

    TheCatSaid , May 27, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    baby slave trade? I don't follow.

    Help me connect the dots: theories, R&D, young women learning AI, your daughters. . .

    ke , May 27, 2016 at 10:46 pm

    You are moving awfully fast. I think if you print out several pieces, and recombine the sentences, you will find/ the answer.
    Essentially, farming people is a tuning problem, through DNA filters. The bananas up a ladder experiment (look it up).

    Feminism and chauvinism have their trade offs, more now and less later. Well it's later, and young women like my daughters, thrown in that black hole, are NOTS, who will be far better programmers than anything currently on the planet. But. Proof is in the pudding.

    TheCatSaid , May 27, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    Thanks, I think I can put a few pieces together.
    I'm working on my NOT status. My progress feels slow, not fast.

    rjs , May 27, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    i just realized that i dont know what neo-liberalism is, other than a pejorative i've heard used dozens of times…i couldnt even tell you who is one, and who isnt..

    uasi , May 27, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Yves may wish to weigh in with a more detailed explanation (here is a recent treatment of the "neoliberal thought collective" ) but "Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules" for rules of thumb that will enable you to detect neoliberals in your ordinary dealings in comment sections and on the twitter. If your interlocutor, for example, has a dogmatic faith in the workings of markets, you're dealing with a neoliberal.

    I would say neoliberalism has been the dominant ideology, across the board, since the mid-70s (in other words, pre-Reagan). I'd have a hard time finding any policy that fits within the Overton Window of permitted discourse of DC, from left to right, that is not neoliberal, scholastics-level fine-grained faction-driven distinctions aside. The current stasis of the Overton Window is being challenged a bit by the Sanders campaign (from the left) and the Trump campaign (from the right), granting for a moment that politics are bipolar. Too long an answer, I know!

    Yves Smith Post author , May 27, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Please see Recent Items. We have a post on the Mirowski's paper on the Neoliberal Though Collective prominently displayed.

    Quantum Future , May 27, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    I understand your nuanced depth UASI but I think that commentator was asking in laymens term. Liberalism is spending other peoples money. It can be used by government for good or evil. Neo liberalism implies such term on steroids. An always fair question as a taxpayer is this.:

    Does what I am being taxed for increase my security, freedom and potential upward mobility?

    The last 40 years tells me no. Mixed bag sometimes, not all evil but certainly the wrong direction and alarming. Not only does the looting damage opportunity but those that got the money by stealing have the worst attitudes in the world. Anybody with one penny or position over you has a shitty attitude. By the way, I am my own boss so my observations are neutral.

    Having a business model and political system that hoovers it all into the top guarantees a global slum. The 'isms' (capitalism vs socialism, fascism, communsm) and democrate vs. republican wind up being a flimsy excuse but serious distraction from looting.

    This current cycle of it is double standards and law, looting. Call it whatever you want. Robbery is part of many species, but so is wising up to it and defending oneself.

    The IMF knows this cycle of looting is near over so there is not cost abandoning an 'ism'. But they do want you to think free lunch can always be had. The snack can be, leave math asidethe reason why is some perception can become a reality. Debt issued for productive purpose can have a multiplyer effect. But when issued to hand out in to crony buddies or consumption of some things, the economy grinds down to near halt.

    Had to explain the term while simply explaining the context. The why is as important as a term or nothing can be learned or improved.

    jerry hamrick , May 28, 2016 at 8:55 am

    But, because we have an unlimited supply of money then government would be spending money that belongs to no individual. There can be no deficit spending, only spending. The new economics system would be one that distributes rather than redistributes, Society would decide the rules for such distribution and individuals can still be denied their "fair share." Rules of exchange and possession of money would guide our interactions But the most important aspect of an unlimited supply of money is that as individuals small children would learn that they will have enough money to go as far as their talents and efforts can take them; they will learn that they will have equal access to resources, opportunities, rights, and protections that will enable them to build long lives worth living.

    So we really don't have to worry about the supply of money, we just have to worry about a society that really does give young humans equal access to resources, opportunities, rights, and protections. The only government that has come close to reaching that goal was the democracy of ancient Athens.

    Athens did not have an unlimited supply of money, but they spent their money for the common good which included giving some money to people who needed it as well as spending great sums for the common good rather than giving equal shares of those sums to its citizens.

    Under our current systems of government and economics an unlimited supply of money would make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

    Under a democracy that has an unlimited amount of money the GDP would become the ADI, average domestic income, and our success would be measured by the level and the growth of the ADI.

    Minnie Mouse , May 27, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    How about this; hyper aggressive top down global economic integration no matter what the fallout.

    Benedict@Large , May 27, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Finding the balance?

    I have no idea why this paper is even here on NC. Because decades later the IMF is saying, well, maybe we were a little wrong? They had to butcher people to put this crap in power and butcher people to keep this crap in power. That's not a little wrong. The economy exists for the people; not the other way around.

    JCC , May 27, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    For rjs: For a good start on what neoliberalism means, a base definition to start with is the exact opposite of Benedict@Large's statement above, "The economy exists for the people".

    Most sane people feel that economic "science" is inherently a social, soft, science and that economics as a field of study and policy determination exists to serve the people The neoliberal contingent feels the economy is "the invisible hand", equivalent to God. We exist to serve the economy.

    Robert NYC , May 27, 2016 at 8:50 pm

    Didn't anyone read John Gray? He laid bare all the neo-liberal fallacies in his 1998 book: "False Dawn, The Delusions of Global Capitalism". So now the IMF comes along 18 years later and states what was explained nearly two decades ago. Gray is an intellectual giant in a land of fools so nobody paid any attention to him.

    norb , May 28, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Keep the masses ignorant, wanting and distracted. Under the current social system, you are offered a choice: Be "SMART" and join in on the looting, or be exploited as one to the sheep. It seems humanity must evolve to a third position- one of collective benefit and sustainability or end in extinction.

    different clue , May 29, 2016 at 1:53 am

    Neither a swindler nor a sucker be. Neither a looter nor a victim be.

    etc.

    Sound of the Suburbs , May 28, 2016 at 4:43 am

    About time, the IMF and World Bank have been using these ideas for decades even before they were adopted globally under the "Neo-Liberal" ideology.

    They have a track record of nearly 50 years of unmitigated disaster.

    When South American and African nations were in trouble the World Bank stepped in and offered loans as long as they reformed their economies with less public spending, austerity and privatising previously public companies.

    It was a disaster.

    In the Asian Crisis in 1998 the IMF stepped in and offered loans as long as they reformed their economies with less public spending, austerity and privatising previously public companies.

    It was a disaster.

    When Greece got into trouble recently the IMF stepped in and offered loans as long as they reformed their economy with less public spending, austerity and privatising previously public companies.

    It was a disaster.

    Sound of the Suburbs , May 28, 2016 at 4:48 am

    The US and the UK were the first to adopt these ideas with Reagan and Thatcher.

    One idea was to make countries competitive in a global economy.

    Let's have a look at the US.

    The minimum wage must cover the cost of living in that nation, what must the minimum wage cover in the US?

    1) The cost of sky high mortgage payments or rent
    2) The repayments on student loans
    3) The cost of all services that were once free or subsidised
    4) The cost of healthcare

    The minimum wage necessary to cover the cost of living in the US ensures it can never compete with China.

    Central Banks were supposed to keep inflation low to ensure the cost of living does not rise too quickly ensuring wage inflation can be kept low.

    The Central Banks produced low inflation figures in the US, while massive inflation was occurring in the costs of housing, education and healthcare causing the cost of living to sky rocket. This fictitious inflation figure targeting seems to be a rather pointless exercise. There is no point in producing low inflation figures while the cost of living is sky rocketing. A global youth now sit at home with their parents unable to afford to move out due to high mortgage payments and rent. They are not starting families and the demographic problems are going to get a whole lot worse. Why is global aggregate demand so low? Suppressed wages with sky rocketing costs of living. Neo-Liberalism really is just silly.

    Sound of the Suburbs , May 28, 2016 at 4:50 am

    A look at the UK. We have followed the US idea of paid further education. One of the first things the US banks did in 2008 was to get the Government to back student loans as they were beginning to default on a large scale. In the UK we have linked repayments to RPI and not the CPI figure the Central Bank targets. The usual silliness for masking the rising costs of living and an opportunity to rip off young people. Another idea, unregulated, trickle down capitalism, which we had in the UK in the 19th Century. In the 19th Century those at the top were very wealthy those at the bottom lived in abject poverty, no trickledown. The first regulations to deal with wealthy UK businessman seeking profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.

    Where regulation is lax today? Factories in China with suicide nets. No wonder the French are rioting and the populists are getting angry. Neo-Liberalism really is rather nasty.

    Sound of the Suburbs , May 28, 2016 at 6:46 am

    Michael Hudson in "Killing the Host" goes into the rather more sensible thinking of Classical Economists on how to make nations competitive. You lower the cost of living to the minimum, to ensure the basic minimum wage is low enough to compete with other countries.

    Pretty much the opposite of the US today:

    1) Low housing costs
    2) Free or subsidised education
    3) Free or subsidised services
    4) Free or subsidised healthcare

    You need to get the cost of living down, so the minimum wage necessary is the same as that in China.

    different clue , May 29, 2016 at 1:55 am

    If we abolish Free Trade and restore Protectionism, the American minimum wage won't HAVE to compete with China. Free Trade is the new Slavery. Protectionism is the new Abolition.

    Guglielmo Tell , May 28, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    The IMF is trying to wash its own face now. Too late. Both the IMF and the WB must stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity.

    flow5 , May 29, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    There was only one explanation for the GR – Bankrupt U Bernanke was the sole cause.

    Rates-of-change in money flows, M*Vt = roc's in PT (Professor Irving Fisher's "equation of exchange".

    POSTED: Dec 13 2007 06:55 PM |

    The Commerce Department said retail sales in Oct 2007 increased by 1.2% over Oct 2006, & up a huge 6.3% from Nov 2006.

    10/1/2007,,,,,,,-0.47,,,,,,, -0.22 * temporary bottom
    11/1/2007,,,,,,, 0.14,,,,,,, -0.18
    12/1/2007,,,,,,, 0.44,,,,,,,-0.23
    1/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.59,,,,,,, 0.06
    2/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.45,,,,,,, 0.10
    3/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.06,,,,,,, 0.04
    4/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.04,,,,,,, 0.02
    5/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.09,,,,,,, 0.04
    6/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.20,,,,,,, 0.05
    7/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.32,,,,,,, 0.10
    8/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.15,,,,,,, 0.05
    9/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.00,,,,,,, 0.13
    10/1/2008,,,,,,, -0.20,,,,,,, 0.10 * possible recession
    11/1/2008,,,,,,, -0.10,,,,,,, 0.00 * possible recession
    12/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.10,,,,,,, -0.06 * possible recession

    Trajectory as I predicted:

    [Sep 04, 2016] Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Heres why

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed. ..."
    "... The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him! ..."
    "... Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government. ..."
    "... Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils. ..."
    "... Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism. ..."
    "... British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now. ..."
    "... TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose. ..."
    "... Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election. ..."
    "... It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals. ..."
    "... The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose? ..."
    "... All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing. ..."
    "... Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately. ..."
    "... What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%. ..."
    "... Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton. ..."
    "... So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are. ..."
    "... And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before. ..."
    "... Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved! And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure... ..."
    "... I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals. ..."
    "... Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it? ..."
    "... They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". ..."
    "... This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump. ..."
    "... Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches? ..."
    "... The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer. ..."
    "... Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism. ..."
    "... Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people. ..."
    "... You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend. ..."
    "... I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return ..."
    "... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
    "... I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11. ..."
    "... And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible. ..."
    "... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    ...the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims

    ....because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump's fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but "blue-collar" is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to "engage" a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person's responses to his questions.

    When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump's, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.

    ... ... ...

    Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.

    It seems to obsess him: 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.

    Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the government would "start competitive bidding in the drug industry." ("We don't competitively bid!" he marveled – another true fact, a legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.

    ... ... ...

    Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.

    To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they're all going to lose their jobs.

    As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.

    Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information". His information about all of them losing their jobs.

    But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
    Advertisement

    It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.

    Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his "attitude," the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, "immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: "good jobs / the economy."

    "People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another."

    Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist, not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters he knows. "When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."

    "They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's representing emotionally. We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."

    Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.

    What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who's dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."

    Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against [neo]liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.

    Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.

    Arnold Murphy , 2016-03-08 18:45:41
    And here is one good historical reason about who American's really are that they should not vote for Drumph http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-charge-to-veterans-no-longer-in-uniform A Charge to Veterans No Longer in Uniform

    Below is a letter that General Jonathan Wainwright sent to Soldiers discharged from the military, following their service in World War II. As our military downsizes and many choose to leave the service, I think this letter reminds us of the charge to continue to reflect the values of our individual services and be examples within our communities.

    To: All Personnel being Discharged from the Army of the United States.

    You are being discharged from the Army today- from your Army. It is your Army because your skill, patriotism, labor, courage and devotion have been some of the factors which make it great. You have been a member of the finest military team in history. You have accomplished miracles in battle and supply. Your country is proud of you and you have every right to be proud of yourselves.

    You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation accepts hate and intolerance.

    We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country. Back in civilian life you will find that your generation will be called upon to guide our country's destiny. Opportunity for leadership is yours. The responsibility is yours. The nation which depended on your courage and stamina to protect it from its enemies now expects you as individuals to claim your right to leadership, a right you earned honorably and which is well deserved.

    Start being a leader as soon as you put on your civilian clothes. If you see intolerance and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things, but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.

    Remember too, that No American can afford to be disinterested in any part of his government, whether it is county, city, state or nation.

    Choose your leaders wisely- that is the way to keep ours the country for which you fought. Make sure that those leaders are determined to maintain peace throughout the world. You know what war is. You know that we must not have another. As individuals you can prevent it if you give to the task which lies ahead the same spirit which you displayed in uniform.

    Accept and trust the challenge which it carries. I know that the people of American are counting on you. I know that you will not let them down.

    Goodbye to each an every one of you and to each and every one of you, good luck!

    J.M. WAINWRIGHT

    General, U.S. Army

    Commanding

    Albert Matchett

    Why Americans are supporting him begins to make sense. A lot like here in the UK, our politicians have reduced amount of money that people have available to spent And can not understand why sales turnovers keeps going down.

    No money, No sale. Companies say made abroad equals higher profits but Not if the goods made can not be sold, Because we have to many unemployed or minimum hours contracts or low income people.

    matt88008

    The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him!

    Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government.

    Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils.

    Bonnie Parmenter, 2016-03-08 18:30:08
    Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism.

    Protecting America from potential terrorists entering the county is a real issue. We can look what happened in Paris and Cologne. These are concerns of the people of America and they want protection and solutions. It has nothing to do with racism.

    The biggest reason people support Trump is because they trust his financial aptitude. They honestly feel he can bring America back to greatness.

    I personally don't care for his personality and don't completely trust him but I may have to vote for him, considering my other choices. As soon as Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz will take off. Rubio, if he truly hates Trump, as he acts, may want to drop out sooner than later.

    Worker, 2016-03-08 18:29:43
    British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now.

    British capitalism went into relative decline from the mid nineteenth century because of the opening up those monopoly markets to overseas competition.

    TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose.

    If the soft left and that includes much of what passes for the left in the PLP continues to pander to the interests of big capital then the working classes will continue to be alienated from the Labour party.

    To the middle class soft left choose a side, there are only two, labour or capital . If you choose capital you personally maybe ok for a while, but capitalist expansion is now threatening the environment and with it food and water security. Capitalism rests on continuous expansion but is now pushing against natural limits and when capitalist states come under too many restrictions to their expansion you have the perfect recipe for war and in 2016 a war between the largest capitalist states has the risk of going nuclear.

    ChristopherMyers, 2016-03-08 18:29:06
    I'll just bet that if you were to look a little closer, you might find that there are a lot of different races voting for Trump, so stop trying to brand him as racist. That is just another trick the opposition wants you to fall for. The corporations are fearful that they might have to actually give a high paying job to an American, tsk, tsk.
    tonybillbob, 2016-03-08 18:22:48
    It's ironic that a billionaire is leading the inter-class revolution.

    I don't completely buy into the premise (last paragraph) that most liberals are well educated and well off and that it's liberals -- speaking of the electorate -- that have turned their backs on blue collar workers. There are many working-class Democrats -- that's part of Bernie Sanders' base, the youth of America is very liberal and very under-employed, non-Evangelical Black people tend to vote liberal/Democrat -- at least according to the GOP, the Clinton campaign & the polls -- so to state that it's liberals who've turned their backs on the blue collar class is folly.

    Now, the statement that liberal politicians have turned their backs on their working-class base, as well as the working-class Republicans, is very true, and that's a result of too much money in politics. Pandering to lobbyists while ignoring the electorate.

    What I don't understand about the liberal electorate is why so freakin' many low-income voters choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Why so many, supposed, educated people (at least smarter than the rank-&-file Republican voter, goes the legend) would vote against their best interests and support a lying, flip-flopping, war-mongering, say-anything-get-elected, establishment crony is beyond comprehension.

    If it comes down to it, at least with Trump you know where his money came from. How, exactly, is it that the Clintons went from being broke as hell after leaving the White House to having a net worth of over $111M in just 16 years? Since Slick Willy left office, except for the past four years, hasn't Hillary always been a government employee? Except, you know, when she's campaigning. She's worth $35M, herself, is there that much money in selling books? If not, then she got paid -- bribed -- quite handsomely to speak at private functions.

    Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics.

    One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment) rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets, bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves.

    Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists!

    Hiroku, 2016-03-08 18:16:17
    Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election.

    As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of a country that they entered illegally in the first place?

    This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites). We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen as racists. Yet, I see no effort by the Gulf States, Saudi or any other Muslim country taking some of the Syrians. This would make a lot more sense since they have the commonality of language, religion and culture. But nobody deems them to be racists.

    EightEyedSpy, 2016-03-08 18:12:51
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    Letschat , 2016-03-08 18:11:08
    What a brilliant article. It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals.
    dublinross, 2016-03-08 18:16:59
    This is probably the first article I've read that gives a clear-eyed account of exactly why Trump is gaining so much support. More of this and less of the sneery pieces would be much more enlightening to those of us who have been baffled by his continuing success.
    Sanibel , 2016-03-08 18:03:55
    People had the opportunity to elect Ross Perot who focused on Trade without using racism, back in 92. Perot, also a billionaire predicted all the catastrophic impact due to free trade and kept warning everybody. The majority decided otherwise...
    thedono, 2016-03-08 17:54:50
    Correct! Even Obama won't use the words "working class"...they are now ' dirty words'.. The working class are fed up being ignored, patronized, lied to, and manipulated with words by politicians in both the US and Australia.

    Politicians think that all they have to do is 'look good' and say the right thing. Then wait a bit, change the words and continue to manipulate things from backrooms.

    Trump doesn't do that-and that is why people are voting for him...

    However, if he got into power he would have to do exactly the same as the others to survive

    Yasser, 2016-03-08 17:51:02
    The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose?
    normanshovel, 2016-03-08 17:49:12
    The Guardian openly abuses blue collar workers on a daily basis and is at a loss to understand why they can't connect with them. This is another non-story.
    anteater1961, 2016-03-08 17:46:16
    All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing.
    Mint51HenryJ , 2016-03-08 17:40:49
    Almost all of Trump's proposals, as well as those of other candidates, cannot be implemented without the concurrence of Congress. Tariffs must pass both houses, while ratification of treaties requires a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. A question for each of the so-called debates ought to concern how each candidate intends to convince congress to pass his/her most contentious proposal.
    CivilDiscussion , 2016-03-08 17:37:23
    Trump is awful but he taps into passion, fear and real concerns. If these corrupt phony political parties can't help real people then this is what we get -- Trump, Hillary Clinton and fake revolutionary Bernie Sanders who promised to support the evil Clinton when she wins the rigged nomination. Trump is no worse than the other fake chumps pretending to be our friends.
    Deirdre Mullen , 2016-03-08 17:34:41
    "We liberals..." You disgust me. While you defend Trumps supporters as not entirely consumed with racism as much as fear, as people who actually may have interests in the economy and in trade, as workers who, just maybe, SHOULD have the right to work in an airconditioning factory that ISN'T in Mexico, or China, or Indonesia.... while you defend these not-really-not-totally-racist working class people you excoriate them and continue on your merry little way trashing Trump. Staying safe, staying disgusted with the man, and walking the Party Line like a good little establishment "liberal." The true liberal doesn't exist anymore. Your article sucks. If anyone other than Crass Mr. Trump gets elected to the presidency of this country we will continue down the same road of useless wars for the MIC and Banking Scum, the 1%, whatever you wish to call them and it will be more painful than it is now. Because what's really important is the correct opinion on everything. Not that things change radically and that the working classes of all colors and creeds begin to see some fair shakes, which would happen under Trump.
    I happen to know someone who worked in his company, who didn't even know the man but was on his payroll. It got around to him that this employee had exhausted his health benefits with the company he chose (he had leukemia) and he was hitting up other employees for money to pay his cancer care bills so he could continue treatment. Trump got word of this and didn't even know this person only that he worked for his company - and sent word to the hospital that he guaranteed payment and that the hospital should take care of him as well as possible and he would be responsible. He told the family to keep it a secret, but of course a few people got wind of it. THAT is exactly the opposite of what Mr. Clean Romney did letting an employee drop dead for lack of health insurance, but he'd be SUCH a better president, sooooo caring. Trump is the only one who isn't bought and paid for on the Hill of Vipers and that's what attracts us racist, white, gun-toting, immigrant-hating, blah blah blah fill-in-the-blanks-you-liberal-twit people towards Trump. And those pulling out all the stops to "Stop Trump" are just making it more clear than ever that the presidency is and has been hand picked and cleared as willing to dance on the puppeteer's strings and do the insiders and oligarchy's bidding.
    ony Skaggs , 2016-03-08 17:28:59
    Thomas Frank is often right, but not this time. If working class white Americans of a certain type wanted to support a candidate who is against all this neo-liberal free-trade nonsense, they could easily support Bernie Sanders. He's an outsider like Trump as far as the American political class goes, but has actually done good things as a Senator and stands up for workers. It's interesting that it's not just NAFTA and job losses that these Trump supporters are interested in, it's the xenophobia as well, the anti-Muslim hysteria, and the thuggish behavior of beating down protesters at the Trump rallies. Frank just can't blame the media class for all that...it exists and happens and Trump fans the flames. Trump could care LESS about working class Americans, he cares ONLY about himself - the classic demagogue.
    cally777 , 2016-03-08 17:22:35
    Free trade has undoubted winners and losers, but historically attempts to 'protect' or 'control' a nation's economy have ended badly in stagnation and political authoritarianism. Obvious case in point, the Soviet Union in the latter half of the twentieth century. Conversely opening up the economy to competition seems to do exactly the opposite, eg the Chinese 'economic miracle'.
    A controlled economy might count as 'left-wing' but its the kind of example of Socialism gone bad that socialists feel embarrassed about.

    As for racism, its not hard to pick up the racist signals from Trump, genuine or not, so anyone supporting him has a nose-holding ability which those with moral sensibilities will find difficult. Perhaps 'he/she's a racist but ...' is not such an uncommon stance, yet when it comes to the head of state, its that much harder to turn a blind eye. Of course lots of Germans did it very successfully in the 1930s and 40s.

    BG Davis -> cally777 , 2016-03-08 17:33:25
    One really is reminded of Hitler's fans and Mussolini's fans during the 30s.
    Yasser -> cally777 , 2016-03-08 17:53:19
    Bullshit. Europe is doing better than both America and China. Free trade plus corruption does not equal prosperity. A little less "free trade" and a little less corrupt elites goes a long way towards prosperity.
    Tramontane , 2016-03-08 17:21:29
    Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately.

    The Republicans have kept most blue collar laborers in their party because they appeal to their bigotry and their religious snobbery. Republicans have made few offers to even attempts to help US because they don't have to and they don't want to.

    Current Democrats are almost as bad, but at least they have a past track record of helping create a vibrant middle class.

    What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%.

    Per_in_Sweden , 2016-03-08 17:21:23
    I believe the KISS principle is popular in America, is that why things go so well for Trump?

    Have I applied the KISS principle Keep It Simple, Stupid. Don't be afraid to ask questions, relax yourself and all else by calling yourself a simple, stupid, snail; I'll try to get there, but you'll have to be pedagogic and it will take enough time, preferably I want to sleep a night on the matter (sound judgement depends (but not only necessary but not sufficient) on considering and weighing the significantly complete set of related aspects, and this complete set may take considerable time to bring to the table another tip; in strong or new intellectual or emotional states keep calm and imagine filter words with your palms covering your ears). Prestige and vanity of own relative worth can be very expensive. If you do a wrong, more or less, try to neutralize the wrong, rather than have the prestigious attitude that direct or implied admittance of wrong is hurting your vain surface, since with accountability and a degree of transparency will ultimately have consequences of the wrong, and by not swiftly correcting them you are accountable for this reluctance too.

    Part of the KISS principle is to remind you of assumptions, explicit and emotional, as well as remind you of what's hidden. To be aware of what you do not know is a way of making emotional assumptions explicit which help in explicit risk assessment. An emotional assumption such as "everything feels fine" can turn into "I assume there is no hidden nearby hostile crocodiles in the Zambezi river we're about to pass into."

    Best Regards,

    /Per

    furtado2001 , 2016-03-08 17:18:00
    Finally, a decent article about Trump on the Guardian...
    lurgee -> ffurtado2001 , 2016-03-08 17:53:55
    Tom Frank is an American writer so the appearance of this article is an unhappy mischance. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
    tabbaasco , 2016-03-08 17:17:14
    So Trump's success is all about trade imbalance and its negative impact on the American working class, which the author perceives as predominantly white. This is far from the truth: many if not most workers in agricultural, custodial, fast food, landscaping, road maintenance...are Africa-American, Hispanics, or undocumented workers.

    Does Trump also speak for those people who work in jobs that have been turned down by the white working class? Would he stand up for them by, for example, calling to raise the minimum wage to $14 an hour?

    ElyFrog , 2016-03-08 17:15:01
    Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton.

    So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are.

    kodicek -> talenttruth , 2016-03-08 17:26:57
    And blah blah blah... Actually, Trump's is a very optimistic picture of the USA.

    And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before.

    kodicek , 2016-03-08 17:04:59
    Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved! And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure...
    onevote , 2016-03-08 17:03:38
    I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals.

    The question of course is how serious is he? Is he true or co-opting Bernie's message? One thing's for certain, he's against increasing the minimum wage.

    "But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is," he told debate moderator Neil Cavuto when asked if he would raise wages. "People have to go out, they have to work really hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can't do it." Politico, 11/12/15

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/donald-trump-minimum-wage-215787#ixzz42Kd1MmTK

    weaver2 , 2016-03-08 16:56:39
    Brilliant, brilliant column! I will add, because no one else calls him on these things, that Obama is still pushing TPP, has increased the number of H1B Visa holders in the US, and is now giving the spouses of H1B Visa holders the right to work, meaning they, too can take a job that might have gone to a US citizen, and Obama has essentially cut the retirement benefits working class seniors have paid for all their lives. Yet no one calls him on these things, except Trump.
    John Kennedy , 2016-03-08 16:54:21
    Where did this general theme of insulting voters come from? Calling Trump supporters racists idiots is no way to win their votes. You can not win an election by being an insulting troller.

    The same people who attack Trump engage in even worse behavior. No wonder Trump will win the election.

    Per_in_Sweden , 2016-03-08 16:50:10
    On Free Trade

    What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question is "What is best for our country?" Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing. At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times hardly any work is available.

    The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing of these initiatives. 3 Law and order. Either individuals start their own business through an initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and initiative they get financed as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors' money or loans.

    When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities, the economy hurts and people are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods, and the business can therefore not sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.

    On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses, demand increases, businesses hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving upward spiral.

    What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component of the economy of a nation. There is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such as schools, universities, private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide tools, knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market, after minimal organising, after the financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative makers and provide both jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents, keep business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell their money-making opportunity to the rich but fight in the market.

    In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market (and thus other players are declining in their market share, including the rich), don't be stupid.

    Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes time to build up. One way to fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced. But the thing is, if a nation tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses in China gets dollars for sold goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the dollar to drop in value) If you import more than you export. Therefore your nation's business will have an easier time to sell and export. Thus there is a natural balance.

    But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency value will not occur. The difference in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money and the currency value will stay the same.

    Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within a nation because of imports are more than exports and the nation borrows money.

    Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive stab in can occur and your nation will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.

    Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable goods for hard land and property, there is a slow over taking of the nation's long term resources, all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like a drug addict we crave for the easy way out buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected by our own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In our nation's own interest.

    Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Best Regards,

    /Per

    CivilDiscussion , 2016-03-08 16:47:47
    Trump is a disruptor -- and this moribund political economic system deserves disruption. The feeble Democrats could only come up with Sanders (who cringingly promised to support Hillary once she overwhelms him in the rigged system) is not in the same class. Bigoted clown in some ways he expresses the anger millions feel. Get used to it.
    willpodmore , 2016-03-08 16:40:29
    Brilliant article, which demolishes the vicious myth that "America is Racist" as the Huffington Post column announced.
    Sascha Dikiciyan -> Maria Ashot , 2016-03-08 17:04:41
    Im sorry. No matter how smart you like to appear when you commenting on the Guardian after saying things like "Trump is far and away the smartest, brainiest, most intelligent candidate running on either side" how can anyone take your views serious?

    Yeah maybe not all voters are racists. Sure. But most of them still are. Most Trump voters are also extremely uneducated, ignorant and filled with right wing media false fact anger. "To make America great again" I have never laughed so hard in my life before. America isn't in bad shape right now. There are always problems but building a wall (which is hysterical) to save us from immigrants for example is just plain crazy.

    Trump of course inserts real issues like Veterans. Trade. Ok. Its easy to say one thing but when you look at his past, he's ruined various businesses and is currently under investigation for fraud.

    To say that that DT is smart is crazy. The guy cannot articulate anything to save his life and when you look at how protesters get (mis)handled at his rallies how can you even come on here and say the things you do. YOu should be ashamed of yourself. But sure have a President that's ignoring Climate change and you will see where Florida will be in a few years. Ironically they vote for Trump so the joke in the end will be on them.

    This article may have some good points but still, Donald Trump is nothing more but
    an opportunist. He doesn't really give a shit about you, the little white class. He's not intelligent or even capable to LEAD a country like ours. Europe is laughing at us already. The circus was fun for a while but I think its time to get realistic and stop this monkey show for good.

    Alfreda Weiss , 2016-03-08 16:36:41
    Trump/Cruz are monsters who have plans for the take-over of the US. Trump will be like his friend Carl Icahn. He will take all he can in profit. Sell off parts cheap off-shore. Ignore the ex-workers living under a bridge. Cruz the Domionionist Evangelical will say Armageddon is in the Bible as he creates it in the Middle East. Neither man should be running for President, but the system has been captured by the likes of Rupert Murdoch who is drilling for oil in Syria with his friends Cheney and the Rothschilds. The Koch Brothers Father set up the John Birch Society. Jeb Bush from a family of many generations who supported Hitler too. We are seeing the bad karma of the West in bright lights including the poor whites who thought being a white male meant something. They flock to any help they think they can get from the master-con-man Trump or the Bible man Cruz.
    weaver2 -> Alfreda Weiss , 2016-03-08 16:57:10
    You didn't read the article, did you?
    Alfreda Weiss -> weaver2 , 2016-03-08 18:00:26
    Yes. The US was systematically gutted by people like Romney and friends who made fortunes for themselves. One of Trump's best friends, Carl Icahn, the hostile take-over artist, knows exactly how the game is run. It begins by doing and saying anything to get control. Americans are now chum for the sharks and they know it. Following a cheap imitation of Hitler is not the answer. Nor is the Evangelical Armageddon Cruz promised his Father.
    overhere2000 , 2016-03-08 16:30:30
    Trump is just Reagan without the halo.
    USfan , 2016-03-08 16:27:48
    What this article fails to understand is that racism was always an essential feature of Reaganomics. Reagan told the mostly poorer white voters of the south and midwest to vote tax cuts for the 1% on the theory this would increase general prosperity. When that prosperity failed to materialize, the Republicans always blamed minorities: welfare queens, mexican rapists, etc. Racism was essentially a feature of their economic model.

    Now look at Trump's economic model. It's a neoliberal's dream. He doesn't have a meaningful critique of the system - that's Bernie Sanders. Instead, Trump picks fights with the Chinese and Mexicans, to further stoke the racism of his base under the guise of an economic critique. That's just more of the same. It's what Republicans have been doing for three decades.

    The only way in which any of this is new is that Trump fronts the racism instead of hiding it. That has less to do with Trump than with the slightly deranged mindset of white Republicans after 7 years of a black President. You think it's a coincidence these people are lining up for King Birther?

    Sorry, Thomas Frank - this is all about race. There are many flavors of neoliberal critique; Trump has chosen the most flagrantly racist one. His entire appeal begins and largely ends with race. It's the RACISM, stupid. That and little else.

    CivilDiscussion -> USfan , 2016-03-08 16:52:23
    Nope you are wrong. Millions supported Obama but he betrayed almost everyone on the left and the working class. Race is not the issue. Lying is.
    weaver2 -> USfan , 2016-03-08 16:59:18
    You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who is stupid. Obama is pushing bills that destroy US jobs. Maybe you don't depend on a paycheck to live, but millions of people do. Too bad you are so removed from reality that you can't empathize.
    rippedtanktop -> USfan , 2016-03-08 17:00:15
    'Neoliberalism' is a tired cliche , a revanchist term designed to help pseudo-intellectual millenials sound and feel quasi-intelligent about themselves as they grope, blindly towards a worldview they feel safe about endorsing.
    macmarco , 2016-03-08 16:27:25
    One must also look at the anti-Trump brigade to find many of his audience. Below in no particular order are major reasons why he has millions of supporters.

    The Anti-Trump Brigade

    1. GOP
    2. Tea Party
    3. Politicians, elected officials in DC all parties.
    4. DC media from TV to internet
    5. Romney, Gingrich, Scarborough, Beck and other assorted losers.

    One thing in common they all have very high negatives, particularly the politicians and media outlets.

    Nedward Marbletoe -> macmarco , 2016-03-08 18:43:24
    Yes! I got on the Trump train after seeing Fox News CEO Ailes' horrible press release insulting Trump the day before Fox News was to moderate a GOP debate.

    The lack of journalistic ethics was so egregious... and then when not one other media outlet called Fox on their bullshit, not even NPR... I said hey, it is essential to democracy to treat candidates fairly. they are not treating him fairly! The media hates democracy!?

    So yeah, your point is totally correct.

    Stefano Garavelli , 2016-03-08 16:26:56
    In 2016, anything can happen, but so far the Republican primaries showed a state of severe confusion in the party http://ilmanifesto.global/donald-trumps-fortune/
    RedOnFire , 2016-03-08 16:24:30
    Good article focusing in on what should really concern us - trade. In particular our inability to make goods rather than provide services. This is one of the reasons for the slide in lower middle class lifestyles which is fueling support for Trump
    arbmahla -> RedOnFire , 2016-03-08 16:39:47
    Protectionism can be very destructive. Japan forced Detroit to improve the quality of its cars. Before Toyota and Honda did it, why would GM and Ford want to make a car that lasted 200,000 miles? Cheap foreign labor was only one of the reasons for the decline of US manufacturing.
    ID6693806 -> RedOnFire , 2016-03-08 16:48:59
    Redonfire,
    When I tell one of my sons that globalisation has shafted the european working an d middle class, he says" yes, but what about its creation of a Chinese and Indian middle class"
    I reply that I care as much about them as they care about me.
    weaver2 -> RedOnFire , 2016-03-08 17:00:32
    And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center?
    ID311139 , 2016-03-08 16:21:24
    ... all of which simply begs the question: "Why are they not turning to Bernie Sanders, who is also against free trade give-aways to the rich"
    Ross Grandanette -> ID311139 , 2016-03-08 16:43:35
    I think mostly because he said he will raise their taxes. So many of Sanders supporters are quite young and pay little or no taxes.
    CivilDiscussion -> ID311139 , 2016-03-08 16:49:49
    Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it?
    Jason Holland -> ID311139 , 2016-03-08 17:02:14
    because ultimately, I feel based upon listening to my family members who are working class white folks, they feel that Bernie is a communist, not a socialist, and they don't trust that (or likely really know the difference). So unfortunately for Da Bern, he will never be able to attract most of these votes, even though he and The great Hair have (in general) some of the same policies.
    The real question is why will the left not turn to the Hair, and get 70% of what they want, having to listen to bragado and Trump_vs_deep_states as the trade off?
    georgeat4 , 2016-03-08 16:19:49

    He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.

    I have to say this doesn't seem wildly outrageous - many of them will be working in the black economy, and helping to further undercut wages in the US. Actually seems quite reasonable. Trump is still a buffoon, but why throw this at him, when there is soo much else to go at?

    TwistedCripple , 2016-03-08 16:17:40
    The weakness of Labour under Blair has caused the same problems. They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". It worked for "New Labour" for a while, then us peasants got fed up with the Hampstead Set running the show for their own class and we started voting UKIP or, as in my case, despairing and not voting at all.

    Thank God Jeremy Corbyn has put Labour back on track & pushed the snobbish elements of the people's party back to the margins!

    ehmaybe , 2016-03-08 16:17:34
    This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump.
    Sunset Blue , 2016-03-08 16:17:14
    The reason is because the media and most of the people are involved in character debates about him and that's just a game. You support "your guy" and try to denigrate "their guy". It's a game of insults and no-one ever won an argument by insulting their opponent.

    Trump policies show that he wants a trade war, that he wants to build a wall, which will do little or nothing, at great cost, and he wants to exclude Muslims, when Americans have experienced more attacks from Christian Terrorists, and American civilians are still 25 times more likely to die falling out of bed than in a terrorist attack.

    CivilDiscussion -> Sunset Blue , 2016-03-08 16:56:11
    Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches?
    westerndevil , 2016-03-08 16:11:51
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    bucktoaster , 2016-03-08 16:11:06
    and who signed the job-crushing NAFTA legislation that allowed companies to move jobs offshore? Bill Clinton........ the Republican in Democrat clothing.
    Enduroman , 2016-03-08 16:11:06
    By "Ordinary American", I assume you mean "White Christian".
    brexitman , 2016-03-08 16:10:06
    Good article , obviously his support comes from those that Washington does not serve and reflects badly on democracy in America.
    3sisters , 2016-03-08 16:10:05

    The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.

    I hear a bell ringing somewhere.

    bookie88 , 2016-03-08 16:09:45
    "Neo-Liberalism" was given an impetus push with the waning days of the Carter administration when de-regulation became a policy.....escalated tremendously during Reagan and the rest is history......participated in by both major US political parties.

    They never looked back and never looked deep into the consequences for the average folk. Famously said, "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube", applies to global trade also. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Any real change will be regressive, brutal and probably bring about more wars around the globe.

    What has to change and can is the political attitude of the upcoming political leaders and the publics willingness to focus more on what a, "progressive" society should be.
    To totally eliminate the abject greed inherent in the "free economies" (an oxymoron if ever) that is crushing most of the working classes around the world under "global free trade (agreements)" will be impossible.

    A re-focus on what is meant by the "commons" would help enormously. And an explanation that would appeal to the common folk by pointing out the natural opportunities to all of us (with the exception of the true elites) by developed intellectuals and common folk leaders would also benefit all.

    By the "commons" I mean:

    A "commons" focus on a total rebuilding of our rusted, commercially destroyed environments all across this country (and across the world).

    Capitalism is a game.
    There needs to be a firewall between the free flows of rabid global capital and the true needs of a progressive society.
    The game of capitalism needs rules and referees to back up those rules.
    There has to be political/public will to back up those rules and referees with force of law.

    We need a total new vision for the globe.
    Without it we will succumb to total social/economic chaos.
    We here in the US have no true progressive vision exhibited by any candidate.
    Bernie Sanders comes close but no cigar.
    Hillary C. is trying to exert the vision of seeking the presidency as a kind of, "family business."
    Trump is appealing to many who have been trashed by globalization.......

    Continuous warfare is not a foreign policy. Greed and narcissism is not a national one. We continue to fail in history lessons.

    KarenInSonoma , 2016-03-08 16:05:55
    As I would expect, Thomas (The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; What's the Matter With Kansas?)

    Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism.

    But no, I could never vote for him.

    CivilDiscussion -> KarenInSonoma , 2016-03-08 16:58:00
    Yet if you vote for Hillary Clinton you get more of the same.
    George Wolff -> KarenInSonoma , 2016-03-08 16:58:12
    I'm touched by your family's tragedy Karen, and glad that it has not made you fall for Trump as Mr. Frank suggested you might. My best wishes.
    George Wolff , 2016-03-08 16:05:40
    Everybody knows that Trump sends jobs overseas and employs illegals, even his devotees. This destroys Frank's argument that people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants to help them.
    willpodmore -> George Wolff , 2016-03-08 16:48:24
    Frank did not write that "people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants to help them." As Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, said, "We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."

    Ill-considered trade deals (NAFTA ended a million jobs) and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll.

    Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people.

    CivilDiscussion -> George Wolff , 2016-03-08 16:59:24
    You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend.
    weaver2 -> George Wolff , 2016-03-08 17:04:32
    Frank's argument is on what his followers believe to be true. Frank admits that their beliefs may be naive. He is writing on the reasons for Trump's popularity.
    Derrick Helton , 2016-03-08 16:04:15
    Beyond who or what i vote for, It is nice to see a news article focusing on issues and platforms instead of one of the many attacks or other issues seperating politics from legislation. I want news on candidates positions, ideas, plans. This circus of he said she said and the other junk used to sway votes or up ratings is beyond dumb.
    twelveyards , 2016-03-08 16:03:03
    Free trade is like all other good ideas, it only works if it is kept in balance.
    Understanding the internal structure of the Atom is a good idea. Proliferating Hydrogen bombs, the same idea taken way too far..
    And as for bad human ideas, well just the worst thing on the planet.
    People support Trump and the very different Corbyn because they can see that that our current version of Free trade is hopelessly inefficient and screws everybody except the very rich.
    trimlimbs , 2016-03-08 16:02:54
    [Neo]Libers are not american, nor do they care if we suffer. They want to destroy this country.
    ID8031074 -> trimlimbs , 2016-03-08 16:12:19
    They care about power. Progressives don't give a sod about the minorities or supposedly oppressed groups they bang on about. They want power and they are getting lots of it. When the West burns, those progressives who acquired enough power will be safe inside their walled fortresses with their bodyguards.
    bobmacy , 2016-03-08 16:01:55
    Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs to areas where pay is sometimes 1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next trade deal with China and Japan.

    Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans rely on money invested into stocks and bonds.

    I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.

    holiday66, 2016-03-08 16:01:03
    Yes, Trump does talk about jobs/economy but let us not forget that the Third Reich also promised to end runaway inflation and unemployment. To a large extent, they did low unemployment levels. However, racism was an important galvanizing factor.

    In the Middle Ages, racism was a galvanizing factor in the Crusades. Muslims dominated Mediterranean trade and stop it, European monarchy used racism against Moors/Saracens/Turks to garner support against the Muslims at that time.

    So, for history,s sake, let,s just call a spade a spade..........Trump is racist and so are his supporters (among other things).

    Pseudaletia, 2016-03-08 16:00:59
    While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney, both conservatives), no one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand. Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because consumers won't pay the cost of a product manufactured in rich nations. Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from Viet Nam.

    If Trump forces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for?

    I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.

    Elizabeth Chubbuck , 2016-03-08 15:59:48
    Hilarious.. talk about "I love the uneducated!" Yeah because everything he rants about with free trade he has benefited from.. let us not forget MADE IN CHINA Trump suits.
    ID8031074 -> Elizabeth Chubbuck , 2016-03-08 16:13:55
    Are you being racist against the Chinese? I think maybe YOU are a XENOPHOBE!
    Neil24 , 2016-03-08 15:59:08
    The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.
    ID8031074 Neil24 , 2016-03-08 16:00:03
    Wonderfully idealist... there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
    ID8031074 , 2016-03-08 15:56:28
    I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11.

    Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like the Space Shuttle.

    And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible.

    By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic migrants. They're right, and Europe is going to pay one hell of a pric

    Neil24

    The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.

    [Sep 04, 2016] As soon liberalism overcome the socialist and fascist challenges, the adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was no longer, so bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism ..."
    "... I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago. ..."
    "... So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will ..."
    "... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
    "... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
    "... That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. ..."
    "... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Will G-R 09.03.16 at 4:21 pm 115

    As far as a definition, at least on the level of ideology I'd go with the following simplified-to-the-utmost historical overview…

    1. Liberalism (the 18th- and 19th-century bourgeois ideology of capitalism) defeats conservatism (the 18th- and 19th-century aristocratic ideology of anti-capitalism)

    2. Triumphant liberalism faces insurgent ideological challenges from its left and right (i.e. Quiggin's "three-party system" model, except the three parties are clearly understood to be socialism, liberalism, and fascism)

    3. Liberalism is forced to respond to these challenges, in particular responding to the socialist critique with the ideology of Keynesian interventionist "welfare liberalism" - ideologues of older liberalism consider this response itself a taint of corruption

    4. As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism

    In any case, it's utterly bizarre to see people object so stridently to "neoliberalism" who simultaneously don't seem to have a problem with the imperialist, anti-intellectual, and quite frankly racist connotations of the term "tribalism".

    Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm

    Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a Chinatown -esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.

    he fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.

    So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious falls into the national spotlight.)

    Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed . This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm 109

    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 4:05 am 110

    ... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Listen, Neoliberal

    Notable quotes:
    "... neoliberalism is the ideology of the global managerial class. It encompasses leading political neoliberals such as Clinton(s), Blair, and Obama, Eurocrats, the upper management of multinationals, the management of large NGOs, higher-up Chinese Communist Party members, and everyone else who comes together to make the current world system work via characteristic international agreements and arrangements ..."
    "... it has no mass base as such. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism in policy becomes free trade agreements, austerity, the inability to address income inequality, free rides for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative" as elites loot whatever they can loot. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism obeys the dictates of the elite without, itself, being composed of a classical wealth-owning elite: neoliberals are often very wealthy, but they are managers of other people's wealth rather than capitalists as such. But there is no base anywhere that demands austerity or the TPP, so neoliberalism always pretends to be a vaguely left centrism, and adopts left ideas on racism, sexism, homophobia and so on in the sense that it ideally treats people as meritocratically chosen. ..."
    "... As a result of not being able to call neoliberals neoliberals, Thomas Frank has no real way to describe what happened other than by going through a lot of detail, most of which will be long familiar to any left reader in the U.S. ..."
    "... Frank seems to believe that the Democratic Party can return to something like a New Deal coalition, something that I think is impossible. The system has moved on and can't be glued back together. The state fundamentally doesn't need most people and is looking for ways to shed them -- ways which neoliberalism makes possible -- and labor doesn't have the power that it once did, not because of the machinations of the elites (although those certainly are happening) but because we don't need as much labor or the same kind of labor as we once did. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | rpuchalsky.blogspot.com

    Thomas Frank's book _Listen, Liberal_ has a central problem: it describes U.S. political neoliberalism in detail but never makes the jump to calling it something other than liberalism. As a result, it's never quite sure what it's recommending. Something about going back to how liberalism was during the New Deal era -- but what was it then, and can we really go back to that now, and how would we get there?

    Before writing more about his book I'll give a short description of what I think neoliberalism is: neoliberalism is the ideology of the global managerial class. It encompasses leading political neoliberals such as Clinton(s), Blair, and Obama, Eurocrats, the upper management of multinationals, the management of large NGOs, higher-up Chinese Communist Party members, and everyone else who comes together to make the current world system work via characteristic international agreements and arrangements.

    It may more or less be held as an ideology by middle management, and by most professional economists and international functionaries, but it has no mass base as such.

    Neoliberalism in policy becomes free trade agreements, austerity, the inability to address income inequality, free rides for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative" as elites loot whatever they can loot. Neoliberalism is a liberalism, and depends on conservatism being more objectionable than it is (and the left being generally absent), but it is not left-liberalism, and it is not classical liberalism since it exists within a system that has contemporary political actors in it.

    Neoliberalism obeys the dictates of the elite without, itself, being composed of a classical wealth-owning elite: neoliberals are often very wealthy, but they are managers of other people's wealth rather than capitalists as such. But there is no base anywhere that demands austerity or the TPP, so neoliberalism always pretends to be a vaguely left centrism, and adopts left ideas on racism, sexism, homophobia and so on in the sense that it ideally treats people as meritocratically chosen.

    Distinguishing neoliberalism from the remnant New Deal or left-liberal base of the Democratic Party might have been a good thing for Frank's book to do, but it doesn't. Looking up "neoliberalism" in the index, first the book mentions the U.S. Neoliberals of the early 1980s, then it refers to NAFTA in 1993 as a landmark of neoliberalism, but there's nothing about how we got from one meaning of the word to the other. This is a common confusion: there are still people who insist that neoliberalism is a word that describes a U.S. movement of the early 1980s that then disappeared, or Britain under Thatcher. But the rest of the world outside the U.S. has long since settled on the word "neoliberalism" to describe a worldwide politics and a worldwide system. Using it only in its anglosphere-historical sense is parochial.

    As a result of not being able to call neoliberals neoliberals, Thomas Frank has no real way to describe what happened other than by going through a lot of detail, most of which will be long familiar to any left reader in the U.S. There's a lot about Clinton, Obama, and the prospective HRC Presidency. I really didn't learn much from the bulk of the book, other than that microlending has failed and indeed is rather like a predatory payday loan scheme for people outside of the U.S. (something which I should have suspected, in retrospect). It would be a good book to read for someone who still thinks that Obama is a left-liberal and who expects that from HRC.

    But Frank's analysis is a bit off when he identifies professionals as "the 10%" who support contemporary-Democratic-Party politics. Professionals broadly may be sympathetic to neoliberalism and certainly to meritocracy, but they don't broadly have the power to maintain a neoliberal system or the numbers to be a voting base for it.

    Frank seems to believe that the Democratic Party can return to something like a New Deal coalition, something that I think is impossible. The system has moved on and can't be glued back together. The state fundamentally doesn't need most people and is looking for ways to shed them -- ways which neoliberalism makes possible -- and labor doesn't have the power that it once did, not because of the machinations of the elites (although those certainly are happening) but because we don't need as much labor or the same kind of labor as we once did.

    A new party of the non-elites is going to have to be based on something other than labor power, something that Frank's analysis isn't far enough from the mainstream to guess at. That said, this will still a useful book for some people.

    Rich Puchalsky at 4:07 PM -> William Connolley September 4, 2016 at 12:33 AM

    > Neoliberalism in policy becomes ...the inability to address income inequality, free rides for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative" as elites loot whatever they can loot.

    So essentially you are *defining* neoliberalism as a bad thing. I guess you're entitled to, if you don't like it, but it will then be dull if you draw the conclusion from that, that its a bad thing.

    Free trade is a good thing (sez I) but I agree with you it has no broad base of support, other than amongst economists, who are the people that understand it.

  • Rich Puchalsky September 4, 2016 at 5:03 AM

    I'm not really defining it as a bad thing: I'm saying that it has certain characteristics. Systems are bad in comparison to other systems, so neoliberalism is worse than some systems and better than others. For instance, the Paris Agreements are characteristic of neoliberalism, but that doesn't mean that they are intrinsically bad: they are better than the non-agreement or active denialism that would be all that some other systems could produce.

  • [Sep 04, 2016] Strange how [neoliberal] elites get committed to failed policies which end up biting them back as they become quagmires...America's military adventurism, trickle down monetary policy, etc

    Sep 04, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH -> am... September 02, 2016 at 09:43 AM , September 02, 2016 at 09:43 AM
    Stiglitz has applauded Brexit, saying that large parts of the EU are stuck in depression.
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/706117/joseph-stiglitz-eurozone-depression-brexit

    Strange how elites get committed to failed policies which end up biting them back as they become quagmires...America's military adventurism, trickle down monetary policy, etc.

    am -> JohnH... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 11:14 AM
    He and others have been saying these things for a while. I was pleased he pointed out Junckers threat to do Britain in so that no one else would want to leave. Not a little of that still going on. Will lose them some exports for sure.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Neoliberal economist Narayana spreads old and already discredited lies about efficient market

    Notable quotes:
    "... No markets are free and efficient. All markets have rules. Governments make and enforce the rules. Market efficiency is a product of the quality of the rules ..."
    "... Those who cry "interference" are those who have gamed the system for advantage and want to protect that advantage ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Those comments are about his article Want a Free Market? Abolish Cash - Narayana Kocherlakota . The rules are enforced by the state. The state is an umpire of the markets, However, as we saw under neoliberalism, the state can be captured by wealthy special interests who then make, modify and enforce the rules to their own benefit.
    Richard H. Serlin : Reply Friday, September 02, 2016 at 12:45 AM Ooh, I might be first, hurry!

    Narayana's article is interesting, but I hate hate this trying to appease the right with, "Like any government interference, this causes inefficiencies." Such dangerous misleading. He knows very well that often government "interference" incredibly increases efficiency, like with externalities, asymmetric information, high monopoly power,...

    Just terrible to spread this dangerous misinformation that government interference is always inefficient -- And you'll never appease the right.

    Wish you could leave comments at Bloomberg. Reply Friday, September 02, 2016 at 12:45 AM jonny bakho -> Richard H. Serlin ... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 05:25 AM

    Amen
    No markets are free and efficient. All markets have rules. Governments make and enforce the rules. Market efficiency is a product of the quality of the rules

    In this context the notion of interference is absurd. Markets themselves are not natural, they are a product of interference. Those who cry "interference" are those who have gamed the system for advantage and want to protect that advantage

    Paine -> jonny bakho ... , -1
    Excellent
    jonny bakho -> Paine... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 06:14 AM
    "The rules are often however not made and or enforced by the state"

    No the rules are made and enforced by the state.
    However, the state can be captured by wealthy special interests who then make, modify and enforce the rules to their own benefit.
    The wealthy special interests claim to be supporting "Free markets"
    They are actuality supporting more corrupt markets.
    Greater corruption of markets leads to greater inefficiency.
    We need to lose the term "free" as applied to markets

    Paine -> jonny bakho ... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 08:50 AM
    Perhaps we agree sufficiently here

    I have no argument with your characterization of state capture
    Indeed state design has the authorship of last centuries
    New deal era corporate compromise with the domestic job class

    Since the counter reformation CR began back in1976 or so
    The social contract drawn up 30 years earlier has seen serious erosions

    Let us hope the 2008 crisis has halted the CR
    Now we must struggle on towards a new social charter

    Hurricane Hormone -> Paine... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 06:33 AM

    social design
    Ie mechanism design
    And where appropriate
    Aggressively
    Imposed by the state
    "

    Controlling interest in the "state" has been bought out by *anti social design*. With the freedom of speech that remains, We the Lower Caste of folks worth less than $1,000,000.00 can still spread the word, the word of how to cope, how to muddle through.

    Good
    luck --

    DrDick -> Richard H. Serlin ... , Friday, September 02, 2016 at 11:19 AM
    "Government interference" is in fact the only thing that allows markets to function and exist. The real inefficiencies are created by greed and dishonesty on the part of buyers and sellers.
    Richard H. Serlin said in reply to Richard H. Serlin ... , -1
    I should add (for the historical record, as my genius will not be recognized until long after my time) that Narayana was also, sadly, trying to increase his appeal by trying to look more "centrist" (as the truth has a well known liberal bias), and less liberal, so he lied; he horribly mislead in a harmful way saying, "Like any government interference, this causes inefficiencies."

    I like Narayana, and I understand that he might have thought that supporting this profoundly harmful fallacy might have been worth it to get a better reception for his main message on monetary policy. But it's up to the rest of us to speak up against horrible anti-government simple-minded fallacies.

    [Sep 03, 2016] September 2, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Notable quotes:
    "... The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. ..."
    "... if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture. ..."
    "... Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. Factional dissidents within the Dems have to contend not only with the party oligarchy and its formidable resources, the decentralized and sprawling nature of the organization, but with a membership that barely participates but, when it does, turns out when and how the leadership wants.

    The Militant Labour tendency example isn't perfect – entryism into a Parliamentary party is easier than our party system – but it speaks volumes. To get a hearing from the party membership you can only criticize so much of the organization itself; if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture.

    Keep in mind I do say this as a Green and a person who did his PhD on inner-party democracy (or lack thereof). Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century.

    It would make more sense to really unite the left around electoral reform in the long run and push for proportional representation at the state/local level for legislatures and city councils. While it would probably be preferable for democracy's sake to have one big district elected with an open-list vote, in the US context we'd probably go the German route of mixed-member proportional that combines geographical single-member districts with proportional voting.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Russia's False Hopes

    Notable quotes:
    "... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
    "... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
    "... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
    "... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
    "... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
    "... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
    "... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
    "... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
    "... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
    "... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
    09, 2015 | Defend Democracy Press

    Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is losing its grip on reality.

    Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.

    Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev nor in Washington, London, and NATO.

    Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.

    Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.

    Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air.

    This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.

    Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms," Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting in accordance with "international norms."

    Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.

    A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country.

    Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing. Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints, and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.

    Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action. Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's 14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

    Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."

    The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.

    The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.

    Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot think strategically do not survive.

    The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.

    If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch.

    Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner.

    These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.

    Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony.

    Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful of the West to save Planet Earth?

    [Sep 03, 2016] When did neoliberalism become center left ? It is always far right

    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Hannan , September 2, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Today's Water Cooler stats:
    11 anti Hillary links
    2 anti Trump links

    Yet one candidate represents the center left, one the extreme right. And Naked Capitalism supports what?

    nippersmom , September 2, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you have clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers of those with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's ridiculously shifted Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an oligarch or a war criminal.

    cocomaan , September 2, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are criticizing the person likely to win the election. These issues of corruption need to be hashed out and handled well before inauguration.

    Trump's faults are well known.

    And HRC? Center left? On what planet?

    timbers , September 2, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Center Left = Trump.

    Extreme Right = Clinton

    Water Cooler comments doing OK based on your stats.

    cwaltz , September 2, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't qualify as "left" center or otherwise.

    But hey, let's not pretend that the left really gets more than a token attempt at representation each election cycle anyone.

    The hippies on the left get punched, not elected.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 2, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    On a non-flat political Earth, your left is my right and my left is your right.

    Yet, some still believe politics is flat, and the power universe revolves around the Exceptional Terra.

    "We are HIS favorites."

    Pavel , September 2, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has about 11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?

    And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her defence against serious wrongdoing is that she is a mixture of forgetful and incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 2, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    The whole family has had memory problems since the 80s.

    Wonder if it was the polluted drinking water in Arkansas.

    Vatch , September 2, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    I don't think Trump is center left. Maybe he's center right.

    Vatch , September 2, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Wow. A lot of people replied very quickly. I should refresh my browser more often! :-)

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 2, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe others want to chime in):
    – Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
    – More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
    – Globalist trade deals that enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over national sovereignty, environmental and worker protection, and self-determination
    – America's national business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate donors to tax-exempt foundations
    – Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of candidate and election coverage
    – Health care system reform designed to benefit entrenched insurance providers over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
    Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.

    Skippy , September 2, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    When did neoliberalism become center left – ?????

    Jim Haygood , September 2, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    'center left, extreme right'

    *yawn* … so fifty years ago.

    In this century, the only pertinent axis is orthogonal: the old in-out, in-out, from A Clockwork Orange .

    Or as Simon & Garfunkel used to croon in the Boomers' youth, Any way you look at it, you're screwed.

    The Crook vs. The Flake - choose wisely between utter hopelessness and total extinction.

    [Sep 02, 2016] After neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative. ..."
    "... Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more. ..."
    "... Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not ..."
    "... I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything. ..."
    "... To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. ..."
    "... I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism. ..."
    "... Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant. ..."
    "... It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. ..."
    "... It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. ..."
    "... Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." ..."
    "... I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is. ..."
    "... I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy. ..."
    "... Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature. ..."
    "... I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt. ..."
    "... The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting. ..."
    "... The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse. ..."
    "... Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between. ..."
    "... So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top ..."
    "... The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite. ..."
    "... "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you. ..."
    "... I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind. ..."
    "... Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa. ..."
    "... In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms. ..."
    "... "an obligation to vote in a democracy" ..."
    "... orders you to consent ..."
    "... if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right ..."
    "... Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    The failure of neoliberalism poses both challenges and opportunities for the left. The greatest challenge is the need to confront rightwing tribalism as a powerful political force in itself, rather than as a source of political support for hard neoliberalism. Given the dangers posed by tribalism this is an urgent task. One part of this task is that of articulating an explanation of the failure of neoliberalism and explaining why the simplistic policy responses of tribalist politicians will do nothing to resolve the problems. The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism, particularly in the hard version with which political tribalism has long been aligned.

    The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet. Thinking about the relationship between the Internet economy and public policy remains embryonic at best. But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector, the Internet ought to present opportunities for a radically remodeled progressive policy agenda.

    In political terms, the breakdown of neoliberalism implies the need for a political realignment. This is now taking place on the right, as tribalists assert their dominance over hard neoliberals. The most promising strategy for the left is to achieve a similar shift in power within the centre-left coalition of leftists and soft neoliberals.

    This might seem a hopeless task, but there are positive signs, notably in the United States. Although Hillary Clinton, an archetypal soft neoliberal, has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and seems likely to win, her policy proposals have been driven, in large measure by the need to compete with the progressive left. There is reason to hope that, whereas the first Clinton presidency symbolised the capture of the Democratic Party by soft neoliberalism, the second will symbolise the resurgence of social liberalism.

    The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative.

    Brett 08.30.16 at 5:49 am

    I don't know. I think for a true triumph over the existing order, we'd need true international institutions designed to enhance other kinds of protections, like environmental and labor standards world-wide. That doesn't seem to be in the wings right now, versus a light version of protectionism coupled with perhaps some restoration of the welfare state (outside of the US – inside the US we're going to get deadlock mildly alleviated by the Supreme Court and whatever types of executive orders Clinton comes up with for the next eight years).
    Andrew Bartlett 08.30.16 at 6:15 am
    "The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions"

    My only worry with that is the strong overlap between tribalism and racism, at least in it's political forms. Harking to the myth of a monocultural past could be seen by some as 'affection for long-standing institutions'. (I know that's not what the author is thinking, but left has had it's racism and pro-discrimination elements, and I am wary of giving too much opportunity for those to align with that of the right)

    bruce wilder 08.30.16 at 7:29 am
    I wonder, how do you envision this failure of neoliberalism?

    It seems like an effective response would depend somewhat on how you think this anticipated political failure of neoliberalism plays out over the next few years. And, it is an anticipated failure, yes? or do you see an actual political failure as an accomplished fact?

    And, if it is still an anticipated failure, do you see it as a political failure - the inability to marshall electoral support or a legislative coalition? Or, an ideological style that's worn out its credibility?

    Or, do you anticipate manifest policy failure to play a role in the dynamics?

    MisterMr 08.30.16 at 9:31 am
    "The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism"

    I don't agree with this. First, appealing to tribalism without actually believing in it is a dick move. Second, actually existing tribalists are arseholes, or rather everyone when is taken by the tribalist demon becomes an arsehole.

    Third, the "individualist" thingie work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro lftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.

    PS: about increasing inequality, there are two different trends that usually are mixed up:

    1) When we look at inequality at an international level, the main determinant is differential "productivity" among nations. The productivity of developing nations (mostly China) went up a lot, and this causes a fall in international inequality.

    2) When we look at inequalityinside a nation, it depends mostly on how exploitative the economic system is, and I think that the main indicator of this is the wage share of total income; as the wage share fell, income inequality increased. This happened both in developed and developing countries.

    These two determinants of inequality are mixed up and this creates the impression that, say, the fall in wages of American workers is caused by the ascent of Chinese workers, whereas instead both American and Chinese workes lost in proportion, but the increase in productivity more than compensated the fall in relative wages.

    Mixing up these two determinants causes the rise in nationalism, as workers in developed nations believe that they have been sacrificed to help workers in developing nations (which isn't true). This is my argument against nationalism and the reason I'm skeptic of stuff like brexit, and this makes me sort of allergic to tribalism.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 11:43 am
    This analysis by Quiggin is spot on. Clearly the way forward holds both promise and great peril, especially in the nuclear age. The notion that Trump is just more of the same from the GOP is deluded. He represents a dangerous insurgency of radical rightists , who can be quite fairly be called racist and religious extremist based fascists. A Trump win could well close the curtain on democracy in America. Neo liberalism is being repudiated , will the elite now turn to the fascists to hold their ground, as happened in Germany? It's a troubling question.
    casmilus 08.30.16 at 11:46 am
    "The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet."

    Why is that any more important than the invention of digital computers, starting from the 1940s? Just a further evolution. The real challenge is from robotics, 3D printing and AI drivers for such processes. That really will liquidate a lot of skilled labour; computing created a new industry of jobs and manufacturing.

    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 11:59 am
    4: From my point of view, neoliberalism…long supply chains and logistics; downward pressure on wages and the social wage; the growth of finance to supply consumer credit to prop up effective demand; the culture of self-improvement and self-management to reduce overhead and reproduction costs…no longer supports accumulation of capital or reproduction of political legitimacy. IOW, an economic failure.

    (Anwar Shaikh's new book is definitive)

    Martin 08.30.16 at 1:21 pm
    Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 1:36 pm
    Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.

    Tribalism is hard wired in our genes. It can be over come with education but too few voters ever get beyond an emotional response to what they perceive. It's no accident that conservatives do anything they can to undermine education and promote religious based ignorance. That's how they win elections. But this is a dangerous game, sometimes a Hitler or a Trump shows up and steals the show.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:00 pm
    MisterMr @ 5: Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.

    This is where it becomes problematic that so much of this conversation happens within individual First-World nation-states, because the inequalities "tribalists" are interested in maintaining are precisely the inequalities between nations on a global scale. If the "most people" you're talking about includes the masses of recently-proletarianized working people in the Third World, then sure "most people" have reason to be pro-left. But when we have this conversation in a setting like this, we all implicitly know that "most people" refers at best to the working classes of countries like Australia and the US, and these people still perceive a decided interest in maintaining the global economic hierarchies for which "tribalism" serves this conversation as a signifier.

    For the working classes of the First World wrapped up in their "tribalist" defense of a global aristocracy of nations, to truly believe they're on the losing side would mean to accept that the defense of national sovereignty from neoliberal globalization is an inherently lost cause. If they're to defect from the cause of "tribalism" and join the Left, this would mean accepting a critique of the "long-standing institutions" of First-World social democracy that appears to go much farther left even than John Quiggin appears willing to go. (As in, the implementation of social-democratic institutions in First-World capitalist societies is inherently a tool for enabling the economic domination of the First World over the Third World, by empowering a racialized labor aristocracy to serve as foot soldiers of global imperialism, and so on and so on à la Lenin.)

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies.

    Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc. - is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.

    Z 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Interestingly, I share all the premises, and yet none of the optimistic conclusions. Because soft neoliberalism (and in fact even hard neoliberalism) is much closer sociologically, politically and ideologically to the left than tribalism is, I see the end of the hegemonic neoliberal ideology and the correlative rise of tribalism as (somewhat paradoxically) the guarantee for perpetual neoliberal power in the short and middle term, at least for two reasons.

    First of all, left-inclined citizens will most likely always vote for neoliberal candidates if the alternative is a tribalist candidate (case in point: in 9 months or so, I will in all likelihood be offered a choice between a hard neoliberal and Marine Le Pen; what then?).

    Moreover, even if/when tribalist parties gain power, their relative sociological estrangement from the elite sand correlative relative lack of political power all but guarantees in my mind that they will govern along the path of least resistance for them; that is to say hard neoliberalism (with a sprinkle of tribalist cultural moves). This is how the FPO ruled Carinthia, for instance, and how I would expect Trump to govern in the (unlikely) eventuality he reached power.

    Finally, mass migration are bound to intensify because of climate change (if for no other reason) and the trend internationally in advanced democratic countries seems to be towards national divergence and hence national reversion.

    I don't see how an ideologically coherent left-oriented force can emerge in this context, but of course I would love to be proved wrong on all counts.

    Lupita 08.30.16 at 2:22 pm
    Bravo, Will G-R!
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 2:37 pm
    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies. Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc. - is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.

    )))))))))))))))

    I don't agree. It's true that tribalism has morphed into what you call national mythologies , but the basis for this is our evolutionary heritage which divides the world into them and us. This no doubt had survival benefits for hunter gatherer social units but it's dangerous baggage in today's world. I find your comments about education curious. Are you advocating ignorance? I think you confuse education with indoctrination , they are not the same thing.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 2:45 pm
    The question of what ideology an ideologically coherent left-oriented force would come together around is indeed an important question, but I'll try not to dwell on my hobbyhorses too much.

    For now I'll add a slightly different area to consider this through: current First World "left" populations (especially in the U.S.) want to turn everything into individual moral questions through which a false solidarity can be expressed and through which opposing people can be shamed. For instance, I've thought a good deal about how environmental problems are the most important problems in general at the moment, and how it's clear that they require a redesign of our infrastructure. This is not an individual problem - no amount of volunteer action will work. Yet people on the left continually exert pressure to turn this into a conflict of morally good renouncers vs wasters, something that the right is quite ready to enhance with their own ridiculous tribal boundary markers (google "rolling coal").

    You see this with appeals to racism. Racism is a real problem and destroys real people's lives. But treating it as an individual moral problem rather than a social, structural one is a way of setting boundaries around an elite. The challenge for the left is going to be developing a left that, no matter what it's based around, doesn't fall back into this individualist new-class status preservation.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 3:15 pm
    @ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological aspects as essentially arbitrary.

    To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage", "uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first place!

    Holden Pattern 08.30.16 at 3:20 pm
    @ comment 16:

    I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything.

    So what remains, especially given the latter, is marketing and individual action - persuasion, shame, public expressions of virtue. That's all that is available to the left in the United States, especially on issues like racism and environmental problems.

    So while it's good fun to bash the lefty elites in their tony coastal enclaves and recount their clueless dinner party conversations, it's shooting fish in a barrel. Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in circles is… problematic.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 3:26 pm
    @ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological aspects as essentially arbitrary.

    )))))))))))

    I hope it's clear that I do not discount the assertion that nationalism and racism are part of social constructs that favor class interest. My point is that political agendas have to work with the clay they start with. To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. This is a dangerous illusion, it leads right to the gulags.

    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage", "uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first place!

    )))))))))

    I think Quiggen's analysis is not to be scorned

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 3:33 pm
    "Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in circles is… problematic."

    I come out of the same milieu, so I don't see why it's problematic to call attention to this. I
    helped to change JQ's opinion on part of it (as he wrote later, the facts were the largest influence on his change of opinion, but apparently what I wrote helped) and he's an actual public intellectual in Australia. As intellectuals our personal actions don't matter but sometimes our ideas might.

    Activism and social movements can help, even in the U.S. (I think that 350.org has had a measurable effect) so I wouldn't say that a structural approach means that nothing is possible.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 4:06 pm

    @ Bob Zannelli: To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature.

    As hesitant as I am to play the "Fallacy Man" game, this is a common strawman about Marxism. In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist Richard Lewontin: "In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis." As far as human biological capacities, it's perfectly clear from any number of everyday examples that we're able to ignore all sorts of outward phenotypic differences in determining which sorts of people to consider more and less worthy of our ethical consideration, as long as the ideological structure of our culture and society permits it - so the problem is how to build the sort of culture and society we want to see, and telling wildly speculative "Just-So stories" about how the hairless ape got its concentration camps doesn't necessarily help in solving this problem.

    On the contrary, the desire to root social phenomena like what Quiggin calls "tribalism" in our genes is itself an ideological fetish object of our own particular culture, utilizing our modern reverence for science to characterize social phenomena allegedly dictated by "biology" as therefore natural, inevitable, or even desirable. Here, have a reading / listening recommendation.

    RobinM 08.30.16 at 4:20 pm
    Like Will G-R at 17 and Bob Zannelli at 19, I, too, found the use of the term "tribalism" in the original post a bit disturbing. It's almost always used as a pejorative. And it suggests that the "tribalists" require no deeper analysis. I'm sure it's been around for much longer, but I think I first took note of it when the Scottish National Party was shallowly dismissed as a mere expression of tribalism. That the SNP (which, by the way, I do not support) was raising questions about the deep failures of the British system of politics and government long before these failures became widely acknowledged was thus disregarded. Currently, an aspect of that deep failure, the British Labour Party seems to be in the process of destroying itself, again in part, in my estimation, because one side, among whom the 'experts' must be numbered, seem to think that those who are challenging them can be dismissed as "tribalists." There are surely a lot more examples.

    More generally, the resort to "tribalism" as an explanation of what is now transpiring is also, perhaps, neoliberalism's misunderstanding of its own present predicaments even while it is part of the arsenal of weapons neoliberals direct against their critics?

    But in short, the evocation of "tribalism" is not only disturbing, it's dangerously misleading. Those seeking to understand what may now be unfolding should avoid using it, not least because there are also almost certainly a whole lot of different "tribes."

    awy 08.30.16 at 5:06 pm
    so what's the neoliberal strategy for preserving good governance in the face of insurgencies on the left and right?
    Yankee 08.30.16 at 5:08 pm
    This just in , about good tribalism (locality-based) vs bad tribalism ("race"-based, ie perceived or assumed common ancestry). It's about cultural recognition; nationalism, based on shared allegiance to a power structure, is different, although related (sadly)
    James Wimberley 08.30.16 at 5:14 pm
    "But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector .." With a large assist from non-profit-making community movements, as with Wikipedia and Linux. (IIRC the majority of Internet servers run on variants of the noncommercial Linux operating system, as do almost all smartphones and tablets.) CT, with unpaid bloggers and commenters, is part of a much bigger trend. Maybe one lesson for the state-oriented left is to take communitarianism more seriously.

    The Internet, with minimal state regulation after the vital initial pump-priming, technical self-government by a meritocratic cooptative technocracy, an oligopolistic commercial physical substructure, and large volumes of non-commercial as well as commercial content, is an interesting paradigm of coexistence for the future. Of course there are three-way tensions and ongoing battles, but it's still working.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 5:42 pm
    RobinM, to clarify, I do think that what Quiggin calls tribalism is worth opposing in pretty absolute terms, and I even largely agree with the meat of his broader "three-party system" analysis. I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism.
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 6:18 pm
    In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist Richard Lewontin:

    Now Mao Tse-Tung, there's role model to be quoted. The thing about science is that's it true whether you believe it not, the thing about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
    it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious. I know, I know , maybe someone will get it right some day.

    A realist politics doesn't ignore science , this doesn't mean that socialism is somehow precluded, in fact the exact opposite. We have to extend democracy into the economic sphere, until we do this, we don't have a democratically based society. It's because of human nature we need to democratize every center of power, no elite or vanguard if you prefer can be ever be trusted. But democracy isn't easy, you have to defeat ignorance , a useful trait to game the system , by the elite, and create a political structure that takes account of human nature , not try to perfect it. One would hope leftists would learn something from history, but dogmas die hard.

    Igor Belanov 08.30.16 at 6:50 pm
    Bob Zannelli @27

    "about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."

    To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time helping old ladies over the road.

    Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil on political ideology.

    Raven Onthill 08.30.16 at 7:06 pm
    "I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative."
    Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:26 pm
    'Tribalism' is giving members of what you perceive as your tribe more leeway than you give others. (Or negatively being much more critical of others than you would be of your tribe). It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. Lots of 'civilization' is about lubricating the rough spots created by tribalism while trying to leverage the good sides.

    One of the failures of neo-liberalism is in assuming that it can count on the good side of tribalism while ignoring the perceived responsibilities to one's own tribe. It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. So then when it comes time to say "for the good of the UK we need you to do X" lots of people won't listen to you. John asks a good question in exploring what comes next, but it isn't clear.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 7:30 pm
    about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
    it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."

    To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time helping old ladies over the road.

    Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil on political ideology.

    )))))))))))))

    Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant.

    In the Soviet Union , science, art and literature were under assault, with scientists, artist and writers sent to the gulag or murdered for not conforming to strict Marxist Leninist ideology. Evolution, quantum mechanics, and relativity were all attacked as bourgeois science. ( The need for nuclear weapons forced Stalin later to allow this science to be sanctioned) These days, like the Catholic Church which can no longer burn people at the stake , old Marxists can just castigate opinions that don't meet Marxist orthodoxy.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 8:53 pm
    @ Sebastian_H: It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish.

    But again, when we're talking about "tribalism" not in terms of some vague quasi-sociobiological force of eternal undying human nature, but in terms of the very modern historical phenomena of racism and nationalism, we have to consider the way any well-functioning modern nation-state has a whole host of institutions devoted to indoctrinating citizens in whatever ideological mythology is supposed to underpin a shared sense of national and/or racial identity. It should go without saying that whatever we think about general ingroup/outgroup tendencies innately hardwired into human nature or whatever, this way of relating our identities to historically contingent social institutions and their symbols is only as innate or hardwired as the institutions themselves.

    It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money.

    At least in my view, economists are usually slipperier than that. The arguments I've seen for neoliberal free trade (I'm not quite sure what to make of the term "globalism") generally involve it being good for "the economy" in a much more abstract sense, carefully worded to avoid specifying whether the growth and prosperity takes place in Manchester or Mumbai. And there's even something worth preserving in this tendency, in the sense that ideally the workers of the world would have no less international/interracial solidarity than global capital already seems to achieved.

    To me the possibility that neoliberal free trade and its degradation of national sovereignty might ultimately undermine the effectiveness of all nationalist myths, forging a sense of global solidarity among the collective masses of humanity ground under capital's boot, is the greatest hope or maybe even the only real hope we have in the face of the neoliberal onslaught. Certainly if there's any lesson from the fact that the hardest-neoliberal political leaders are often simultaneously the greatest supporters or enablers of chauvinistic ethnonationalism, it's that this kind of solidarity is also one of global capital's greatest nightmares.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 9:05 pm
    Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." I find it fascinating, and indicative of the ideological tension immanent in fascist reactionaries' use of the term, that the two terms listed as comparable to it are traditionally understood in modern political theory as diametrically opposed to each other.
    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:17 pm
    Recommending Joshua Clover's new book. Riot -Strike – Riot Prime

    The strike, the organized disruption at the point of production, is no longer really available. Late capitalism, neoliberalism is now extracting surplus from distribution, as it did before industrialism, and is at the transport and communication streams that disruption will occur. And this will be riot, and there won't be much organization, centralization, hierarchy or solidarity. I am ok with "tribalism" although still looking for a better expression, and recognizing that a tribe is 15-50 people, and absolutely not scalable. Tribes can network, and people can have multiple and transient affiliations.

    Clover's model is the Paris Commune.

    (PS: If you don't like "tribe" come up with a word or expression that usefully describes the sociality of Black Lives Matter (movement, maybe) or even better Crooked Timber.)

    Lee A. Arnold 08.30.16 at 9:21 pm
    The left scarcely knows how to respond.

    Almost all people are primarily led by emotions and use reason only secondarily, to justify the emotions.

    There is a rude set of socio-economic "principles" which they call upon to buttress these arguments. You can hear these principles at any blue-collar job site, and you can hear them in a college lecture on economics, too:

    –nature is selfish
    –resources are scarce
    –money measures real value
    –wants are infinite
    –there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)
    –you have to work for your daily bread
    –incentives matter
    –people want to keep up with the Joneses
    –labor should be geographically mobile
    –government is inefficient
    –welfare destroys families
    –printing money causes inflation
    –the economy is a Darwinian mechanism

    These are either false, or else secondary and ephemeral, and/or becoming inopportune and obsolete. None of them survives inspection by pure reason.

    Yet this is an aggregate that buzzes around in almost everyone's head, is INTERNALIZED as true, for expectations both personal and social. And which causes most of our problems.

    Consider TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Yet obviously there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch, or else there would be no such thing as the improvement in the standard of living. …Okay, you say, but "resources are scarce." …Well no, we are quickly proceeding to the point where technological change and substitution will end real scarcity, and without ecological degradation. Therefore: can cheaper lunches proceed to the point where they are effectively free for the purposes of meeting human need, "your daily bread"? …Well no, you say, because people are greedy, and beyond their needs, they have wants: "wants are infinite." …But wait, wants really cannot be infinite, because a "want" takes mental time to have, and you only have so many hours in every day, and so many days in your life. In fact your wants are finite, and quite boring, and the Joneses' wants are finite sand boring too. (Though why you want to keep up with those boneheads the Joneses is a bit beyond me.) …Okay, you say, but "incentives matter": if you give people stuff, they will just slack off: "welfare destroys families." …But wait a minute. If we have insisted that people must work to feel self-worth, yet capitalism puts people out of work until there are no jobs available, and there are no business opportunities to provide ever-cheaper lunches, isn't welfare the least of our problems, isn't welfare a problem that gets solved when we solve the real problem?

    But what is the real problem? Is the real problem that we don't know how to interact with strangers without the use of money, and so we think that money is a real thing? Is the real problem your certain feeling that we need to work for our self-worth? Is the real problem that capitalism is putting itself out of business, and showing that these so-called principles are just a bunch of bad excuses? Is the real problem that we are all caught in a huge emotional loop of bad thinking, now becoming an evident disaster?

    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:26 pm
    And also of course, people looking at Trump and his followers (or their enemies and opponents in the Democratic Party) and seeing "tribalism" are simply modernists engaging in nostalgia and reactionary analysis.

    Trump_vs_deep_state is not fascism, and a Trump Rally is not Nuremberg. Much closer to Carnival

    Wiki: "Interpretations of Carnival present it as a social institution that degrades or "uncrowns" the higher functions of thought, speech, and the soul by translating them into the grotesque body, which serves to renew society and the world,[37] as a release for impulses that threaten the social order that ultimately reinforces social norms ,[38] as a social transformation[39] or as a tool for different groups to focus attention on conflicts and incongruities by embodying them in "senseless" acts."

    …or riot.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 10:50 pm
    I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is.

    "Tribalism" was coined as a kind of shorthand for what Michael Berube used to refer to "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick." It's the wholesale adoption of what at first looks like a value or belief system but is actually a social signaling system that one belongs to a group. People on the left refer to this signaling package as "tribal" primarily out of envy (I write somewhat jokingly) because the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side.

    Greg McKenzie 08.30.16 at 11:47 pm
    "Tribalism" feeds into the factionalism of parties. The left has a strong faction both inside the ALP and the Liberal Party. The Right faction, in the NLP, is currently in ascendancy but this will not last. Just as the Right faction (in the ALP) was sidelined by clever ALP faction battles, the current members of the NLP's Right faction are on borrowed time. But all politicians are "mugs" as Henry Lawson pointed out over a hundred years ago. Politicians can be talked into anything, if it gives them an illusion of power. So "tribalism" is more powerful than "factionalism" simply because it has more staying power. Left faction and Right faction merely obey the demands of their tribal masters.
    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:47 am
    . . . the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side

    honestly, I do not think "tribalism" is a "strong package" on Right or Left. Part of the point of tribalism in politics is just how superficial and media driven it is. The "signaling package" is put together and distributed like cigarette or perfume samples: everybody gets their talking points.

    Pretending to care dominates actually caring. On the right - as Rich points out with the reference to "rolling coal", some people on the Right who have donned their tribal sweatshirts get their kicks out of supposing that somebody on the Left actually cares and they can tweak those foolishly caring Lefties.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:57 am
    I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy.

    Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature.

    Martin 08.31.16 at 2:11 am
    @ Bob Zannelli 10: To describe something as "hard wired" is to give up: what course of action could we take? But, then, why isn't everyone a member of the tribalist party? Has everyone, always, been of the tribalist party? (I know someone could argue, 'everyone is racist' or 'all these white liberals are just as racist really', but even if that is somehow true, most are members of the socialist party or the neoliberal party).

    Rather than deciding it is all too hard, we can at least find out who supports tribalism, why it makes sense to them, whether it benefits them, how it benefits them, if it does, and why they support it anyway, if it does not benefit them.

    I suppose (I am guessing here), some tribalists are benefiting from differential government support, such as immigration policies that keep out rival potential employees, or tariff policies that keep out competitors; or at least, that they used to benefit like that. But Crooked Timber should have readers who can answer this kind of question from their expertise.

    Collect the evidence, then understand, then act.

    Howard Frant 08.31.16 at 6:39 am
    I suppose it's too late to try to convince people here that the term "neoliberalism" is a virus that devastates the analytic functions of the brain, but I'll try. The term is based on a European use of the word "liberal" that has never had any currency in the US. It's a wholly pejorative term based on a misunderstanding of Hayek (who did *not* believe in laissez-faire), but may be a reasonable approximation of the beliefs of , say, Thatcher. Then that term was confounded with a totally unconnected term invented by Peters, who was using the word "liberal" in the American sense. And presto, we have a seamless worlwide philosophy with "hard" and "soft" variants.

    As far as, say, H. Clinton is concerned, I can see no respect in which it would be wrong to describe her as just a "liberal" in the American sense. American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union– so we can just say that's *soft* neoliberalism and preserve our sense that we are part of a world-wide struggle. Or not.

    Bernie Sanders was celebrated by the left for supporting a tax on carbon (without mentioning, of course, what price of gasoline he was contemplating), but this is an excellent illustration of what Peters would have considered a neoliberal policy. The term now just seems to mean anything I don't like.

    As for Benedict Arnold, I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt.

    So rather than spending a lot of time celebrating victory over this hegemonic ideology, perhaps people should be talking about liberalism and whatever we're calling the left alternative to it.

    Peter T 08.31.16 at 10:54 am
    "Tribalism" is unhelpful here, because it obscures the contribution "tribalism" has made and can make to effective social democracy. It was on the basis of class and national tribalisms (solidarities is a better word) that social democracy was built, and its those solidarities that give it what strength it still has. That others preferred, and still prefer, other forms of solidarity – built around region or religion or language – should neither come as a surprise nor be seen as basis for opposition. It's the content, not the form, that matters.

    Self-interest is too vague and shifting, international links too weak, to make an effective politics. Our single most pressing problem – climate change – can clearly only be dealt with internationally. Yet the environmental and social problems that loom almost as large are clearly ones that can best be dealt with on national or sub-national scales. As this becomes clearer I expect the pressure to downsize and de-link from the global economy will intensify (there are already signs in this direction). The social democrat challenge is then to guide local solidarities towards democracy, not decry them.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.31.16 at 10:56 am
    If we're really looking for a general word that works across national boundaries, it's a well-used one: conservatism. People sometimes object that conservatives in one country are not the same as conservatives in another country, but really the differences are not much greater than in liberalism across countries, socialism, etc. Conservatism includes the characteristics of authoritarianism and nationalism. U.S. "tribalism" is its local manifestation: the use of "tribalism" to denote a global style of conservatism denotes a particular, contemporary type of conservatism, just as neoliberalism is a type of liberalism. You could divide JQ's three groups into left, liberal, conservative but since you're using neoliberal as the middle one (e.g. a contemporary mode) then "tribalism" or something like it seems appropriate for the last.

    Note that there is no word for a contemporary mode of leftism, because there isn't one. The closest is the acephalous or consensus style of many recent movements and groups, but that mode hasn't won elections or taken power.

    Peter T 08.31.16 at 11:43 am
    The post focuses essentially on the challenge from above – the plutocracy – but the challenge from below is also relevant:
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/
    reason 08.31.16 at 12:48 pm
    John Quiggin,
    What I see as the missing point here, and perhaps we disagree upon it's significance, is resource limitations. We can't avoid the violent reversion to zero sum games unless we address the problem (exactly when it has or will reach crisis point is perhaps a point of disagreement) of expanding population meets finite resources (or even meets already fully owned resources).

    I don't buy the argument that there a technological solution, or the argument that population will stabilize before it gets too bad (I don't see what will drive it – because Malthus was partly right).

    If people are unable to survive where they are, they will try to move, and people already living where they are moving to won't like it. Perhaps we are already seeing some of this, perhaps not. But it will drive tribalism (joining together to keep the "invaders" out) and won't drive the left. I have a feeling that the "left" should be replaced by a "green" view of the world, but for one thing, that will need a new economics – perhaps on the lines sketched out by Herman Daly. Maybe the term "left" is too associated with a Marxist view of the world to be useful any more.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 2:00 pm
    Apart from the obvious advantages "fascism" brings to the table - the sense of describing "Trump_vs_deep_state" in terms of what it seeks to develop into and not in terms of its current and clearly underdeveloped form, as well as the sense of tying our current state of poorly grasped ideological confusion back to WWII as the last clear three-way "battlefield of ideologies" pitting liberalism against fascism against socialism - the term is broadly symbolically appropriate for the same reasons it was originally adopted by Mussolini. The sense of national solidarity and "strength through unity" (i.e. the socialist element of National Socialism) is exactly what John Quiggin is characterizing as "the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism", and the direct invocation of the Roman fasces as a symbol of pure authority is exactly what Z is getting at with the term "archism". Sure our latter-day manifestation of fascism hasn't (yet) led to an honest-to-God fascist regime in any Western country, but to kid ourselves that this isn't what it seeks or that it couldn't potentially get there would be, well, a bit too uncomfortably Weimar-ish of us.

    Besides which, I get that pooh-poohing about Godwin's Law and "everybody I don't like is Hitler" and so on is a nearly irresistible tic in today's liberal discourse, but c'mon people… we're all comfortable using the term "neoliberalism", which means we're all willing to risk having the same Poli Sci 101 conversations over and over again in the mainstream ("yes, Virginia, Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are both liberals!") for the sake of our own theoretical clarity. At the very least "fascism" would have fewer problematic discursive connotations than "tribalism", which I absolutely refuse to use in this conversation without putting it in sneer quotes.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:17 pm
    The problem with neoliberalism is that it isn't really compatible with a modern free market economy. Simply because that system isn't well enough understood to allow experts, let alone informed amateurs, to reach a consensus on what a particular change will actually do. . . . It is the inability of the neoliberal communication style to credibly promise control that lost it.

    You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating the rationales provided by neoliberalism. We are going to improve efficiency by privatizing education, health care, pensions, prisons, transport. Innovation is the goal of deregulating finance, electricity. That is what they say.

    The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting.

    The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:35 pm
    Will G-R @ 55

    So you know what Trump_vs_deep_state wants to become, so we should call it that, rather than describe what it is, because the ideological conflicts of 80 years ago were so much clearer.

    We live in the age of inverted totalitarianism. Trump isn't Mussolini, he's an American version of Berlusconi, a farcical rhyme in echo of a dead past. We probably are on the verge of an unprecedented authoritarian surveillance state, but Hillary Clinton doesn't need an army of blackshirts. The historical fascism demanded everything in the state. Our time wants everything in an iPhone app.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:54 pm
    reason @ 54

    Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between.

    It is hard to see optimism as a growth stock. But, an effective left would need something to reintroduce mass action into politics against an elite that is groping toward a solution that entails replacing the masses with robots.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 3:38 pm
    "Trump_vs_deep_state" may be the term du jour in the US, but let's try to kick our stiflingly banal American habit of framing everything around our little quadrennial electoral freak shows. After all, the US and our rigid two-party system have always been an outlier in the vigor with which real political currents have been forced to conform to the narrow partisan vocabulary of either a left-liberal or a right-liberal major party. If hewing religiously to a patriotic sense of US institutionalism is supposed to ultimately save the liberal political sphere from the underlying political-economic forces that threaten it, we might as well take a page from the Tea Party and start marching around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats for all the good it'll do us.

    In the rest of the Western world, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, the "fascist" parties (Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary, Ataka in Bulgaria, etc.) are generally less euphemistic about their role as fascist parties, and what forced sense of euphemism does exist seems to provide little more than a rhetorical opportunity for mockingly transparent coyness . To be fair, the predominant far-right parties in richer Western European countries (the FN, AfD, UKIP, etc.) are a bit more earnestly vague about their ambitions, so maybe a good compromise would be to call them (along with Trump) "soft fascists" in contrast to the "hard fascists" of Golden Dawn or Ataka. But fascism still makes much more sense than any other existing "-ism" I've seen, unless we want to just make one up.

    Marc 08.31.16 at 3:48 pm
    Analogies can obscure more than they illuminate.
    RichardM 08.31.16 at 4:11 pm
    > You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating the rationales provided by neoliberalism.

    Fair point. On the other hand, if neoliberalism rule, then neoliberals will be the rulers. And if not, not. Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve. Worldwide, average corruption is almost certainly lower in mostly-neoliberal countries than in less-neoliberal places like China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, …

    The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.

    Given that nobody trustworthy knows anything, at least in a form they can explain, you can't get useful information as to which is which. 300 hours of reading reports of their rhetoric in newspapers, blogs, etc. leaves you none the wiser. And by the time you have a professional-level of knowledge of what's going on, you are part of the problem.

    Might as well just stick to looking at who has which label next to their name, or who has good hair.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 4:16 pm
    Marc, the discourse of Godwin's Law has done a wonderful job solidifying the delusion that what '20s-through-'40s-era fascists once represented is categorically dead and buried, which is why it seems like the word can't be used as anything other than an obtuse historical analogy. But it's not an analogy - it's a direct insinuation that what these people currently represent is a clear descendant of what those people once represented, however mystified by its conditioned aversion to the word "fascism" itself. On the contrary, if we surrender to the Godwin's Law discourse and accept that fascism can never mean anything in contemporary discourse except as an all-purpose "everything I don't like is Hitler" analogy or whatever, it means we've forgotten what it means to actually be anti-fascist.

    BTW, the link from the last comment isn't working for whatever reason, so here's Take 2 .

    Bob Zannelli 08.31.16 at 5:27 pm
    So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection.
    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:14 pm
    RichardM: Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve.

    Still not getting it. The operative question is whether the rulers feast because the society works or because the society fails.

    Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top

    The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite.

    The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.

    Again, you are not getting it. This isn't about lesser evil. "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you.

    Any apparent choice offered to you is just part of the b.s. The "300 hours of reading" is available if you need a hobby or the equivalent of a frontal lobotomy.

    I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind.

    Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa.

    Hillary Clinton is running the Democratic Party in such a way that she wins the Presidency, but the Party continues to be excluded from power in Congress and in most of the States. This is by design. This is the neoliberal design. She cannot deliver on her corrupt promises to the Big Donors if she cannot play the game Obama has played so superbly of being hapless in the face of Republican intransigence.

    In the meantime, those aspiring to be part of the credentialed managerial classes that conduct this controlled demolition while elaborating the surveillance state that is expected to hold things together in the neo-feudal future are instructed in claiming and nurturing their individual political identity against the day of transformation of consciousness, when feminism will triumph even in a world where we never got around to regulating banks.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:33 pm
    Will G-R, Bob Zannelli

    Actual, historical fascism required the would-be fascists to get busy, en masse . Trump (and Clinton) will be streamed on demand so you can stay home and check Facebook. Hitler giving a two-hour 15000 word speech and Trump, Master of the Twitterverse, belong to completely different political categories, if not universes.

    There are so many differences and those differences are so deep and pervasive that the conversation hardly seems worth having.

    stevenjohnson 08.31.16 at 7:54 pm
    Historical fascism included not just Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar/Caetano's Portugal, Ionescu's Romania, the Ustase in Croatia, Tiso's Slovakia, Petliura's movement in Ukraine, and, arguably, Dollfuss' Austria, Horthy's Hungary, Imperial Japan, Peronist Argentina, the Poland of the post Pilsudski junta (read Beck on the diplomatics of a Jewish state in Uganda, which is I think symptomatic wishful thinking.)

    There is a strong correlation between the nations whose rulers accepted fascists into the government and losing WWI. The rest were new, insecure states that could profit their masters by expansion. At the time, the so-called Allies, except for the USSR, were essentially the official "winners" of WWI and therefore united against the would be revisionists like Germany. Therefore it was desirable to propagandize against the Axis as uniquely fascist.

    In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms.

    Democracy is associated even with genocide, enslavement of peoples and mass population transfers to colonists. It began with democracy itself, with the Spartans turning Messenians into Helots and Athenians expropriating Euboeans and massacring Melians. Russian Cossacks on the Caucasian steppes or Paxton Boys in the US continued the process. When democracy came to the Ottoman empire, making Turkey required the horrific expulsion of the Armenians. (Their Trail of Tears was better publicized than the Cherokee's.) But the structural need to unify a nation by excluding Others led to the bloody expulsion of Greeks as well. The confirmation of national identity by a mix of ethnic, religious and racial markers required mass violence and war, as seen in the emergence of the international system of mercantilist capitalist states.

    The wide variations in historical fascism conclusively demonstrate every notion of fascism is somehow something essentially, metaphysically, antithetical is wrong. Fascism and democracy are not an antinomy. Particular doctrines that assert this, like the non-concept of "totalitarianism," serve as a kind of skeleton for political movements and parties. Since the triumph of what we in the US call McCarthyism all mainstream and all acceptable alternative politics share this same skeleton. It is unsurprising that such a beast is somehow not organically equipped to be an effective left. It's SYRIZA in Greece defining itself by the rejection of the KKE. There is no such thing as repudiation of revolution that doesn't imply accepting counter-revolution.

    Evan Neely 08.31.16 at 8:03 pm
    The problem I have with attempts to appeal to the supposedly "positive" aspects of tribalism, solidarity and the affection for longstanding institutions, is that it's presuming these aren't just our abstractions of something that's felt at a much more primal level. Tribalists don't love solidarity for the sake of the principle of solidarity: they feel solidarity because they love the specific people like them that they love and hate others.

    One set of tribalists doesn't look at another and say "hey, we respect the same principles." It says "they're not our tribe!!!" Point being, you're never going to get them on your side with appeals to abstractions. You're almost certainly never going to get them on your side no matter what you do.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 9:07 pm
    There is no vast neoliberal conspiracy . . .

    There obviously is a vast political movement, coordinated in ideology and the social processes of partisan politics and propaganda. Creating a strawperson "conspiracy" does not erase actual Clinton fundraising practices and campaign tactics, which exist independent of whatever narrative I weave them into.

    There are no corrupt promises from Clinton to big donors . . .

    !!! And, you are accusing me of being delusional.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.31.16 at 9:11 pm
    Calling our present-day GOP as led by Trump "fascism" is calling it a break with the past GOP. Corey Robin has been over this quite a bit here, but in many important respects there is no break. GWB, for instance, sometimes required attendees at his rallies to take a personal loyalty oath. And GWB is hailed by some people here as being the good conservative because he said that not all Muslims were bad, while, of course, killing a million Muslims. The contemporary GOP is an outgrowth of GOP tradition, and while some leftists may find calling all conservatism fascism convincing, I think that it's only convincing for the tiny number of people who adhere to their ideology.

    But conservatism and fascism are both right-wing and people can argue indefinitely about where the boundary is. So rather than talk about ideal types, let's look at how the rhetoric of calling it fascism works. Calling Trump_vs_deep_state fascism is primarily the rhetoric of HRC supporters, because functionally, what everyone pretty much agrees on is that when fascists appear, people on the left through moderate right are supposed to drop everything and unite in a Popular Front to oppose them.

    I don't think that people should drop everything. I think that HRC is going to win and that forming the mental habit of supporting the Democratic Party is easy to do and hard to break, and I think that the people who become Democratic Party supporters because of the threat of Trump / "fascism" are going to spend the next four years working directly against actual left interests.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 10:06 pm
    Rich, I think it would be a mistake to consider this as a question of "our present-day GOP as led by Trump". First because Trump isn't "leading" the GOP in any meaningful sense; as Jay Rosen's recent Tweet-storm encapsulates nicely , the GOP's institutional leadership is still liberal through and through, even if its ideological organs pander in some ideally implicit sense to what might otherwise be a fascist constituency. And second because Trump isn't really "leading" his own constituents either; if he were to make a high-profile about-face on the issues his voters care about, they'd likely be just as eager to dump him as Bernie Sanders' most passionate leftist supporters were to ignore his pro-Clinton appeals at the DNC.

    What's interesting about Trump isn't really anything to do with Trump per se, so much as what Trump's constituency would do if the normal functioning of the liberal institutions constraining it were to be disrupted in a serious way. Europe in the 1910s through 1940s was full of such disruptions, and should such an era return, the ideological currents we're now viewing through a heavily tinted institutional window would become much clearer.

    Ragweed 08.31.16 at 10:23 pm
    Val etc.

    I think that John's use of the word "tribalist" here means a world-view that explicitly values members of an in-group more than members not of the in-group. It is different from racism because it may be over other factors than race – religion, citizenship, nationalism, or even region. And the key word is explicitly. The big difference between tribalist and both neoliberal and left positions is that the other two are generally universalist.

    Neoliberals profess that everyone will be better off with deregulation, free markets, and technocratic solutions, and often explicitly reject the idea of something benefitting one racial, religious, or national group over another (though not the educated or wealthy, because these are allegedly meritocratic outcomes of the neoliberal order).

    The left likewise generally argues for an increase in equality and equal distribution of resources for all, whether that be class-based or based on some sort of gender, race, or sexual equality.

    So on an issue like a free trade deal, a neoliberal argument would support it, because gains of trade and various other reasons why it would make everyone better off; a leftist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it would make everyone worse off; and a tribalist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it took jobs away from American citizens, but wouldn't worry too much about the other guys.

    Of course, the lines are not always clear and distinct, they often overlap, mix, and borrow arguments from each other, and there are often hypocrisies' and inconsistencies (and John's point anyway is that the neoliberals tend to draw on coalitions with the other two factions), but I think it is a good general description of the distinction.

    And it is different from the more sociological use of tribal to mean any in-group/out-group distinction and social solidarity formation. Everyone is tribal in the sociological sense, but the tribalist that John is referring explicitly approves of that tribalism. A left intellectual may look down on "ignorant, racist, blue-collar Trump supporters", with as much bias as any tribalist, but would generally want them to have better education and a guarantee income so they were no longer ignorant and racist, whereas the tribalist generally thinks the other guy is less deserving.

    Sam Bradford 09.01.16 at 9:20 am

    What I wonder/worry about is whether tribalism, nationalism, call it what you will, is a necessity.

    It's very difficult for me to imagine an internationalist order that provides the kind of benefits to citizens that I'd want a state to provide. It's much easier to imagine nation states operating as enclaves of solidarity and mutual aid in an amorphous, anarchic and ruthless globalised environment. Yet the creation of a nation requires the creation of an in-group and an out-group, citizens and non-citizens.

    To put it more concretely: in my own country, New Zealand, the traditional Maori form of social organisation – a kind of communitarianism – currently appeals to me as offering more social solidarity and opportunity for human flourishing than our limp lesser-of-three-evils democracy. It is a society in which there is genuine solidarity and common purpose. Yet it is, literally, tribal; it admits no more than a few thousand people to each circle of mutual aid. I am sometimes tempted to believe that it is the correct way for human beings to live, despite my general dislike for biological determinism. I think I would rather abandon my obligations to the greater mass of humanity (not act against them, of course, just accept an inability to influence events) and be a member of a small society than be a helpless and hopeless atom in a sea of similar, utterly disenfranchised atoms.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 4:32 pm

    Bob Zannelli: Gee what a concept, an obligation to vote in a democracy. As flawed as the US political process is, voting still matters and can affect change. It's not easy , but then it's never easy to reform anything.

    Just to give voice to the contrary perspective , voter turnout appears to play at least some role in the ideological process by which the US electoral system claims legitimacy: even though in purely procedural terms an election could work just fine if the total number of ballots was an infinitesimal fraction of the number of eligible voters ("Bill Clinton casts ballot, Hillary defeats Trump by 2 votes to 1!") low voter turnout is nonetheless depicted as a crisis not just for any particular candidate or party but for the entire electoral process. Accordingly, if I decide not to vote and thereby to decrease voter turnout by a small-but-nonzero amount, I'm adding a small-but-nonzero contribution to the public argument that the electoral process as presently institutionalized is illegitimate, so unless we propose to add a "none of the above" option to every single race and question on the ballot, to argue that citizens have an obligation to vote is to argue that they are obliged not to "vote" for the illegitimacy of the system as such. And plenty of ethical and political stances could be consistent with such a "vote", not the least of which is a certain historical stance whose proponents argued that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…"

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:05 pm

    I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box, people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.

    (Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should at least be consistent about it.)

    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:14 pm
    I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box, people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.

    (Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should at least be consistent about it.) {}

    Jefferson has never impressed me very much ( except for his church state separation advocacy) His ideal of a democratic agrarian slave society I find not too appealing. He talked about the blood of tyrants but he spent his time drinking fine wines and being waiting on by his slaves during the revolutionary war. You're entitled to any views you want, but you're not entitled to be respected if you're views are nonsensical. Good luck on the revolution, I hope that works out for you.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:15 pm

    Also, not to get personal, but the smarm here is so thick you could cut it with a knife…

    "Did I get you right? Is your response to an argument you find uncomfortable to simply intone 'holy shit'? Holy shit…"

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:20 pm

    So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence, or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy" . My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that orders you to consent .
    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:37 pm

    So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence, or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy". My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that orders you to consent.{}

    I think anyone who expects to move the country away from Neo Liberalism to a more progressive direction without voting is a fool. What's the alternative , over throwing the government? If this is the plan we better not discuss it on social media. Of course it's all nonsense, if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right as almost happened under FDR during the hey day of fascism around the world. I think too many here are still living in a Marxist fantasy world , no one here is going to establish the dictatorship of the proletarians. Let's get real.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 6:09 pm

    if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right

    So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining pure grade-A Colombian ideology.

    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 6:24 pm

    Will G-R@86 "… because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent." Incorrect. Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. Not voting is meaningless, and will be interpreted as suited.

    Bob Zannelli@87 "Let's get real."

    Okay. What's real is, the game is rigged but you insist on making everyone ante up and play by the rules anyhow. What's real, is you have nothing to do with the left, except by defining the Democratic Party as the left. What's real is that the parties could just as well be labeled the "Ins" and the "Outs," and that would have just as much to do with the left, which is to repeat, nothing.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 6:59 pm
    Bob Zannelli: What's the alternative?

    There is no alternative.

    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 7:01 pm
    So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining pure grade-A Colombian ideology{}

    Right because the left is too busy plotting the revolution to engage in politics.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:09 pm
    Hillary Clinton is engaging in politics and she's teh most librul librul evah! Why isn't that enough? It is not her fault, surely, that the devil makes her do unlibrul things - you have to be practical and practically, there is no alternative. We have to clap louder. That's the ticket!
    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 7:25 pm

    stevenjohnson: Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent.

    So why then is low voter turnout interpreted as a problem for democracy? Why wouldn't it be a cause for celebration if a large majority of the population was so happy with the system that they'd be happy with whoever won? On the contrary, a helpless person's tacit refusal to respond to a provocation can be the exact opposite of consent if whoever has them at their mercy actually needs a reaction: think of a torture victim who sits in silence instead of pleading for mercy or giving up the information the torturer is after. Whether or not it truly does need it, the ideology of liberal democracy at least acts as if it needs the legitimating idea that its leaders are freely and actively chosen by those they govern, and refusing to participate in this choice can be interpreted as an effort to deprive this ideology of its legitimating idea.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:45 pm

    Will G-R @ 94

    Low voter turnout is interpreted as a problem by some people on some occasions. Why generalize to official "ideology" from their idiosyncratic and opportunistic pieties?

    Why are the concerns of, say, North Carolina's legislature that only the right people vote not official ideology? Or, the election officials in my own Los Angeles County, where we regularly have nearly secret elections with hard-to-find-polling-places - we got down to 8.6% in one election in 2015.

    Obama's DHS wants to designate the state election apparatus, critical infrastructure. Won't that be great? I guess Putin may not be able to vote, after all!

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:12 pm
    Bob, my impression is that CT is supposed to be a philosophy-oriented discussion space (or it wouldn't be named after a line from Kant for chrissake) and in philosophy one is supposed to subject one's premises to ruthless and unsparing criticism, or at least be able to fathom the possibility of doing so - including in this case premises like the legitimacy of the US government or the desirability of capitalism. Especially in today's neoliberal society there are precious few spaces where a truly philosophical outlook is supposed to be the norm, and honestly I'm offended that you seem to want to turn CT into yet another space where it isn't.
    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
    Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.

    Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.

    As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:46 pm
    Bruce @ 95, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that state and (especially) local governments in the US typically are viewed as highly prone to borderline-illegitimizing levels of corruption - imagine how we'd characterize the legitimacy of a City-State of Ferguson, or a Republic of Illinois under President Blagojevich - and part of what maintains the impression of legitimacy is the possibility of federal intervention on the people's behalf if things at the lower levels get out of hand. Where the federal government hasn't done so, notably in the case of African-American communities before the mid to late 20th century, is precisely where arguments for the illegitimacy of the entire system have gained serious traction. So IMO there could actually be quite a bit of subversive potential if the population at large were to openly reject the elected officials in Washington, DC as no more inherently legitimate than those in Raleigh, NC or Los Angeles County. (I briefly tried to look up the location within LA of its county seat and found that Wikipedia's article "Politics of Los Angeles County" was entirely about its citizens' voting record in federal politics, which itself illustrates the point.)

    [Sep 02, 2016] Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered. ..."
    "... I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts. ..."
    "... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
    "... Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure. ..."
    "... I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class. ..."
    "... Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm
    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left.

    The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand.

    I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm

    Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a Chinatown-esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.

    The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.

    So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious falls into the national spotlight.)

    Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.

    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm


    Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.

    Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.

    As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasnt delivered

    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm

    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.

    I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    [Sep 02, 2016] The same morons that gave us "lean manufacturing" have also given us "lean logistics".

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Paid Minion , September 2, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    The same morons that gave us "lean manufacturing" have also given us "lean logistics".

    Redundancy is "money left on the table". Excess capacity in case of Black Swans and "Plan Bs"are a big waste of money. Any law that forces you to incorporate some redundancy (in spite of yourself) is "excess regulation"

    Of course, costs must be reduced and corners must be cut, when you are competing against bankster returns of 5-6%, with any losses made good by Uncle Sugar

    GF , September 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    Hanjin Shipping fiasco

    Since each modern container ship holds between 3,000 and 14,000 shipping containers, 98 ships stranded with cargo is a lot of freight. S. Korea should probably think twice about not bailing them out (unless all the cargo is from China and they want to do some damage??)

    geoff , September 2, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    Re the Hanjin bankruptcy, the "2.9% of world shipping trade" figure understates Hanjin's overall share in the market that matters most to US retailers and consumers: the transpacific trade, where Hanjin handles 7.8% of the volume per Forbes.

    http://fortune.com/2016/09/02/hanjin-shipping-ports-us-firms/

    So at the very least, we're looking at a significant reduction in already falling (US) intermodal rail traffic, and quite possibly a small reduction in the trade deficit as imports are reduced. Hanjin's bankruptcy also could not possibly have come at a worse time, as Sept./ Oct. is traditionally "peak season" for US imports ahead of the holiday retail season, which will probably also take a hit.

    Personally, I'm shocked that a carrier as large and dominant as Hanjin could go under.

    [Sep 02, 2016] It's all about money

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has run an unusually cheap campaign in part by not paying at least 10 top staffers, consultants and advisers, some of whom are no longer with the campaign, according to a review of federal campaign finance filings" [ Reuters ]. "[N]ot compensating top people in a presidential campaign is a departure from campaign finance norms." Hirohito Award candidate, there.

    "Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143 million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best showing of her campaign, her team said Thursday" [ Agence France Presse ]. Ka-ching. And not doubling down. Squaring down.

    [Sep 01, 2016] What will come out of neoliberalism destruction of the world economies

    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Ulysses , August 31, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    "I am the spirit that negates.
    And rightly so, for all that comes to be
    Deserves to perish wretchedly;
    'Twere better nothing would begin.
    Thus everything that that your terms, sin,
    Destruction, evil represent-
    That is my proper element."

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    diptherio , August 31, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Switzerland to vote on "circular economy strategy"

    Reason enough for the Green Party of Switzerland to call for a fundamental change in the country's economic system. Its initiative gathered about 110,000 signatures within the required 18 months and was handed in to the authorities in 2012.

    It calls for a "circular economy strategy", including measures to adopt new product regulations, encourage recycling, and promote research and innovation, thereby reducing the country's ecological footprint by two-thirds.

    The proponents want Switzerland to play a pioneering role, promoting a sustainable model for the economy, including a tax policy tied to the use of natural resources. The government is asked to define sustainability targets both for a short and medium term and present a progress report every four years.

    What a Caring Organization Looks Like

    A Facebook friend (we're barely acquaintances really) asked this question on Friday:

    "What do you think are the most critical things (I'm talking specific processes, policies, and structures rather than values) that make up non-competitive and more collaborative and caring workplaces? Spaces where people are encouraged to really praise and acknowledge someone else's work rather than hide someone else's contribution, where people want to spend time on the collective good rather than next personal gain, and where the often invisible and gendered work of caring and 'organisation culture' is prioritised and publicly valued as critically important? What are some practical things you can implement, aside from the destruction of capitalism? Ideas, you wise group of souls?"

    I've spent the last couple of years working with an incredible bunch of people to build an organisation that is exactly like that: caring, collaborative, and non-competitive, a space where we praise and acknowledge each other, where the work of caring is shared equally, regardless of gender.

    Cripes I am a lucky dude, it rules. It is a total privilege, so I'm trying to figure out if there's something about our organisation that we can share with others.

    It's a subtle thing, so I'm not sure if I can totally nail it down with words. Let's try something…

    [Sep 01, 2016] Liqudity and 401K investor

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, what benefit does society get from all this secondary market trading, besides very rich and self-satisfied bankers like Blankfein? The bankers would tell you that we get "liquidity"–the ability for investors to sell their investments relatively quickly. The problem with this line of argument is that Wall Street is providing far more liquidity (at a hefty price-remember that half-trillion-dollar payroll) than investors really need. Most of the money invested in stocks, bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don't really need much liquidity, and they certainly don't need a market where 165 percent of shares are bought and sold every year. ..."
    "... In 1976, when the transactions costs associated with buying and selling securities were much higher, fewer than 20 percent of equity shares changed hands every year. Yet no one was complaining in 1976 about any supposed lack of liquidity. Today we have nearly 10 times more trading, without any apparent benefit for anyone (other than Wall Street bankers and traders) from all that "liquidity." ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Kim Kaufman , August 31, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Wall Street Whistle-Blower Awarded $22 Million for Revealing the Truth About Monsanto
    by Emily Jane Fox
    August 31, 2016 9:49 am

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/wall-street-whistle-blower-monsanto?mbid=nl_CH_57c711fb684596f3798768f7&CNDID=15621256&spMailingID=9444845&spUserID=MTMzMTgyMzgwODcwS0&spJobID=982928780&spReportId=OTgyOTI4NzgwS0

    "The easiest way to make a quick buck on Wall Street these days seems to be through loose lips."

    fresno dan , August 31, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    https://promarket.org/wall-street-gods-work-even-anything-useful/

    So, what benefit does society get from all this secondary market trading, besides very rich and self-satisfied bankers like Blankfein? The bankers would tell you that we get "liquidity"–the ability for investors to sell their investments relatively quickly. The problem with this line of argument is that Wall Street is providing far more liquidity (at a hefty price-remember that half-trillion-dollar payroll) than investors really need. Most of the money invested in stocks, bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don't really need much liquidity, and they certainly don't need a market where 165 percent of shares are bought and sold every year.

    They could get by with much less trading-and in fact, they did get by, quite happily. In 1976, when the transactions costs associated with buying and selling securities were much higher, fewer than 20 percent of equity shares changed hands every year. Yet no one was complaining in 1976 about any supposed lack of liquidity. Today we have nearly 10 times more trading, without any apparent benefit for anyone (other than Wall Street bankers and traders) from all that "liquidity."

    =====================================
    Thing of it is, the most thirsty never get a drink….

    [Aug 29, 2016] Black Panther Party Leader said that Hillary Democrats are promising everything, giving nothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests. ..."
    "... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
    "... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time. ..."
    "... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    ... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks it down quite succinctly:

    Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.

    Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.

    ...

    I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more?

    The condition got worse.

    froze25 -> jcaz, Aug 29, 2016 10:30 AM
    If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time.
    847328_3527 -> MANvsMACHINE, Aug 29, 2016 10:36 AM
    Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc.
    CJgipper -> FireBrander, Aug 29, 2016 12:28 PM
    I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things work themselves out to see what the result will be

    [Aug 29, 2016] Commnets to the article Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us by Paul Verhaeghe

    Notable quotes:
    "... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
    "... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
    "... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
    "... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
    "... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
    "... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
    "... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
    "... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    Happytobeasocialist, 2014-09-29 09:07:21

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Less of the 'us' please. there are plenty of people who are disgusted by neoliberalism and are determined to bring it down

    Pasdabong Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:28:58
    As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be.
    InconvenientTruths Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:39:02
    Neo-Liberal Elephant

    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 chaned

    If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.

    For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).

    It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire, not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.

    To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.

    Labour are the midwives of UKiP.

    This cultural elephant has tusks.

    SaulZaentz , 2014-09-29 09:10:36
    It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack, privatised railways, privatised water and so on.

    It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.

    Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.

    Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:13:38

    A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents

    There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.

    AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:16:42
    It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.

    People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that.

    JamesValencia AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:25:40
    He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone, but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.

    It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.

    AntiTerrorist JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 09:38:49
    I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific 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?

    This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.

    The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.

    CityBoy2006 AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:52:05

    This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no one I know

    Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.

    GordonLiddle , 2014-09-29 09:17:21
    One could use another word or two, crony capitalism being a particularly good pair. Not what you know but who.
    SaulZaentz GordonLiddle , 2014-09-29 09:36:48
    Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
    dreamer06 SaulZaentz , 2014-09-29 13:40:16
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3862998.ece
    (paywall)

    You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals

    Pasdabong ElQuixote , 2014-09-29 09:33:20
    .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
    KatieL dieterroth , 2014-09-29 09:58:16
    "Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"

    The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.

    Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy input.

    dieterroth , 2014-09-29 09:19:32
    I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites. The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority of people in the country.

    There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility. Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and 60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining people to capitalism.

    Johanni dieterroth , 2014-09-29 10:24:23

    I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.

    Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism. Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.

    thebogusman Johanni , 2014-09-29 13:15:54
    Tatcher actually said that the goal of neoliberalism is not new economics but to "change the soul"!
    arkley dieterroth , 2014-09-29 18:10:04
    OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?

    The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of 1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended. It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.

    Febo , 2014-09-29 09:21:28
    Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
    Febo undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:49:03
    Both neofeudalism - aka neocolonialism-abroad-and-at-home - and neoliberalism rest on the theft of the Commons - they both support monopoly.
    callaspodeaspode undersinged , 2014-09-29 10:11:05
    Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.

    I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.

    'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
    You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.

    Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state

    Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual toleration

    It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes (through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre activity.

    You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.

    Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.

    In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by manorialism and to the estates of the Church.

    Apart from that though, you're right on everything.

    JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 09:21:56
    I completely agree with the general sentiment.
    The specifics aren't that solid though:

    - That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
    - That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.

    The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
    As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance" .

    And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us.

    UnironicBeard JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 10:39:08
    The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
    CharlesII JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 13:27:30

    - That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.

    Absolutely. I stopped reading there. Bullying is noticed now, and seen as a 'bad thing'. In offices 30, 50, years ago, it was standard .

    JamesValencia UnironicBeard , 2014-09-29 13:42:50
    Preaching to the converted, there, Beard :)

    All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting stuff.
    I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.

    Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
    That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.

    dieterroth undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:26:28
    Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are.
    dieterroth undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:28:55
    "Collectivism gave us Communism, Nazism and universalist religions that try to impose uniformity through the method of mass murder."

    Capitalism and free markets gave us them as all were reactions to economic failure and having nothing to lose.

    Febo undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:34:05
    I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.

    But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.

    George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The Commons.
    At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised by the 1%.
    Hence unemployment
    Hence the wealth gap
    Hence the environmental crisis
    Hence poverty

    checkreakity , 2014-09-29 09:23:39
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:24:11
    So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?
    NinthLegion RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:26:57
    But it's because these values and moralities are so wafer thin that the Right can swing them in precisely the direction they want to. Greed is good!
    LouSnickers RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:28:35
    They dont like us!

    But then, I dont care for them, either!

    dieterroth RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:32:10
    "Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"

    Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only exist but spread.

    yamba , 2014-09-29 09:30:07
    Reminds me very much of No Country for Old Men , by Cormac McCarthy.
    annabelle123 yamba , 2014-09-29 11:00:22
    That's a good description of the NHS.
    WinstonThatcher , 2014-09-29 09:30:58
    It's certainly brought out the worst in the Guardian, publishing as it does oodles of brainless clickbate.
    nishville WinstonThatcher , 2014-09-29 11:13:50
    >If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".<
    paul643 , 2014-09-29 09:31:59

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    I don't believe that bullying is new to the workplace., in fact I'd imagine it was worse before the days of elf 'n' safety.

    vivientoft paul643 , 2014-09-29 13:05:01
    Why do you say that?
    annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:32:23
    I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years, I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
    saltash1920 annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:39:31
    I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
    Davai annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:48:06
    Yes those were the days when you had people and personnel departments, rather than 'human resources' I suspect. You can blame the USA for that.

    Constant reorgs are a sure sign of inept management.

    They're also a sure sign of managers who want to 'hang out' with highly-paid, sexy management consultants and hopefully get offered a job.

    But you're a psychologist so you know that already!

    David Craig's books are worth a read.

    annabelle123 saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 10:58:42
    I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same - there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
    StVitusGerulaitis , 2014-09-29 09:32:59

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.

    I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

    Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).

    MickGJ StVitusGerulaitis , 2014-09-29 16:15:49

    Isn't this true of pretty much any system?

    Don't be silly my saintly chum: who ever heard of a psychopath rising to the top in any other system than neo-liberal capitalism?
    Socratese , 2014-09-29 09:33:25
    I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you don't like,which is dishonest.
    There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
    I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate to the issue at hand.
    pinniped Socratese , 2014-09-29 10:24:59
    Ah yes, No True Liberal.
    saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 09:34:32
    Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families. And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.

    In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice. Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    rivendel saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 17:40:04
    One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
    Isent neolibral capitalism great.

    Highlights saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 21:52:03

    One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    Violence has already begun, in wars and protests, beheadings and wage cuts which leave people more and more desperate.

    PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 09:36:18

    We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces

    Which is exactly what we've been led to believe, by outside forces.

    For other related films, please see:

    The Corporation http://www.thecorporation.com/

    and

    The Century of the Self http://www.thecorporation.com/

    PonyBoyUK PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 10:09:55
    (doh!)

    The Century of the Self - http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

    NinthLegion , 2014-09-29 09:40:58
    As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......

    There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will give you the time and the place.

    Jack3 NinthLegion , 2014-09-29 10:44:31
    For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.

    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
    living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
    course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
    moral code that glorifies it".
    F. Bastiat.

    Finn_Nielsen Jack3 , 2014-09-29 10:58:47
    Bastiat was closer to a neoliberal than a Marxist...
    skagway Jack3 , 2014-09-30 14:48:40
    very true.
    Pasdabong , 2014-09-29 09:41:24
    Excellent article.
    I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
    The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
    abugaafar , 2014-09-29 09:42:40
    I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great heights, but perhaps it helped.
    ThroatWobblaMangrove abugaafar , 2014-09-29 22:58:31
    That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
    crasspymctabernacle , 2014-09-29 09:42:47
    This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes

    Not when applied to IDS and other members of the cabinet.

    BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 09:43:50
    Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.

    So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.

    PonyBoyUK BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 10:11:45
    It's a really good idea, - until you start thinking about it...
    AlbertaRabbit BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 10:27:02
    And then there's reality.

    And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.

    This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity, so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.

    BlueBrightFuture PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 10:33:06
    I suspect the logical conclusion of the free market is that the State will become formally superseded by an oligopoly - perhaps the energy sector.

    I also suspect at least one third of the population in over-developed countries will simply become surplus to requirement.

    Everybody wants an iPhone, nobody wants to work in Foxconn.

    jimcol , 2014-09-29 09:44:45
    It is rooted, I think, in the prevailing idea that what we own is more important than what we do. Consumerism grown and fostered by the greedy.
    vacuous jimcol , 2014-09-29 19:17:20
    The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled conscious decisions.

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html

    If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.

    CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 09:47:04

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace

    Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories, perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade when apparently everything was rosy?

    This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.

    Catonaboat CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 10:09:47
    Well I'd say he was spot on, when someone with the handle CityBoy2006 his a classic work place tantrum over the article.
    HarryTheHorse CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 11:13:24

    Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories

    Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against

    perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade when apparently everything was rosy?

    They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to sustain them.

    Slapchips , 2014-09-29 09:47:28
    People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.

    It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard" is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.

    Davai Slapchips , 2014-09-29 09:52:24
    'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.

    All IM(NVH)O, of course. DYOR.

    Sammy_89 Davai , 2014-09-29 09:56:06
    Pays for schools and hospitals, though
    Davai Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 09:59:43
    Oh we had those before 1989.

    It isn't a binary 'naked selfish captalist/socialist decision'. There is middle ground.

    eldorado99 , 2014-09-29 09:49:50
    "support any political movement we like."

    Except those which have privacy from state surveillance as their core tenet.

    ID12345 , 2014-09-29 09:50:07
    Green Party: We need to fight Neoliberalism.
    Loadsofspace , 2014-09-29 09:51:42
    The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
    ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 09:51:50

    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.

    These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.

    Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to us.

    CityBoy2006 ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 09:55:24
    Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
    Finn_Nielsen ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 10:09:36
    It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
    HarryTheHorse CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 11:15:51
    So being able to have a smart phone compensates for not having a secure place to live? What an absurd bubble you metropolitan types live in.
    Harry Palmer , 2014-09-29 09:52:22
    OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits agency or the police.

    Let us know what you find.

    WindTurbine , 2014-09-29 09:53:31
    The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
    I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
    This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society as a whole over the long term.
    Targetising everything is really insidious.
    jclucas , 2014-09-29 09:53:32
    That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless choose how to live is an admission of failure.

    In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence. Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.

    To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.

    WindTurbine jclucas , 2014-09-29 10:01:42
    It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
    Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.

    The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop through the interactions between the system and actors in it.

    I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare. That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this nor that.

    jclucas WindTurbine , 2014-09-29 10:21:57
    The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
    AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 09:54:07

    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.

    I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.

    arkley AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 09:59:50
    The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.

    And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.

    Sammy_89 arkley , 2014-09-29 10:04:29
    I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
    MickGJ Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 16:18:57

    Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher that they need a masters degree of economics?! I

    Sounds more like parents advising an exceptionally bright child to go as far as she can with her education before she starts work.

    I can't see why a primary school teacher should be dissuaded from doing a master's degree.

    arkley , 2014-09-29 09:55:46
    How does that navel look today?

    I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.

    Sammy_89 arkley , 2014-09-29 10:02:10
    Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever been developed by man...
    TeddyFrench arkley , 2014-09-29 10:06:38
    For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
    Finn_Nielsen Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 10:11:42
    It's a funny kind of neoliberalism we're supposedly suffering under when you consider the ratio of state spending to GDP...
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 09:57:13
    "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."

    In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.

    Success and failure are just about parental wealth.

    Willhelm123 , 2014-09-29 09:57:41
    I kind of see the point of this. What's the alternative though?
    MickGJ Willhelm123 , 2014-09-29 16:23:10

    I kind of see the point of this. What's the alternative though?

    Doing some research?
    gcarth , 2014-09-29 09:57:45
    "So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"

    RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
    Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth between rich and poor.

    injinoo gcarth , 2014-09-29 10:01:41
    Which studies and which equal societies are you referring to. It would be good to know in order to cheer us all up a bit.
    Sammy_89 gcarth , 2014-09-29 10:08:52
    Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish world

    This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism' with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...

    injinoo , 2014-09-29 09:59:38
    Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor.
    Sammy_89 injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:10:20
    Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
    rosemary152 injinoo , 2014-09-29 14:32:18

    Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's.

    There is a difference. We now have the psychopathic-tendency merchants in charge, both of the banks, multinationals and our government.

    MickGJ injinoo , 2014-09-29 16:24:51

    Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's.

    And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 10:00:59
    The psychopaths have congregated in Wall Street and the City.

    One of the problems with psychopaths is that they never learn form mistakes.

    Anyone that is watching will realise we are well on our way to the next Wall Street Crash - part 3.

    Wall Street Crash Part 1 - 1929
    Wall Street Crash Part 2 - 2008
    Wall Street Crash Part 3 - soon

    Each is bigger and better than the last - there may not be much left after Part 3.

    injinoo regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 10:03:58
    Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring to the 1890's.
    regfromdagenham injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:05:24
    The financial psychopaths never learn!
    Isiodore injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:49:57
    The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
    harrogateandrew , 2014-09-29 10:01:24
    And Socialism doesn't!

    Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.

    Portman23 harrogateandrew , 2014-09-29 10:06:13
    Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that. It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism has failed society and explores some of how and why.
    TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 10:01:25
    The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith of the fundamentalists supporting it.
    AlbertaRabbit TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 10:10:36
    The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
    TeddyFrench AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 10:31:54
    You conflate individual freedom with corporate freedom.

    Also, what happened in 2008 then? Anything to do with the hubris over free markets and de-regulation or was it just a blip?

    JonPurrtree TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 11:16:25
    It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I don't see how that might work.

    "hubris over free markets" might well be it.
    But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).

    hansen , 2014-09-29 10:02:14
    So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
    menedemus hansen , 2014-09-29 10:27:39
    What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
    ElDanielfire menedemus , 2014-09-29 11:41:06
    The Lib Dems? ;)
    gandrew hansen , 2014-09-29 13:04:53
    the Greens, clearly.
    AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 10:03:31

    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.

    Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.

    Must be confusing for him.

    Oscar Mandiaz AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-30 01:37:24
    probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
    this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
    like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant utopia of the theorists.
    verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of neoliberal policies.
    In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
    I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation, still require explanation.
    Bloreheath , 2014-09-29 10:03:35
    Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s. I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at what has overtaken my beloved country.
    LargeMarvin Bloreheath , 2014-09-29 11:25:19
    And scooters were 150s and 200s.
    capchaos , 2014-09-29 10:04:26
    An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
    Davai capchaos , 2014-09-29 10:20:12
    Is it?

    I think the levels of debt amongst young 'consumers' would suggest otherwise.

    They are after all, only human. Prone to want the baubles dangled in front of them, as are we all.

    Gogoh , 2014-09-29 10:06:33
    Brilliant article.
    IGrumble , 2014-09-29 10:13:27
    Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.

    But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.

    Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.

    We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got. Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"

    The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia) will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars, destruction and general stupidity.

    pinniped , 2014-09-29 10:13:49
    What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
    Keo2008 , 2014-09-29 10:13:54

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Speak for yourself.

    Some of us are just as kind and tolerant as we have always been.

    Huples Keo2008 , 2014-09-29 10:37:19
    The world is nastier than it was before outsourcing and efficiencies.
    I am glad you have emerged unscathed

    However be happy he is speaking as it allows your natural tolerance to shine ;-)

    AlbertaRabbit Huples , 2014-09-29 11:34:05
    The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.

    People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.

    Finn_Nielsen , 2014-09-29 10:15:28
    What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
    Isiodore , 2014-09-29 10:16:21
    I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's true everywhere.
    alazarin , 2014-09-29 10:16:26
    I'm enjoying watching the logical and conceptual contortions of Kippers on CiF attempting to positions themselves as being against neo-liberalism.
    Finn_Nielsen , 2014-09-29 10:17:26

    You don't need to look far for examples.

    Indeed not, you just made a few up.

    Babartov , 2014-09-29 10:19:39
    human socieity has always rewarded aggressive individuals willing to tread on others.

    it's how we roll

    pauledwards1000 , 2014-09-29 10:20:17

    "Bullying used to be confined to schools".

    That is patently untrue. Have you ever been outside your home and do you actually know anyone?

    PeteCW pauledwards1000 , 2014-09-29 10:32:52
    Have you ever been outside your home and do you actually know anyone?

    This sentence could usefully be applied to the entire article.

    Gogoh , 2014-09-29 10:20:46
    FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
    freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 10:23:16
    There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed of our economies and our middle class.
    dr8765 freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 11:35:11
    True. All markets are constructs. Each simply operates according to the parameters put in place by those who have constructed it.

    Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor has almost become a cliche, but that doesn't make it any less true.

    iruka , 2014-09-29 10:26:05
    Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.

    So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please, not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation to cumulatively alienating ends......)

    It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..

    Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....

    It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation, same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....

    Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).

    The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default, and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation -- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.

    Etc. etc.. Avoiding work again.....

    Finn_Nielsen iruka , 2014-09-29 10:44:27
    What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective deal with those who wished to exploit it?
    I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
    AlbertaRabbit iruka , 2014-09-29 11:18:41

    The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default, and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.

    Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt to mask the vacuity of their position?

    Catonaboat , 2014-09-29 10:26:13
    I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety, about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.

    People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.

    Norfolk , 2014-09-29 10:26:18
    This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called "survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss" when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem. What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
    Fooster , 2014-09-29 10:26:35

    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?

    Ladies, step away from the jobs.
    MissingInActon , 2014-09-29 10:27:29
    Speak for yourself.
    The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such, and want nothing to do with it.
    If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with consensus and co-operation.
    I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
    Jack3 MissingInActon , 2014-09-29 11:30:37

    I see it as such, and want nothing to do with it.

    Spot on. Neither I.

    fanofzapffe , 2014-09-29 10:28:07
    I have a book to promote against the 'success narrative'. I'm hoping it fails.
    slorter , 2014-09-29 10:30:18
    Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants, high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
    nishville , 2014-09-29 10:33:03
    Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.

    Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.

    PeteCW nishville , 2014-09-29 10:38:25
    Yeah - people are stupid scum aren't they? 'Take a look around you' - wallowing in stinking warm mud all the time. Dumb animals.

    Elsewhere in this comment - being a clever psychopath is not nice.

    Finn_Nielsen PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:45:42
    I'm not sure I want anything changed by those who hold humanity in contempt...
    petrolheadpaul nishville , 2014-09-29 11:22:14
    Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.

    No other species has come close to any of those.

    SpursSupporter , 2014-09-29 10:34:29

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.

    Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.

    richiep40 , 2014-09-29 10:35:01
    I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.

    So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept debt of all sorts.

    Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.

    Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically high personal debt is ideal.

    PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:35:45
    All this article proves is that you've read, and can quote from, books written by other academics that you agree with.
    TheKernel PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:41:36
    Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?

    This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.

    Quite simple, really.

    Sputnikchaser , 2014-09-29 10:38:33
    There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1% and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers' bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
    Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 10:39:51
    David Harvey wrote the best book ever written on the subject.

    http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf

    It's only 200 pages but by god did he nail it.


    The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.

    David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved their end game over the last 40 years.

    There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately, the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power and wealth.

    As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands. If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to say enough is enough.

    Sidefill , 2014-09-29 10:40:51
    Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.

    I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.

    But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see how that can be changed in its essentials).

    Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones. So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.

    jet199 , 2014-09-29 10:42:40
    To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
    I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
    ForgottenVoice jet199 , 2014-09-29 10:46:38
    Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every breath.

    What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.

    Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating it according to wealth or perceived worth.

    dairymaid jet199 , 2014-09-29 11:37:13
    If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
    NaturalOutswing , 2014-09-29 10:43:32
    "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"

    What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?

    gjjwatson , 2014-09-29 10:46:23
    When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
    The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female). I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could do the job that she would claim credit for.
    The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
    The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering lap dog of the rich and powerful.
    On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
    RamjetMan gjjwatson , 2014-09-29 10:53:56
    Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit and you have to carry them all the time....
    anorak , 2014-09-29 10:46:37
    No shit Sherlock. Did you get a grant for this extensive research?
    ID8665572 , 2014-09-29 10:49:43
    "meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
    I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
    Martyn Blackburn , 2014-09-29 10:50:06
    "Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.

    Contrast with this:

    "Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.

    It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation, and government power .

    ForgottenVoice , 2014-09-29 10:50:10
    Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid. Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they think they're worth.
    pagey23 , 2014-09-29 10:50:48
    Liberal Socialism is what we have, how is 45% of the economy run by government and a 1 trillion pound debt economic liberalism
    RamjetMan pagey23 , 2014-09-29 10:57:08
    Yes we have big government and a finance system which prop each other up. Why it's called neoliberalism is beyond me.
    MSP1984 , 2014-09-29 10:51:35

    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.

    Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly opposes.

    Sandra Mae , 2014-09-29 10:52:53
    The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor, Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
    Jem Bo , 2014-09-29 10:53:35
    articulateness - not much fluency in a sentence when using that word is there?
    Choller21 Jem Bo , 2014-09-29 10:58:30
    Articulocity.
    illeist , 2014-09-29 10:54:39
    Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information and current discussions and presentations on the subject.

    The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for this behaviour.

    But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.

    Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness. It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal activity of psychopaths themselves.

    Jack3 illeist , 2014-09-29 11:54:12
    To deal with this problem is the most urgent and crucial for humanity if we hope for any future at all.
    dr8765 , 2014-09-29 10:54:46
    Great article. Thanks.
    tufsoft , 2014-09-29 11:00:33
    People are pretty much bound to behave this way when you replace the family with the individual as the primary unit of society
    quark007 , 2014-09-29 11:02:51
    Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes. Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole and patronising sentiment.

    It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly lacking or non existant.

    gman1 , 2014-09-29 11:05:43
    banxters blah blah
    LargeMarvin , 2014-09-29 11:06:40
    As one who was a working class history graduate in 1970, this is not exactly news.
    Andyz , 2014-09-29 11:08:13
    Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest bearing debt.

    The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves constructs of a liberal consumer based society.

    We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon to maintain the current system of economy.

    None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.

    Finn_Nielsen Andyz , 2014-09-29 11:13:15
    WAKE UP SHEEPLE
    Fence2 , 2014-09-29 11:09:28
    Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:10:22
    Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.

    His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.

    His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).

    He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).

    This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.

    He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
    His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the upper classes this can go on for centuries.

    Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.

    Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.

    colddebtmountain , 2014-09-29 11:12:39

    This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults.

    Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.

    And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....

    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:13:44
    If you want to get into this in a bit more depth:

    "Status Anxiety" by Alain de Botton is worth a read.

    Also, a better insight into the psychopaths amongst us, including bankers, can be gained from Robert Hare's book:

    "Without Conscience"

    yoghurt2 , 2014-09-29 11:14:19
    Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.

    Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something far more self-interested.

    undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:14:37

    I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

    This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of jots and tittles. And so on.

    A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents

    It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian, and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof. The freer society is, the more this happens.

    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.

    Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals. Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation. Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.

    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 idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand, it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
    undersinged undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:18:55
    One more: Socialist societies reward lazy and feckless people, and punish strivers who display initiative.
    gjjwatson undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:22:15
    You miss the point. Neoliberalism promotes negative values and is used consciously to control personal freedom and undermine positive individuality.
    Vanillaicetea undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:39:22
    An excellent demolition of this piece of whiny idiocy.
    variation31 , 2014-09-29 11:16:27
    A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted and rotted by this rat-race ethic.

    Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country (was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).

    66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:16:34
    Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'. In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
    JonPurrtree 66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:17:25
    I call it the bullshit based economy.
    undersinged JonPurrtree , 2014-09-29 11:23:55
    Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
    JonPurrtree undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:30:52
    Plenty of bullshit keeping companies afloat.

    Apart from tetra brik. Thats a useful product.

    66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:19:11
    Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.

    The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.

    undersinged 66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 17:34:47

    The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE

    That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:19:34
    The thinking behind our age was covered in a three part BBC documentary "The Trap".

    It was made in 2006, before the financial crisis.

    http://thoughtmaybe.com/the-trap/

    Why was Iraq such a disaster?
    Find out in Part 3.

    seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:26:02

    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.

    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
    -Janice Joplin

    RaymondDance seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:45:35

    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
    -Janice Joplin

    Kris Kristofferson actually,

    LargeMarvin seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 14:46:09
    Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
    mjhunbeliever seamuspadraig , 2014-09-30 15:46:19
    This little video may throw some light on that for you, Paradox of Choice.
    dr8765 , 2014-09-29 11:26:23

    .... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities.

    I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.

    Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you. Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?

    A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth listening to.

    seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:28:28

    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.

    Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!

    Monchberter , 2014-09-29 11:30:05
    Neoliberalism:

    'Get on', or get f*****d.
    Be hard working, or be dispensable.

    Trilbey Monchberter , 2014-09-29 12:32:14
    Does neoliberalism = fascism = brutality?
    Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:30:29

    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.

    Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.

    illogicalcaptain , 2014-09-29 11:33:08
    It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap. I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
    Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
    chriskilby , 2014-09-29 11:33:17
    So it's official. We are ruled by psychopaths. Figures.
    Trilbey chriskilby , 2014-09-29 12:35:58
    Perhaps I can help out. There's some good research here:

    Are CEOs and Entrepreneurs psychopaths? Multiple studies say "Yes

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-psychopaths-multiple-studies-say-yes/

    Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 11:33:31
    This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects. A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
    Trilbey Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 12:37:59
    Some people are brave enough to buck the system, I'm not, I just keep going to work everyday to get slaughtered.
    LargeMarvin Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 14:48:16
    Freud's model of the mind is pretty good too, though psychoanalysis itself is controversial. The Krel forgot one thing.................
    qwertboi , 2014-09-29 11:34:29
    What an incisive article!

    It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on, chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:

    Personal relationships;
    trust;
    personal integrity;
    trust;
    relationships;
    trust;
    transactions and trade;
    trust;
    market systems;
    trust;
    communities;
    trust;
    political relationships;
    trust;

    Etc., etc., etc..
    trust;
    society;
    trust;

    Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 11:35:37
    This analysis can be found in Marx's critique of the economy published in 1859.
    lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 11:36:17
    James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog dystopia.
    Trilbey lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 12:53:48
    Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness and hatred of waste.

    This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of money!

    LargeMarvin lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 14:49:34
    Even shampoo and sets have not come back, though unfortunately slickbacks have.
    PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 11:36:31

    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 –

    Ha Ha!...

    Oh, wait, now I'm sad.... Damn it.

    freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 11:38:34
    There is nothing "neo" nor "liberal" about neoliberalism. It is a cover for corporations and the wealthy elite to get more corporate welfare .
    PonyBoyUK freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 12:28:59
    Take what you do, define it in a word or two and then use the most concise antonym. - That is what you will tell the public.

    State-protected oligopolies = "The Free Market"

    Aggressive wars on civilian populations = "The war on Terror" / "The Ministry of Defence"

    Age-old economic oppression = "Neoliberal economics"

    Public Manipulation = "Public Relations"

    Political Oppression = "Democracy"

    LargeMarvin freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 14:50:47
    In practice yes, but on the theoretical level the title is valid. It is the resurrection of policies from the 1860s.
    Toeparty , 2014-09-29 11:38:44
    Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people. This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
    Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:42:49
    According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you £10 a week more in welfare: you're an almost saint like figure.

    If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself, your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .

    Raymond Ashworth Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:49:07
    Strawman.
    Themiddlegound Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:49:49
    If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself, your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".

    So how do you create a better community ?

    By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.

    Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.

    Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.

    RaymondDance Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:54:25

    There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.

    Of course there would.

    Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:45:14
    I've studied neoliberalism for nearly 20 years.

    The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.

    I'll try and explain.

    Their business plan.

    The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality. The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time ?

    In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.

    Why did the voters allow that to happen ?

    Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.

    As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"

    One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes sure that the wealth is not shared.

    Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage. It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.

    There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.

    This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance. It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain when it only works for the few.

    Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.

    RaymondDance Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:53:29

    There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.

    ... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and, by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies they represent.

    dr8765 Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 12:02:36
    You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.

    I can't really follow the logic of your argument.

    Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit it. It's doing what it's designed to do.

    I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.

    Themiddlegound RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 12:03:10
    That's all fine and dandy and I agree.

    However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.

    One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.

    foralltime , 2014-09-29 11:46:59
    ..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1% and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
    RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 11:50:02

    Bullying used to be confined to schools

    Blimey - and people like this constantly accuse conservatives of being nostalgic for a past that never existed.

    LargeMarvin RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 14:54:59
    Fair comment. I went to a grammar school where there was, luckily, very little bullying. The bullying happened when I got back to the 'hood.
    zavaell , 2014-09-29 11:51:37
    All I know is that when I read the comments on cif, I cannot believe that these are people who would be expected to read the Guardian.
    RaymondDance zavaell , 2014-09-29 11:56:26

    I cannot believe that these are people who would be expected to read the Guardian.

    One of the best things about cif is that it allows a wider audience to see just how deluded and narcissistic Guardian readers are.

    busyteacher zavaell , 2014-09-29 12:23:12
    They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
    LargeMarvin zavaell , 2014-09-29 14:55:44
    It's called Revenge of the Killer Clerks.
    WarwickC , 2014-09-29 11:53:18

    Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves.

    That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
    We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
    The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
    We're the ones left to tell the tale.

    Stephen Porter WarwickC , 2014-09-29 12:34:35
    We're the ones left to tell the tale"

    and what a tale it will be for the last human standing!

    EstebanMurphy WarwickC , 2014-09-29 13:14:33

    That's always been th

    [Aug 29, 2016] [Aug 29, 2016]Commnets to the article Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us by Paul Verhaeghe

    Notable quotes:
    "... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
    "... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
    "... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
    "... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
    "... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
    "... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
    "... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
    "... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    Happytobeasocialist, 2014-09-29 09:07:21

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Less of the 'us' please. there are plenty of people who are disgusted by neoliberalism and are determined to bring it down

    Pasdabong Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:28:58
    As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be.
    InconvenientTruths Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:39:02
    Neo-Liberal Elephant

    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 chaned

    If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.

    For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).

    It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire, not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.

    To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.

    Labour are the midwives of UKiP.

    This cultural elephant has tusks.

    SaulZaentz , 2014-09-29 09:10:36
    It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack, privatised railways, privatised water and so on.

    It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.

    Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.

    Happytobeasocialist , 2014-09-29 09:13:38

    A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents

    There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.

    AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:16:42
    It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.

    People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that.

    JamesValencia AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:25:40
    He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone, but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.

    It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.

    AntiTerrorist JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 09:38:49
    I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific 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?

    This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.

    The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.

    CityBoy2006 AntiTerrorist , 2014-09-29 09:52:05

    This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no one I know

    Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.

    GordonLiddle , 2014-09-29 09:17:21
    One could use another word or two, crony capitalism being a particularly good pair. Not what you know but who.
    SaulZaentz GordonLiddle , 2014-09-29 09:36:48
    Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
    dreamer06 SaulZaentz , 2014-09-29 13:40:16
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3862998.ece
    (paywall)

    You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals

    Pasdabong ElQuixote , 2014-09-29 09:33:20
    .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
    KatieL dieterroth , 2014-09-29 09:58:16
    "Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"

    The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.

    Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy input.

    dieterroth , 2014-09-29 09:19:32
    I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites. The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority of people in the country.

    There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility. Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and 60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining people to capitalism.

    Johanni dieterroth , 2014-09-29 10:24:23

    I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.

    Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism. Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.

    thebogusman Johanni , 2014-09-29 13:15:54
    Tatcher actually said that the goal of neoliberalism is not new economics but to "change the soul"!
    arkley dieterroth , 2014-09-29 18:10:04
    OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?

    The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of 1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended. It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.

    Febo , 2014-09-29 09:21:28
    Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
    Febo undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:49:03
    Both neofeudalism - aka neocolonialism-abroad-and-at-home - and neoliberalism rest on the theft of the Commons - they both support monopoly.
    callaspodeaspode undersinged , 2014-09-29 10:11:05
    Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.

    I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.

    'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
    You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.

    Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state

    Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual toleration

    It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes (through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre activity.

    You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.

    Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.

    In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by manorialism and to the estates of the Church.

    Apart from that though, you're right on everything.

    JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 09:21:56
    I completely agree with the general sentiment.
    The specifics aren't that solid though:

    - That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
    - That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.

    The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
    As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance" .

    And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us.

    UnironicBeard JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 10:39:08
    The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
    CharlesII JamesValencia , 2014-09-29 13:27:30

    - That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.

    Absolutely. I stopped reading there. Bullying is noticed now, and seen as a 'bad thing'. In offices 30, 50, years ago, it was standard .

    JamesValencia UnironicBeard , 2014-09-29 13:42:50
    Preaching to the converted, there, Beard :)

    All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting stuff.
    I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.

    Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
    That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.

    dieterroth undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:26:28
    Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are.
    dieterroth undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:28:55
    "Collectivism gave us Communism, Nazism and universalist religions that try to impose uniformity through the method of mass murder."

    Capitalism and free markets gave us them as all were reactions to economic failure and having nothing to lose.

    Febo undersinged , 2014-09-29 09:34:05
    I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.

    But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.

    George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The Commons.
    At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised by the 1%.
    Hence unemployment
    Hence the wealth gap
    Hence the environmental crisis
    Hence poverty

    checkreakity , 2014-09-29 09:23:39
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:24:11
    So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?
    NinthLegion RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:26:57
    But it's because these values and moralities are so wafer thin that the Right can swing them in precisely the direction they want to. Greed is good!
    LouSnickers RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:28:35
    They dont like us!

    But then, I dont care for them, either!

    dieterroth RidleyWalker , 2014-09-29 09:32:10
    "Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"

    Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only exist but spread.

    yamba , 2014-09-29 09:30:07
    Reminds me very much of No Country for Old Men , by Cormac McCarthy.
    annabelle123 yamba , 2014-09-29 11:00:22
    That's a good description of the NHS.
    WinstonThatcher , 2014-09-29 09:30:58
    It's certainly brought out the worst in the Guardian, publishing as it does oodles of brainless clickbate.
    nishville WinstonThatcher , 2014-09-29 11:13:50
    >If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".<
    paul643 , 2014-09-29 09:31:59

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    I don't believe that bullying is new to the workplace., in fact I'd imagine it was worse before the days of elf 'n' safety.

    vivientoft paul643 , 2014-09-29 13:05:01
    Why do you say that?
    annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:32:23
    I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years, I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
    saltash1920 annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:39:31
    I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
    Davai annabelle123 , 2014-09-29 09:48:06
    Yes those were the days when you had people and personnel departments, rather than 'human resources' I suspect. You can blame the USA for that.

    Constant reorgs are a sure sign of inept management.

    They're also a sure sign of managers who want to 'hang out' with highly-paid, sexy management consultants and hopefully get offered a job.

    But you're a psychologist so you know that already!

    David Craig's books are worth a read.

    annabelle123 saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 10:58:42
    I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same - there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
    StVitusGerulaitis , 2014-09-29 09:32:59

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.

    I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

    Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).

    MickGJ StVitusGerulaitis , 2014-09-29 16:15:49

    Isn't this true of pretty much any system?

    Don't be silly my saintly chum: who ever heard of a psychopath rising to the top in any other system than neo-liberal capitalism?
    Socratese , 2014-09-29 09:33:25
    I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you don't like,which is dishonest.
    There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
    I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate to the issue at hand.
    pinniped Socratese , 2014-09-29 10:24:59
    Ah yes, No True Liberal.
    saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 09:34:32
    Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families. And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.

    In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice. Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    rivendel saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 17:40:04
    One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
    Isent neolibral capitalism great.

    Highlights saltash1920 , 2014-09-29 21:52:03

    One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.

    Violence has already begun, in wars and protests, beheadings and wage cuts which leave people more and more desperate.

    PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 09:36:18

    We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces

    Which is exactly what we've been led to believe, by outside forces.

    For other related films, please see:

    The Corporation http://www.thecorporation.com/

    and

    The Century of the Self http://www.thecorporation.com/

    PonyBoyUK PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 10:09:55
    (doh!)

    The Century of the Self - http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

    NinthLegion , 2014-09-29 09:40:58
    As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......

    There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will give you the time and the place.

    Jack3 NinthLegion , 2014-09-29 10:44:31
    For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.

    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
    living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
    course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
    moral code that glorifies it".
    F. Bastiat.

    Finn_Nielsen Jack3 , 2014-09-29 10:58:47
    Bastiat was closer to a neoliberal than a Marxist...
    skagway Jack3 , 2014-09-30 14:48:40
    very true.
    Pasdabong , 2014-09-29 09:41:24
    Excellent article.
    I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
    The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
    abugaafar , 2014-09-29 09:42:40
    I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great heights, but perhaps it helped.
    ThroatWobblaMangrove abugaafar , 2014-09-29 22:58:31
    That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
    crasspymctabernacle , 2014-09-29 09:42:47
    This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes

    Not when applied to IDS and other members of the cabinet.

    BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 09:43:50
    Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.

    So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.

    PonyBoyUK BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 10:11:45
    It's a really good idea, - until you start thinking about it...
    AlbertaRabbit BlueBrightFuture , 2014-09-29 10:27:02
    And then there's reality.

    And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.

    This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity, so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.

    BlueBrightFuture PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 10:33:06
    I suspect the logical conclusion of the free market is that the State will become formally superseded by an oligopoly - perhaps the energy sector.

    I also suspect at least one third of the population in over-developed countries will simply become surplus to requirement.

    Everybody wants an iPhone, nobody wants to work in Foxconn.

    jimcol , 2014-09-29 09:44:45
    It is rooted, I think, in the prevailing idea that what we own is more important than what we do. Consumerism grown and fostered by the greedy.
    vacuous jimcol , 2014-09-29 19:17:20
    The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled conscious decisions.

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html

    If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.

    CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 09:47:04

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace

    Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories, perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade when apparently everything was rosy?

    This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.

    Catonaboat CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 10:09:47
    Well I'd say he was spot on, when someone with the handle CityBoy2006 his a classic work place tantrum over the article.
    HarryTheHorse CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 11:13:24

    Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories

    Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against

    perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade when apparently everything was rosy?

    They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to sustain them.

    Slapchips , 2014-09-29 09:47:28
    People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.

    It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard" is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.

    Davai Slapchips , 2014-09-29 09:52:24
    'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.

    All IM(NVH)O, of course. DYOR.

    Sammy_89 Davai , 2014-09-29 09:56:06
    Pays for schools and hospitals, though
    Davai Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 09:59:43
    Oh we had those before 1989.

    It isn't a binary 'naked selfish captalist/socialist decision'. There is middle ground.

    eldorado99 , 2014-09-29 09:49:50
    "support any political movement we like."

    Except those which have privacy from state surveillance as their core tenet.

    ID12345 , 2014-09-29 09:50:07
    Green Party: We need to fight Neoliberalism.
    Loadsofspace , 2014-09-29 09:51:42
    The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
    ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 09:51:50

    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.

    These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.

    Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to us.

    CityBoy2006 ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 09:55:24
    Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
    Finn_Nielsen ForwardMarch , 2014-09-29 10:09:36
    It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
    HarryTheHorse CityBoy2006 , 2014-09-29 11:15:51
    So being able to have a smart phone compensates for not having a secure place to live? What an absurd bubble you metropolitan types live in.
    Harry Palmer , 2014-09-29 09:52:22
    OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits agency or the police.

    Let us know what you find.

    WindTurbine , 2014-09-29 09:53:31
    The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
    I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
    This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society as a whole over the long term.
    Targetising everything is really insidious.
    jclucas , 2014-09-29 09:53:32
    That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless choose how to live is an admission of failure.

    In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence. Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.

    To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.

    WindTurbine jclucas , 2014-09-29 10:01:42
    It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
    Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.

    The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop through the interactions between the system and actors in it.

    I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare. That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this nor that.

    jclucas WindTurbine , 2014-09-29 10:21:57
    The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
    AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 09:54:07

    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.

    I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.

    arkley AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 09:59:50
    The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.

    And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.

    Sammy_89 arkley , 2014-09-29 10:04:29
    I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
    MickGJ Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 16:18:57

    Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher that they need a masters degree of economics?! I

    Sounds more like parents advising an exceptionally bright child to go as far as she can with her education before she starts work.

    I can't see why a primary school teacher should be dissuaded from doing a master's degree.

    arkley , 2014-09-29 09:55:46
    How does that navel look today?

    I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.

    Sammy_89 arkley , 2014-09-29 10:02:10
    Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever been developed by man...
    TeddyFrench arkley , 2014-09-29 10:06:38
    For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
    Finn_Nielsen Sammy_89 , 2014-09-29 10:11:42
    It's a funny kind of neoliberalism we're supposedly suffering under when you consider the ratio of state spending to GDP...
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 09:57:13
    "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."

    In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.

    Success and failure are just about parental wealth.

    Willhelm123 , 2014-09-29 09:57:41
    I kind of see the point of this. What's the alternative though?
    MickGJ Willhelm123 , 2014-09-29 16:23:10

    I kind of see the point of this. What's the alternative though?

    Doing some research?
    gcarth , 2014-09-29 09:57:45
    "So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"

    RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
    Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth between rich and poor.

    injinoo gcarth , 2014-09-29 10:01:41
    Which studies and which equal societies are you referring to. It would be good to know in order to cheer us all up a bit.
    Sammy_89 gcarth , 2014-09-29 10:08:52
    Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish world

    This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism' with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...

    injinoo , 2014-09-29 09:59:38
    Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor.
    Sammy_89 injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:10:20
    Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
    rosemary152 injinoo , 2014-09-29 14:32:18

    Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's.

    There is a difference. We now have the psychopathic-tendency merchants in charge, both of the banks, multinationals and our government.

    MickGJ injinoo , 2014-09-29 16:24:51

    Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the same in the 1960's and 1970's.

    And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 10:00:59
    The psychopaths have congregated in Wall Street and the City.

    One of the problems with psychopaths is that they never learn form mistakes.

    Anyone that is watching will realise we are well on our way to the next Wall Street Crash - part 3.

    Wall Street Crash Part 1 - 1929
    Wall Street Crash Part 2 - 2008
    Wall Street Crash Part 3 - soon

    Each is bigger and better than the last - there may not be much left after Part 3.

    injinoo regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 10:03:58
    Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring to the 1890's.
    regfromdagenham injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:05:24
    The financial psychopaths never learn!
    Isiodore injinoo , 2014-09-29 10:49:57
    The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
    harrogateandrew , 2014-09-29 10:01:24
    And Socialism doesn't!

    Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.

    Portman23 harrogateandrew , 2014-09-29 10:06:13
    Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that. It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism has failed society and explores some of how and why.
    TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 10:01:25
    The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith of the fundamentalists supporting it.
    AlbertaRabbit TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 10:10:36
    The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
    TeddyFrench AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 10:31:54
    You conflate individual freedom with corporate freedom.

    Also, what happened in 2008 then? Anything to do with the hubris over free markets and de-regulation or was it just a blip?

    JonPurrtree TeddyFrench , 2014-09-29 11:16:25
    It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I don't see how that might work.

    "hubris over free markets" might well be it.
    But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).

    hansen , 2014-09-29 10:02:14
    So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
    menedemus hansen , 2014-09-29 10:27:39
    What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
    ElDanielfire menedemus , 2014-09-29 11:41:06
    The Lib Dems? ;)
    gandrew hansen , 2014-09-29 13:04:53
    the Greens, clearly.
    AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-29 10:03:31

    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.

    Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.

    Must be confusing for him.

    Oscar Mandiaz AlbertaRabbit , 2014-09-30 01:37:24
    probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
    this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
    like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant utopia of the theorists.
    verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of neoliberal policies.
    In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
    I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation, still require explanation.
    Bloreheath , 2014-09-29 10:03:35
    Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s. I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at what has overtaken my beloved country.
    LargeMarvin Bloreheath , 2014-09-29 11:25:19
    And scooters were 150s and 200s.
    capchaos , 2014-09-29 10:04:26
    An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
    Davai capchaos , 2014-09-29 10:20:12
    Is it?

    I think the levels of debt amongst young 'consumers' would suggest otherwise.

    They are after all, only human. Prone to want the baubles dangled in front of them, as are we all.

    Gogoh , 2014-09-29 10:06:33
    Brilliant article.
    IGrumble , 2014-09-29 10:13:27
    Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.

    But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.

    Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.

    We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got. Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"

    The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia) will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars, destruction and general stupidity.

    pinniped , 2014-09-29 10:13:49
    What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
    Keo2008 , 2014-09-29 10:13:54

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Speak for yourself.

    Some of us are just as kind and tolerant as we have always been.

    Huples Keo2008 , 2014-09-29 10:37:19
    The world is nastier than it was before outsourcing and efficiencies.
    I am glad you have emerged unscathed

    However be happy he is speaking as it allows your natural tolerance to shine ;-)

    AlbertaRabbit Huples , 2014-09-29 11:34:05
    The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.

    People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.

    Finn_Nielsen , 2014-09-29 10:15:28
    What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
    Isiodore , 2014-09-29 10:16:21
    I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's true everywhere.
    alazarin , 2014-09-29 10:16:26
    I'm enjoying watching the logical and conceptual contortions of Kippers on CiF attempting to positions themselves as being against neo-liberalism.
    Finn_Nielsen , 2014-09-29 10:17:26

    You don't need to look far for examples.

    Indeed not, you just made a few up.

    Babartov , 2014-09-29 10:19:39
    human socieity has always rewarded aggressive individuals willing to tread on others.

    it's how we roll

    pauledwards1000 , 2014-09-29 10:20:17

    "Bullying used to be confined to schools".

    That is patently untrue. Have you ever been outside your home and do you actually know anyone?

    PeteCW pauledwards1000 , 2014-09-29 10:32:52
    Have you ever been outside your home and do you actually know anyone?

    This sentence could usefully be applied to the entire article.

    Gogoh , 2014-09-29 10:20:46
    FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
    freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 10:23:16
    There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed of our economies and our middle class.
    dr8765 freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 11:35:11
    True. All markets are constructs. Each simply operates according to the parameters put in place by those who have constructed it.

    Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor has almost become a cliche, but that doesn't make it any less true.

    iruka , 2014-09-29 10:26:05
    Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.

    So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please, not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation to cumulatively alienating ends......)

    It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..

    Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....

    It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation, same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....

    Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).

    The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default, and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation -- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.

    Etc. etc.. Avoiding work again.....

    Finn_Nielsen iruka , 2014-09-29 10:44:27
    What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective deal with those who wished to exploit it?
    I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
    AlbertaRabbit iruka , 2014-09-29 11:18:41

    The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default, and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.

    Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt to mask the vacuity of their position?

    Catonaboat , 2014-09-29 10:26:13
    I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety, about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.

    People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.

    Norfolk , 2014-09-29 10:26:18
    This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called "survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss" when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem. What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
    Fooster , 2014-09-29 10:26:35

    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?

    Ladies, step away from the jobs.
    MissingInActon , 2014-09-29 10:27:29
    Speak for yourself.
    The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such, and want nothing to do with it.
    If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with consensus and co-operation.
    I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
    Jack3 MissingInActon , 2014-09-29 11:30:37

    I see it as such, and want nothing to do with it.

    Spot on. Neither I.

    fanofzapffe , 2014-09-29 10:28:07
    I have a book to promote against the 'success narrative'. I'm hoping it fails.
    slorter , 2014-09-29 10:30:18
    Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants, high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
    nishville , 2014-09-29 10:33:03
    Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.

    Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.

    PeteCW nishville , 2014-09-29 10:38:25
    Yeah - people are stupid scum aren't they? 'Take a look around you' - wallowing in stinking warm mud all the time. Dumb animals.

    Elsewhere in this comment - being a clever psychopath is not nice.

    Finn_Nielsen PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:45:42
    I'm not sure I want anything changed by those who hold humanity in contempt...
    petrolheadpaul nishville , 2014-09-29 11:22:14
    Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.

    No other species has come close to any of those.

    SpursSupporter , 2014-09-29 10:34:29

    Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.

    I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.

    Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.

    richiep40 , 2014-09-29 10:35:01
    I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.

    So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept debt of all sorts.

    Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.

    Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically high personal debt is ideal.

    PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:35:45
    All this article proves is that you've read, and can quote from, books written by other academics that you agree with.
    TheKernel PeteCW , 2014-09-29 10:41:36
    Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?

    This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.

    Quite simple, really.

    Sputnikchaser , 2014-09-29 10:38:33
    There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1% and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers' bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
    Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 10:39:51
    David Harvey wrote the best book ever written on the subject.

    http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf

    It's only 200 pages but by god did he nail it.


    The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.

    David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved their end game over the last 40 years.

    There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately, the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power and wealth.

    As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands. If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to say enough is enough.

    Sidefill , 2014-09-29 10:40:51
    Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.

    I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.

    But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see how that can be changed in its essentials).

    Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones. So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.

    jet199 , 2014-09-29 10:42:40
    To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
    I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
    ForgottenVoice jet199 , 2014-09-29 10:46:38
    Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every breath.

    What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.

    Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating it according to wealth or perceived worth.

    dairymaid jet199 , 2014-09-29 11:37:13
    If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
    NaturalOutswing , 2014-09-29 10:43:32
    "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"

    What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?

    gjjwatson , 2014-09-29 10:46:23
    When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
    The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female). I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could do the job that she would claim credit for.
    The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
    The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering lap dog of the rich and powerful.
    On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
    RamjetMan gjjwatson , 2014-09-29 10:53:56
    Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit and you have to carry them all the time....
    anorak , 2014-09-29 10:46:37
    No shit Sherlock. Did you get a grant for this extensive research?
    ID8665572 , 2014-09-29 10:49:43
    "meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
    I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
    Martyn Blackburn , 2014-09-29 10:50:06
    "Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.

    Contrast with this:

    "Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.

    It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation, and government power .

    ForgottenVoice , 2014-09-29 10:50:10
    Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid. Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they think they're worth.
    pagey23 , 2014-09-29 10:50:48
    Liberal Socialism is what we have, how is 45% of the economy run by government and a 1 trillion pound debt economic liberalism
    RamjetMan pagey23 , 2014-09-29 10:57:08
    Yes we have big government and a finance system which prop each other up. Why it's called neoliberalism is beyond me.
    MSP1984 , 2014-09-29 10:51:35

    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.

    Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly opposes.

    Sandra Mae , 2014-09-29 10:52:53
    The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor, Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
    Jem Bo , 2014-09-29 10:53:35
    articulateness - not much fluency in a sentence when using that word is there?
    Choller21 Jem Bo , 2014-09-29 10:58:30
    Articulocity.
    illeist , 2014-09-29 10:54:39
    Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information and current discussions and presentations on the subject.

    The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for this behaviour.

    But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.

    Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness. It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal activity of psychopaths themselves.

    Jack3 illeist , 2014-09-29 11:54:12
    To deal with this problem is the most urgent and crucial for humanity if we hope for any future at all.
    dr8765 , 2014-09-29 10:54:46
    Great article. Thanks.
    tufsoft , 2014-09-29 11:00:33
    People are pretty much bound to behave this way when you replace the family with the individual as the primary unit of society
    quark007 , 2014-09-29 11:02:51
    Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes. Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole and patronising sentiment.

    It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly lacking or non existant.

    gman1 , 2014-09-29 11:05:43
    banxters blah blah
    LargeMarvin , 2014-09-29 11:06:40
    As one who was a working class history graduate in 1970, this is not exactly news.
    Andyz , 2014-09-29 11:08:13
    Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest bearing debt.

    The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves constructs of a liberal consumer based society.

    We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon to maintain the current system of economy.

    None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.

    Finn_Nielsen Andyz , 2014-09-29 11:13:15
    WAKE UP SHEEPLE
    Fence2 , 2014-09-29 11:09:28
    Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:10:22
    Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.

    His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.

    His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).

    He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).

    This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.

    He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
    His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the upper classes this can go on for centuries.

    Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.

    Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.

    colddebtmountain , 2014-09-29 11:12:39

    This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults.

    Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.

    And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....

    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:13:44
    If you want to get into this in a bit more depth:

    "Status Anxiety" by Alain de Botton is worth a read.

    Also, a better insight into the psychopaths amongst us, including bankers, can be gained from Robert Hare's book:

    "Without Conscience"

    yoghurt2 , 2014-09-29 11:14:19
    Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.

    Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something far more self-interested.

    undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:14:37

    I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

    This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of jots and tittles. And so on.

    A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents

    It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian, and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof. The freer society is, the more this happens.

    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.

    Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals. Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation. Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.

    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 idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand, it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
    undersinged undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:18:55
    One more: Socialist societies reward lazy and feckless people, and punish strivers who display initiative.
    gjjwatson undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:22:15
    You miss the point. Neoliberalism promotes negative values and is used consciously to control personal freedom and undermine positive individuality.
    Vanillaicetea undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:39:22
    An excellent demolition of this piece of whiny idiocy.
    variation31 , 2014-09-29 11:16:27
    A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted and rotted by this rat-race ethic.

    Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country (was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).

    66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:16:34
    Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'. In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
    JonPurrtree 66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:17:25
    I call it the bullshit based economy.
    undersinged JonPurrtree , 2014-09-29 11:23:55
    Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
    JonPurrtree undersinged , 2014-09-29 11:30:52
    Plenty of bullshit keeping companies afloat.

    Apart from tetra brik. Thats a useful product.

    66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 11:19:11
    Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.

    The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.

    undersinged 66Applicationsperjob , 2014-09-29 17:34:47

    The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE

    That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
    regfromdagenham , 2014-09-29 11:19:34
    The thinking behind our age was covered in a three part BBC documentary "The Trap".

    It was made in 2006, before the financial crisis.

    http://thoughtmaybe.com/the-trap/

    Why was Iraq such a disaster?
    Find out in Part 3.

    seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:26:02

    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.

    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
    -Janice Joplin

    RaymondDance seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:45:35

    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
    -Janice Joplin

    Kris Kristofferson actually,

    LargeMarvin seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 14:46:09
    Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
    mjhunbeliever seamuspadraig , 2014-09-30 15:46:19
    This little video may throw some light on that for you, Paradox of Choice.
    dr8765 , 2014-09-29 11:26:23

    .... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities.

    I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.

    Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you. Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?

    A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth listening to.

    seamuspadraig , 2014-09-29 11:28:28

    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.

    Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!

    Monchberter , 2014-09-29 11:30:05
    Neoliberalism:

    'Get on', or get f*****d.
    Be hard working, or be dispensable.

    Trilbey Monchberter , 2014-09-29 12:32:14
    Does neoliberalism = fascism = brutality?
    Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:30:29

    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.

    Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.

    illogicalcaptain , 2014-09-29 11:33:08
    It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap. I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
    Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
    chriskilby , 2014-09-29 11:33:17
    So it's official. We are ruled by psychopaths. Figures.
    Trilbey chriskilby , 2014-09-29 12:35:58
    Perhaps I can help out. There's some good research here:

    Are CEOs and Entrepreneurs psychopaths? Multiple studies say "Yes

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2013/10/are-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-psychopaths-multiple-studies-say-yes/

    Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 11:33:31
    This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects. A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
    Trilbey Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 12:37:59
    Some people are brave enough to buck the system, I'm not, I just keep going to work everyday to get slaughtered.
    LargeMarvin Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 14:48:16
    Freud's model of the mind is pretty good too, though psychoanalysis itself is controversial. The Krel forgot one thing.................
    qwertboi , 2014-09-29 11:34:29
    What an incisive article!

    It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on, chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:

    Personal relationships;
    trust;
    personal integrity;
    trust;
    relationships;
    trust;
    transactions and trade;
    trust;
    market systems;
    trust;
    communities;
    trust;
    political relationships;
    trust;

    Etc., etc., etc..
    trust;
    society;
    trust;

    Menscheit11 , 2014-09-29 11:35:37
    This analysis can be found in Marx's critique of the economy published in 1859.
    lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 11:36:17
    James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog dystopia.
    Trilbey lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 12:53:48
    Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness and hatred of waste.

    This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of money!

    LargeMarvin lexcredendi , 2014-09-29 14:49:34
    Even shampoo and sets have not come back, though unfortunately slickbacks have.
    PonyBoyUK , 2014-09-29 11:36:31

    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 –

    Ha Ha!...

    Oh, wait, now I'm sad.... Damn it.

    freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 11:38:34
    There is nothing "neo" nor "liberal" about neoliberalism. It is a cover for corporations and the wealthy elite to get more corporate welfare .
    PonyBoyUK freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 12:28:59
    Take what you do, define it in a word or two and then use the most concise antonym. - That is what you will tell the public.

    State-protected oligopolies = "The Free Market"

    Aggressive wars on civilian populations = "The war on Terror" / "The Ministry of Defence"

    Age-old economic oppression = "Neoliberal economics"

    Public Manipulation = "Public Relations"

    Political Oppression = "Democracy"

    LargeMarvin freepedestrian , 2014-09-29 14:50:47
    In practice yes, but on the theoretical level the title is valid. It is the resurrection of policies from the 1860s.
    Toeparty , 2014-09-29 11:38:44
    Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people. This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
    Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:42:49
    According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you £10 a week more in welfare: you're an almost saint like figure.

    If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself, your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .

    Raymond Ashworth Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:49:07
    Strawman.
    Themiddlegound Vanillaicetea , 2014-09-29 11:49:49
    If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself, your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".

    So how do you create a better community ?

    By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.

    Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.

    Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.

    RaymondDance Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:54:25

    There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.

    Of course there would.

    Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:45:14
    I've studied neoliberalism for nearly 20 years.

    The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.

    I'll try and explain.

    Their business plan.

    The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality. The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time ?

    In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.

    Why did the voters allow that to happen ?

    Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.

    As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"

    One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes sure that the wealth is not shared.

    Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage. It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.

    There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.

    This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance. It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain when it only works for the few.

    Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.

    RaymondDance Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 11:53:29

    There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.

    ... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and, by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies they represent.

    dr8765 Themiddlegound , 2014-09-29 12:02:36
    You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.

    I can't really follow the logic of your argument.

    Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit it. It's doing what it's designed to do.

    I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.

    Themiddlegound RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 12:03:10
    That's all fine and dandy and I agree.

    However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.

    One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.

    foralltime , 2014-09-29 11:46:59
    ..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1% and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
    RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 11:50:02

    Bullying used to be confined to schools

    Blimey - and people like this constantly accuse conservatives of being nostalgic for a past that never existed.

    LargeMarvin RaymondDance , 2014-09-29 14:54:59
    Fair comment. I went to a grammar school where there was, luckily, very little bullying. The bullying happened when I got back to the 'hood.
    zavaell , 2014-09-29 11:51:37
    All I know is that when I read the comments on cif, I cannot believe that these are people who would be expected to read the Guardian.
    RaymondDance zavaell , 2014-09-29 11:56:26

    I cannot believe that these are people who would be expected to read the Guardian.

    One of the best things about cif is that it allows a wider audience to see just how deluded and narcissistic Guardian readers are.

    busyteacher zavaell , 2014-09-29 12:23:12
    They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
    LargeMarvin zavaell , 2014-09-29 14:55:44
    It's called Revenge of the Killer Clerks.
    WarwickC , 2014-09-29 11:53:18

    Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves.

    That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
    We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
    The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
    We're the ones left to tell the tale.

    Stephen Porter WarwickC , 2014-09-29 12:34:35
    We're the ones left to tell the tale"

    and what a tale it will be for the last human standing!

    EstebanMurphy WarwickC , 2014-09-29 13:14:33

    That's always been th

    [Aug 29, 2016] One hunred percent of what are published by oligarch media suffer cognitive dissonance.

    Notable quotes:
    "... 100% are published by oligarch media and the other half suffer cognitive dissonance. ..."
    "... System Authorized experts lie half the time. And fake the rest ..."
    "... "Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees. ..."
    "... Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants. In either case it is necessary for job security. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    100% are published by oligarch media and the other half suffer cognitive dissonance.
    likbez said in reply to ilsm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:53 AM
    Hear! Hear!
    Paine -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    I should have been more careful

    System Authorized experts lie half the time. And fake the rest

    ohnH -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:09 AM

    "Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees.

    We see this not only in trade policy, but also in monetary policy and tax policy, where trickle down is portrayed as the only reasonable path...the backlash is building...

    ilsm -> JohnH... , -1
    Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants. In either case it is necessary for job security.

    Humbug factories with the skilled application of unsound and invalid argument.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Whats a Neoconservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority. ..."
    "... neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context... ..."
    "... Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. ..."
    "... The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans. ..."
    "... Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc. ..."
    "... " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it." ..."
    "... Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government. ..."
    "... Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD. ..."
    "... Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars. ..."
    "... What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart. ..."
    "... Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just. ..."
    "... What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government. ..."
    "... The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation. ..."
    "... Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm. ..."
    "... All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters. ..."
    "... Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here. ..."
    "... They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met. ..."
    "... I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ ..."
    "... "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns." ..."
    "... The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets." ..."
    "... The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon." ..."
    "... If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya). ..."
    "... What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars! ..."
    "... Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party. ..."
    "... In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?" ..."
    "... They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States. ..."
    "... What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement. ..."
    "... It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    This is a jingoistic political ideology of the Us elite preached by Killary and characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.

    The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority.

    Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we must-and that we will cease to be America if we don't. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: "Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job." Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the world's policeman because we are the best policeman.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view.

    ...neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context...

    ...But this has always been the neocon ruse-if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America's actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection-much less regret-for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America's wars are valid by their own volition. America's "mission" is its missions. Writes Max Boot: "Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators."

    bc3b , June 23, 2011 at 8:51 am
    Easy Jack.

    Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the greatest danger to our country.

    squib , June 23, 2011 at 10:09 am
    Re "American exceptionalism". I thought America was exceptional until it started acting like any old cynical, corrupt, doomed empire. It's silly to go about boasting of your exceptionalism even as you repeat every hackneyed error of your predecessors, and trade your true character for a handful of dust.

    The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans.

    Steve , June 23, 2011 at 11:10 am
    Oh, come on guys.

    In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"

    Folks will say this is unfair and a gross distortion of reality, if not in fact a bigoted assertion, but can you name any current neoconservative who is oppossed to US support for Israel? Or even just wants tosee it reduced a bit. I suspect not.

    On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum, but, unlike the case back in the middle 70s when we first began to hear of this troubling new breed of political apostates in the making, it's clear that foreign policy is of much greater importance to the neocons than is domestic policy.

    By the middle eastern sympathiesyou shall know them.

    tbraton , June 23, 2011 at 11:13 am
    "My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term "neoconservative" means. "A lot of people don't know," he said. As usual, Dad was right."

    One of those people who didn't know what a "neoconservative" was is our former President, George W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90's, George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.

    Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc.

    Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20's. That would explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According to an account by a former neoconservative:

    " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it."

    Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe for Israel.

    Philip Giraldi, June 23, 2011 at 11:22 am
    Great piece Jack! Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government.

    Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD.

    I expect they are now triangulating frantically to determine if it in their best interests to remain nominally Republicans or to slowly drift back to their natural habitat in the Democratic Party.

    ED. K., June 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars.
    eeyore , June 23, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    let us not forget the distinction of constitutional authority for past interventions and the "now in violation of the war powers act" Lybian effort. Those who call themselves conservatives, neo-con or otherwise would do well to refer to their pocket constitution they claim to follow and carry. Criticism of fellow party members who constitutionally oppose these interventions employ the same hate-mongering tactics of the left. Silence the opposition at any cost and never stop feeding the federal leviathan. Thanks to Church and Wilkow for the education.
    Jane Marple , June 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart.
    Ben, Okla. City , June 23, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just.

    How about some American humility? More Gary Cooper and less Richard Simmons.

    Jack , June 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm
    What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government.

    The kind that he, as a conservative, should oppose. His retort, of course, was that national security is one of the constitutional purposes of our government. There it is. This friend really thinks that Iraq, Libya, our 1000's of bases all over the world, is what national defense is all about. With his argument, there is literally no limit to the size of the military or the scope of its mission. The neocons have defined it that way.

    The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation.

    DirtyHarriet , June 23, 2011 at 7:44 pm
    Patrick J. gave a great definition in his Whose War article:

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

    It's one of the best articles ever. TAC should re-run it from time to time, lest we all forget what it's all about.

    Buzz Baldrin , June 24, 2011 at 5:08 am
    Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm.

    All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters.

    Worse, the military industrial complex will be entrenched until serious elected officials, in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, create a peacetime economy to replace our warfare state.

    Until then, too much money, too many jobs in America depend on the complex.

    Nel , June 24, 2011 at 5:10 am
    A Neocon is a con artist.
    Robert Pinkerton , June 24, 2011 at 5:17 am
    Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here.

    If I believe in "national greatness," by that I mean a nation of great- soul people, the kind Aristotle calls megalopsychic .

    Nebulosis , June 24, 2011 at 5:49 am
    "On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum,"

    True, but then domestic issues cause a dull glaze to form over neoconservative eyes. They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met.

    samwitwicky , June 24, 2011 at 6:23 am
    Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally … people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn't send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without outside support … that's a revolution.

    Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you call that an operation for the people?

    Read more:

    http://godinthejungle.com/index.php/story-notes/390-saturday-june-18-2011.html

    Bill R. , June 24, 2011 at 11:44 am
    Strictly speaking, a neoconservative, is a member of the traditional FDR coalition (unions, minorities – including Catholics, Jews and African Americans, even Southern whites) who flipped to the Republican party and some element of conservative ideology back in the 1970s. As a former FDR Democrat, Ronald Reagan had elements of neoconservatism in his past.

    And social liberalism is far from neocon orthodoxy. People like Gertrude Himmelfarb and John Neuhaus were at the forefront of neoconservatism. Jeane Kirpatrick, by no means a wobbly or wimpy neoconservative, had roots in socialist activism together with Irving Kristol and the like. Indeed, losing its conservative moral sensibilities helped drive the Democratic Party mad.

    It is only relatively recently that a few – but hardly all – Boom generation neocons such as David Frum and David Brooks also contracted the same form of mental illness. Otherwise, this group has become largely indistinguishable from the Republican mainstream, which draws its roots from Roosevelt, Lincoln, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton.

    Of course, with the onset of southern neocons with states rights and libertarian ideology, the demographic advances of the GOP in the late 20th century imported Civil War divisions into the party, a theme that Kevin Phillips has – sadistically – played upon. Still, one might well say that there is nothing wrong with neoconservatism except for its detractors. Down with the Traitor. Up with the Star.

    James deLaurier , June 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm
    Jack Hunter: 6/24/2011

    A "great" power can be and is often less than a "good" power. So, the Neoconservatives manifesto mandates foreign policy from the top – down! Who then, is there that stands – up for and represents,"We the People"?

    Thank you – # 16

    tbraton , June 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
    I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:

    "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns."

    One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, and the review makes some consise observations about him.

    tbraton , June 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    David Gordon's book review also contains the following observations:

    "No one who absorbs Vaïsse's discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting in his behalf.

    Vaïsse by the way understates Jackson's commitment to socialism, which dated from his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson joined while in college, was not "a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles." It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.

    It was not Jackson's domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaïsse stresses in particular that they collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, "Team B," under the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated. It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.

    The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets."

    The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon."

    Masood , June 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Should "the American Policeman" police the rogue state of Israel? I wonder how many neocons will fo for it.
    DirtyHarriet , June 24, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    Masood, your post reminds me of an article that was published in the New York Times on September 10, 2001, of all dates.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78029147.html

    "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study"

    Excerpt:

    The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.

    The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.

    It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."

    Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

    Henry Drummond , June 25, 2011 at 5:59 am
    This would have had some point 200 years ago. Unfortunately, cannon now shoot more than three miles, the 3 mile limit on national sovereignty is obsolete. You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent.
    tbraton , June 25, 2011 at 9:48 am
    "You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent."

    If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya).

    Gil , June 26, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    Nice article! I believe that what constitutes a neoconservative has changed over the years. Sure, in an academic sense, a "neoconservative" is someone who might have supported Scoop Jackson in Washington or Strauss at U of Chicago in the 70's- in essence, someone with democratic roots who became more hawkish on foreign policy.

    However, most conservative pundits- Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc, support projecting US power in order to achieve Democracy overseas. As do Bachmann, Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Boener, Perry and most other establishment Republicans.

    They all supported war in Afghanistan and Iraq, all support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and big oil, and all fundamentally decry any attempt to cut the US military budget.

    What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars!

    Steve in Ohio , June 27, 2011 at 11:04 am
    Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party.

    By the way, I don't consider RR a neocon President. Along with Eisenhower, he was the most non interventionist prez in recent history.

    Allen , June 28, 2011 at 5:32 am
    WE HAVE A WINNER!;
    'Steve, on June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am Said:
    Oh, come on guys.

    In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"

    Gil , June 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
    Steve-

    Sure, much of the grassroots is non-interventionist, although many, many Evangelicals support the Likud party in Israel for biblical reasons, and those Republicans who listen regularly to Neocons like Hannity and Limbaugh and Dennis Miller, or watch Krauthammer, Kristol and O'Reilly are influenced to support an interventionist foreign policy. Here is the problem! How can you change the Republican party from within when the Tea Party Caucus is headed by an interventionist Neocon like Michelle Bachmann?

    Ronald Reagan was a semi-isolationist. Except, of course, for bombing Libya, stationing troops in Lebanon, and docking the 6th fleet in Israel. Sorry, I know many people consider him a saint, and on both fiscal and social issues he was wonderful. But let's face it- Reagan was a former democratic Union head who became a conservative later on in life and projected US power overseas when it wasn't necessary. A Neocon? At least 75%

    Wesley Mcgranor , June 29, 2011 at 11:54 am
    A neoconservative as an actual social phenomenon – free from intellectual definition – is from the social upheaval of the 'spirit of the 60's'. With all their socialism and revolution against white-western-protestant civilization.
    Gil , June 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    Wesley,

    You are fundamentally correct with respect to the origins of most Neoconservative "intellectuals." However, definitions morph and change over time until their origins become so cloudy as to be practically irrelevant. Let's get real - how many young people know that Bill Kristol's dad used to be a Socialist? How many people even know who Bill Kristol is or Scoop Jackson was?

    Ultimately one can only judge people by their actions. And, in my definition, anyone who ACTS like a Neoconservative- or puts others in harm's way in order to further their expansionist aims- IS a Neoconservative.

    And we will never win our battle against the Neoconservatives unless we call things as they are, without getting bogged down in biographical details about people and philosophers who nobody ever hears about. So, while David Frum, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Lindsay Graham Michelle Bachmann and just about every modern republican congressman or senator or conservative think tank member inside the Washington Beltway may never have been hippies in the 60's, and almost all can claim to have been lifelong conservatives, 99% are Neoconservatives because their ACTIONS define who they are.

    They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States.

    Patrick , July 6, 2011 at 6:26 am
    What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement.

    What I would consider true conservatism you find here in TAC and also in the Libertarian publications like Reason and Liberty but the reach of talk radio and the neocon blogs seems to be far greater than that of real conservatives and the neocons appear to be setting the agenda these days. It is nothing short of appalling isn't it to see "conservatives" defending torture and the secret prisons run under the Bush administration, all in the name of "defending" the country.

    It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The Commons As The Response To The Structural Crises Of The Global System Countercurrents

    Notable quotes:
    "... Capital in the Twenty-First Century ..."
    www.countercurrents.org

    The Connecting the Dots series has convincingly shown a number of interconnected reasons why the global system is in crisis, and why there is no way out without a structural transformation of the dominant neoliberal system. In our contribution, we want to stress the key importance of what we call a "value regime," or simply put, the rules that determine what society and the economy consider to be of value. We must first look at the underlying modes of production - i.e. how value is created and distributed - and then construct solutions must that help create these changes in societal values. The emerging answer for a new mode of value creation is the re-emergence of the Commons.

    With the growing awareness of the vulnerability of the planet and its people in the face of the systemic crises created by late-stage capitalism, we need to ready the alternatives and begin creating the next system now. To do so, we need a full understanding of the current context and its characteristics. In our view, the dominant political economy has three fatal flaws.

    Pseudo-Abundance

    The first is the characteristic need for the capitalist system to engage in continuous capital accumulation and growth. We could call this pseudo-abundance, i.e. the fundamental article of faith, or unconscious assumption, that the natural world's resources are infinite. Capitalism creates a systemic ecological crisis marked by the overuse and depletion of natural resources, endangering the balance of the environment (biodiversity extinction, climate change, etc).

    Scarcity Engineering

    The second characteristic of capitalism is that it requires scarce commodities that are subject to a tension between supply and demand. Scarcity engineering is what we call this continuous attempt to undo natural abundance where it occurs. Capitalism creates markets by the systemic re-engineering of potentially or naturally abundant resources into scarce resources. We see this happening with natural resources in the development of "terminator seeds" that undo the seeds' natural regeneration process. Crucially, we also see this in the creation of artificial scarcity mechanisms for human culture and knowledge. "Intellectual property" is imposed in more and more areas, privatizing common knowledge in order to create artificial commodities and rents that create profits for a privileged "creator class."

    These first two characteristics are related and reinforce each other, as the problems created by pseudo-abundance are made quite difficult to solve due to the privatization of the very knowledge required to solve them. This makes solving major ecological problems dependent on the ability of this privatized knowledge to create profits. It has been shown that the patenting of technologies results in a systemic slowdown of technical and scientific innovation, while un-patenting technologies accelerates innovation. A good recent example of this "patent lag" effect is the extraordinary growth of 3D printing, once the technology lost its patents.

    Perpetually Increasing Social Injustice

    The third major characteristic is the increased inequality in the distribution of value, i.e. perpetually increasing social injustice.

    As Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century shows us, the logic of capital is to concentrate more and more wealth into fewer hands through compound interest, rent seeking, purchasing legislation, etc. Our current set of rules are hardwired to increase inequality and injustice.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Our Society Is Sick, Our Economy Exploitive and our Politics Corrupt

    Aug 22, 2016 | Of Two Minds

    Any society that tolerates this systemic exploitation and corruption as "business as usual" is not just sick--it's hopeless.

    In noting that our society is sick, our economy exploitive and our politics corrupt, I'm not saying anything you didn't already know. Everyone who isn't being paid to deny the obvious in public (while fuming helplessly about the phony cheerleading in private) knows that our society is a layer-cake of pathologies, our economy little more than institutionalized racketeering and our politics a corrupt auction-house of pay-for-play, influence-peddling, money-grubbing and brazen pandering for votes.

    The fantasy promoted by do-gooders and PR hacks alike is that this corrupt system can be reformed with a few minor policy tweaks. If you want a brief but thorough explanation of Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform, please take a look at my book (link above).

    If you want an example of how the status quo has failed and is beyond reform, it's instructive to examine the pharmaceutical industry, which includes biotech corporations, specialty pharmaceutical firms and the global corporate giants known as Big Pharma.

    I hope it won't come as too great a surprise that the pharmaceutical industry isn't about cures or helping needy people--it's about profits. As a Big Pharma CEO reported in a brief moment of truthfulness, We're in Business of Shareholder Profit, Not Helping the Sick

    Here's an excerpt from the article:

    "Already this year, Valeant has increased the price of 56 of the drugs in its portfolio an average of 66 percent, highlighted by their recent acquisition, Zegerid, which they promptly raised 550 percent. Not only does this have the unfortunate side effect of placing the price of life-saving drugs out of reach for even moderately-insured people, but it has now begun to call into question the sustainability of this rapidly-spreading business model.

    Since being named CEO in 2008, Valeant has acquired more than 100 drugs and seen their stock price rise more than 1,000 percent with Pearson at the helm."

    [Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clintons Ghosts A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the Right

    Notable quotes:
    "... But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats. ..."
    "... The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally." ..."
    "... Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support. ..."
    "... The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them. ..."
    "... The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests." ..."
    "... When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections. ..."
    "... She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond. ..."
    "... The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." ..."
    "... However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." ..."
    "... When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
    "... Citizens United ..."
    "... So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election. ..."
    "... The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda." ..."
    "... When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley . ..."
    "... and where she will be ..."
    "... Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary. ..."
    "... Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base. ..."
    "... The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary." ..."
    "... In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms." ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.truth-out.org
    A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their relationship with the financial institutions that fund their campaigns was unthinkable in past presidential debates. Such a discussion falls way outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the Democratic debate in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was forced to defend her financial relationship with Wall Street numerous times on network television.

    Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed.

    Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has largely been to adopt similar language and policy positions as her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is trying to minimize the differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The differences among us," she said of her opponents at the Iowa debate , "pale in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."

    Clinton, currently the front-runner, is now making "debt-free" college tuition , minimum wage hikes ( to $12 per hour ) and measures to bring "accountability to Wall Street" major talking points in her campaign. The language of populism - at least for now - is seen as a viable electoral strategy .

    But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.

    This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus describes it , is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton - a key member of the DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as The American Prospect describes it , "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.

    The Reign of the DLC

    A lot has happened since the last time the Democrats had a contested primary. The 2008 economic crisis , the growth of the Occupy movement , the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the consequent increase in public attention to the ongoing killings of Black people by police , and the Bernie Sanders campaign have all played major roles in shaping the political consensus of primary voters. None of these existed when Barack Obama won the nomination over Clinton in June 2008.

    But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas of the Democratic Leadership Council. Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985 , the group sought to transform the party by pushing it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.

    Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.

    The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."

    Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support.

    The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The New York Times reported that during that era "the Democratic Leadership Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence continued into the post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt and countless others all lent their names in support of the organization. The DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of policy papers , op-eds and declarations in their numerous publications.

    "It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said Mark Schmitt, a staffer for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before there were a lot of organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved and to be in the same room with important people."

    The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them.

    The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests."

    As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state' despite the global financial crisis," according to the Financial Times , which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as well as his free-market leanings - have made him a hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."

    Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat

    When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

    She was even promoted as the DLC's "New Dem of the Week" on its website. (It would be remiss not to note that Martin O'Malley also served as a "New Dem of the Week," and even co-wrote an op-ed on behalf of the DLC with its then-chair, Harold Ford Jr.)

    New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats.

    More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005. She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.

    The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."

    However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."

    The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability. And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council shuttered its doors .

    When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power . Amazingly, O'Malley provided a favorable blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic success today."

    The 2016 Election and New Democrats

    The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016 primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently told the Guardian .

    Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an interview with Politico .

    His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.

    New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.

    Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's board of trustees is almost entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests have more influence over the political process than ever before.

    "These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.

    So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election.

    The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda."

    The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and implementing a single-payer health-care system directly, making faulty claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the "singular focus on income inequality" because its "actual impact on the middle class may be small."

    "Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political moment," said Richard Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in a rebuttal to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one day Americans can stop paying the price for their ill-conceived, corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."

    Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore these efforts at their own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas, Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue attention in the mainstream media. For instance, The Washington Post devoted 913 words to Third Way's new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in the Democratic Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan Cowan to attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not socialists," he said. This tone is the status quo for New Democrats in the media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.

    When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives, The Wall Street Journal quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her. "The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous," he said .

    When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley .

    "The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?

    Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise anyone. She has been an ally for years. And while they have expressed concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident, as the Post reported , that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance, her recent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.

    "Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be , but given the necessities of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially," New Democratic Coalition chairman Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin) told the Guardian (emphasis added).

    Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.

    If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere, progressives probably should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al From told the Guardian : "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that she can't get herself back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing."

    Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend political capital on the very populist ideas she is now embracing.

    "When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back on them," said the New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to work on many of these issues if she is elected."

    Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Truthout that his group's emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate responsive to the issues important to what he calls the "Warren wing" of the party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hasn't endorsed a candidate in the race as of now.

    "It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the candidates address the issues we care about," Green said, citing debt-free education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting Black Lives Matter as key issues.

    Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia

    It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of Clinton: They fully expect that soon she will be the only thing standing between them and some candidate from the "Republican clown car," as Green described the GOP field.

    But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed Clinton advisers told The New York Times.

    Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary.

    Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.

    Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon.

    Yet Moulitsas recently endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was "crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton, the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely critical of Clinton. Now, he is helping her do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.

    Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean, it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller Republican," said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment is shared by many Vermonters, on both the left and right .

    But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns for an establishment DC paper and is a major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her. Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements he has made for many years. Many on his own blog are skeptical.

    But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply fear. They are afraid of a Republican president, and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President Trump - or Carson or Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely understandable. But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination, that does not mean her record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.

    The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"

    The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary."

    In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms."

    Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about, including her long career as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent memory, however, progressives actually have some leverage to make her answer for this record.

    Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street support, her dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her vote for war in Iraq . She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.

    Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions. But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton - or any major establishment politician - to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .

    Michael Corcoran is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for The Boston Globe, The Nation, The Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3 .

    [Aug 19, 2016] For decades already, neoliberalized centre-left parties all over the world have been engaged to varying extents in deregulation, privatisation, welfare state reduction, TTIP-style neoliberal globalism and now, most recently, austerity not to mention a slavish pro-US foreign policy

    Clinton betrayal and sell out of Democratic Party to Wall Street was actually a phenomenon affecting other similar parties, especially in Europe. And not only in Great Britain, where Tony Bliar was a real copycat.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group they are speaking to. ..."
    "... It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.) ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't like it". ..."
    "... I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement candidate, yet. ..."
    "... I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies are available thru politics. ..."
    "... I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather. ..."
    "... Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.11.16 at 5:33 pm 618

    F Foundling @ 605: The 'self' one can rely on is mostly features of temperament and style, not policy. The 'brand' is also to a large extent about style, not substance, and it is subject to change, too.

    The handful of politicians I have known personally have had fewer and lighter personal commitments to political policy preferences, than most, say, news junkies. They are trying to get political power, which rests at the nexus of conflicting forces. They have to put themselves at the crossroads, so to speak, and - maybe this is one of the paradoxes of power -- if they are to exercise power from being at a nexus, they have to be available to be used; they have to be open to persuasion, if they are to persuade.

    Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group they are speaking to.

    T: If inequality remains the same or increases and growth remains low (and I believe they are very much linked) there will be new challengers from both the right and left and one of them will win. It did take a good 70 yrs to vanquish the robber barons.

    If there's a perennial lodestar for politics, it is this: the distribution of income, wealth and power. Follow the money is a good way to make sense of any criminal enterprise.

    F. Foundling: For decades already, so-called centre-left parties all over the world (can't vouch for *every* country) have been engaged to varying extents in deregulation, privatisation, welfare state reduction, TTIP-style neoliberal globalism and now, most recently, austerity (not to mention a slavish pro-US foreign policy).

    Yes.

    It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.)

    I suspect that William the Conqueror had scarcely summered twice in England before someone was explaining to the peasantry that he was building those castles to protect the people.

    Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't like it".

    RP: A lot of what people seem to be talking about is Overton Window stuff. I'm not convinced.

    I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement candidate, yet.

    By replacement candidate, I mean some set of ideas about how society and political economy can be positively structured and legitimated as functional.

    I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies are available thru politics.

    I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather.

    bruce wilder 08.11.16 at 10:36 pm

    Lee A. Arnold: I don't think I've met anyone over the age of consent who doesn't know what politicians are all about.

    Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. How many times did Maureen Dowd tell the story of dog strapped to the roof on the Romney family vacation?

    In my comment, you may have read "politician" but I actually wrote, "politics". And, I did not write that there was only inchoate anger. You added "only".

    [Aug 08, 2016] Globalization and its New Discontents

    economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH :

    Globalization and its New Discontents

    Stiglitz: AUG 5, 2016 8
    Globalization and its New Discontents

    NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why had so many people become so hostile to it?

    Now, globalization's opponents in the emerging markets and developing countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries. Opinion polls, including a careful study by Stanley Greenberg and his associates for the Roosevelt Institute, show that trade is among the major sources of discontent for a large share of Americans. Similar views are apparent in Europe.

    How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist – said would make everyone better off be so reviled?

    One answer occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated for these policies is that people are better off. They just don't know it. Their discontent is a matter for psychiatrists, not economists.

    But income data suggest that it is the neoliberals who may benefit from therapy. Large segments of the population in advanced countries have not been doing well: in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income stagnation for a third of a century. Median income for full-time male workers is actually lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42 years ago. At the bottom, real wages are comparable to their level 60 years ago.

    The effects of the economic pain and dislocation that many Americans are experiencing are even showing up in health statistics. For example, the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, this year's Nobel laureate, have shown that life expectancy among segments of white Americans is declining.

    Things are a little better in Europe – but only a little better.

    Branko Milanovic's new book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among the big winners were the global 1%, the world's plutocrats, but also the middle class in newly emerging economies. Among the big losers – those who gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries. Globalization is not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.

    Under the assumption of perfect markets (which underlies most neoliberal economic analyses) free trade equalizes the wages of unskilled workers around the world. Trade in goods is a substitute for the movement of people. Importing goods from China – goods that require a lot of unskilled workers to produce – reduces the demand for unskilled workers in Europe and the US.

    This force is so strong that if there were no transportation costs, and if the US and Europe had no other source of competitive advantage, such as in technology, eventually it would be as if Chinese workers continued to migrate to the US and Europe until wage differences had been eliminated entirely. Not surprisingly, the neoliberals never advertised this consequence of trade liberalization, as they claimed – one could say lied – that all would benefit.

    The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the "establishment." And governments' offers of generous bailouts for the banks that had brought on the 2008 financial crisis, while leaving ordinary citizens largely to fend for themselves, reinforced the view that this failure was not merely a matter of economic misjudgments.

    In the US, Congressional Republicans even opposed assistance to those who were directly hurt by globalization. More generally, neoliberals, apparently worried about adverse incentive effects, have opposed welfare measures that would have protected the losers.

    But they can't have it both ways: if globalization is to benefit most members of society, strong social-protection measures must be in place. The Scandinavians figured this out long ago; it was part of the social contract that maintained an open society – open to globalization and changes in technology. Neoliberals elsewhere have not – and now, in elections in the US and Europe, they are having their comeuppance.

    Globalization is, of course, only one part of what is going on; technological innovation is another part. But all of this openness and disruption were supposed to make us richer, and the advanced countries could have introduced policies to ensure that the gains were widely shared.

    Instead, they pushed for policies that restructured markets in ways that increased inequality and undermined overall economic performance; growth actually slowed as the rules of the game were rewritten to advance the interests of banks and corporations – the rich and powerful – at the expense of everyone else. Workers' bargaining power was weakened; in the US, at least, competition laws didn't keep up with the times; and existing laws were inadequately enforced. Financialization continued apace and corporate governance worsened.

    Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must include measures to tame globalization. The two new large agreements that President Barack Obama has been pushing – the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US – are moves in the wrong direction.

    The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem was not globalization, but how the process was being managed. Unfortunately, the management didn't change. Fifteen years later, the new discontents have brought that message home to the advanced economies.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08

    [Jul 31, 2016] The Forthcoming Changes in Capitalism?

    Notable quotes:
    "... In essence, this is a confession that "civilizing" capitalism cannot be done only "externally" by relying on the "harmony of private interests" but that the state has a bigger role that goes beyond ensuring the protection of property rights, taxation and redistribution. ..."
    "... The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism, combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and brought populist policies with a vengeance. ... ..."
    "... Importing foreign labor with heavily curtailed rights has been a mainstay in many societies. Initially it was war prisoners and slaves, then with the capitalist mode of production and abolition of slavery, economic refugees from economically depressed regions. ..."
    "... "Nothing wrong with Christianity except that no one ever tried it." ~George Bernard Shaw ..."
    "... "Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting the genie back in." Oft said, but this may be a full employment statement, one that does not hold in a low equilibrium, especially for a country with a large economy that could do much more internal trade, to the detriment of many other smaller countries not so fortunately endowed. ..."
    "... It may be possible to tariff away globalization for such an economy to the great benefit of those who bore its costs. ..."
    "... Before abandoning neo-liberalism I'd like to see the "redistribution" part tried. ..."
    "... Redistribution is best done by forcing people with money to pay workers. ..."
    "... What the "neoliberal" invention is the free lunch. Lend money to the poor so the business can sell stuff without paying workers enough to buy what they want to sell. ..."
    "... There has been a resurgence in leftwing movements which have coalesced around figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. There has been a rise of demagogues like Trump who blame immigrants and foreigners. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    Branko Milanovic:

    The forthcoming changes in capitalism?: Sometimes it's useful to put symbolic dates on when a different era begins. The end of Thatcherism, it could be argued, came on July 10 in the then PM-candidate speech by Theresa May. It was perhaps appropriate that another woman, a Tory Prime Minister, would be credited with the ending of Thatcherism. The key words, which immediately attracted attention (see also Philip Stevens in today's "Financial Times") were not those about inequality (which has become a common place these days) but about the changes in the internal structure of capitalism: reintroduction of workers' and consumers' representatives on management boards, limits on the executive pay, reduction of job insecurity for the young people and much greater access to top jobs for those coming from less privileged backgrounds.

    For the first time since the late 1970s (at the top level of policy-making), we are back to the issues of reforms in the way capitalism functions rather than discussing the ways in which the external environment would be made more market friendly. In essence, this is a confession that "civilizing" capitalism cannot be done only "externally" by relying on the "harmony of private interests" but that the state has a bigger role that goes beyond ensuring the protection of property rights, taxation and redistribution.

    The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism, combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and brought populist policies with a vengeance. ...

    He goes on to identify three areas where he can imagine change.

    cm -> am...

    Importing foreign labor with heavily curtailed rights has been a mainstay in many societies. Initially it was war prisoners and slaves, then with the capitalist mode of production and abolition of slavery, economic refugees from economically depressed regions.

    Business overall doesn't want free agents. One major point of work visa program abuse is that it is (still?) socially unacceptable to curtail the rights of working citizens to e.g. take the option to "not work", or not for a specific employer, at their own choosing (provided ability to survive without a wage or finding another job).

    For example, one provision of the H1-B program is that one cannot stay in the country without being officially employed (and within the skill set for which one was brought in).

    Thi$ World'$ Banker$ -> DeDude...

    "revise capitalism than just burning it"

    Perhaps we should also revise the holder within which capitalism spins. The Milieu encapsulating present day capitalism is inflation. This inflationary holder nearly requires folks to invest, to buy shares in capitalization, shares with risk. By transplanting capitalism into a deflationary holder, capitalism could continue to perform its many functions without requiring nearly everyone to buy shares, to buy risk.

    Within deflation, savings are rewarded with a ROI by way of the expanding buying power of each dollar saved, an automatic ROI that frees savings from the risk of capitalism. Sure!

    The experts would continue to take calculated risks, Bill. The rank and file would no longer need to buy shares in preparation for their retirement. And yes, bailouts for fat bankers should be allowed to die a gruesome death. Hey!

    Our bankruptcy lawyers have been cheated out of their fun for far too long.

    Deflation is also healthy for the GTF, global Triffin fiat that we print for profit. At present we print bonds also, but with deflation there would be no need to print bonds, just more fiat that would give poor folk the same ROI that is now enjoyed only by wealthy bond holders.

    Deflation is also healthier for nations that operate with religious restrictions against charging interest for bank loans. During the middle ages Christians were not allowed to charge interest. Do we still have Christians today?

    "Nothing wrong with Christianity except that no one ever tried it." ~George Bernard Shaw

    rayward

    Why would the beneficiaries of globalization want to invest in public goods in America? They wouldn't, and they don't. I suspect that many of the beneficiaries already know it, but in the emerging phase of globalization, American firms will be competing with China rather than collaborating with China.

    Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting the genie back in. American firms shifting alliances to Vietnam from China won't solve the problems in America and will ratchet up the potential problems in the far east, including trade wars and real wars that are often triggered by trade wars.

    Turning inward (as the populists would do) won't make goods produced in America more competitive in global markets; it will make them less competitive.

    point -> rayward...

    "Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting the genie back in." Oft said, but this may be a full employment statement, one that does not hold in a low equilibrium, especially for a country with a large economy that could do much more internal trade, to the detriment of many other smaller countries not so fortunately endowed.

    It may be possible to tariff away globalization for such an economy to the great benefit of those who bore its costs.

    I won't hold my breath waiting...

    ThaomasH

    Before abandoning neo-liberalism I'd like to see the "redistribution" part tried.

    mulp -> ThaomasH...

    Redistribution is best done by forcing people with money to pay workers.

    Few people are totally unable to be productive, but the investment cost (labor) might be higher than the income. Some people with lots of money will pay workers to invest in the disabled for a small productive return instead of paying taxes out of concern or for a sense of duty to charity, and that should be encouraged by not taxing money paid to labor.

    For all labor income, social insurance should be taken by tax so workers are paying to care for themselves and families collectively at a baseline.

    Basically, returning to the "tax and spend" of the 60s, with every faction getting to find groups of workers to pay. The conservatives likely love to pay workers to make guns and bombs and pay men to act like an army - that trained lots of idle young men with no direct, and a lot of airline pilots. For liberals, pay workers to teach and do research. For the common man, pay workers to build roads, railroads, schools, water and sewer, anything to put people to work to make sure everyone gets paid a good income.

    mrrunangun

    Making top jobs more accessible to those from less privileged backgrounds will require more affordable higher education and graduate professional education for those from less privileged backgrounds. Experience has shown that making large loans available for education does not actually make education more affordable to those from modest backgrounds.

    Progressives have discussed price controls on the health sector and indeed Medicare has gone a long way in that direction already. Price controls in the higher ed and especially professional schools should be considered if we are to make these opportunities realistically available to those of modest means.

    Free Juco has been proposed by Chicago mayor Emmanuel and Tennessee governor Haslem. That means tax increases for the rest of the citizens to replace the money tuition provides now. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposal, provided the tax increase actually replaced the tuition and was not subject to the usual 50% rake-off for the political system that most taxes in Illinois are subject to.

    Back in the 1955-75 era, well-paid jobs were plentiful enough and university education inexpensive enough that young men and women from modest backgrounds could and did supply their own money for their own educations when parents could not provide it. People could and did work their ways thru law school tending bar and waiting tables then. It wasn't easy but it was doable for ambitious bootstrappers. I doubt that could be done today. Education has become so expensive in the contemporary world that few jobs available to students can support the tuition + the personal expenses entailed in getting a university education.

    To recreate that kind of opportunity for today's young people, either jobs that can support tuition and expenses have to be made available to them or the cost of tuition and expenses need to be brought into line with what the jobs available will support. Or a little of both. Tough challenges either way.

    John San Vant -> mrrunangun...

    55-75 was about the only time in American history "well paid" Jobs were plentiful. It also created a mess with how capitalism functions.

    mulp -> John San Vant...

    How so? Profits were low. Share prices tracked the labor cost of the productive capital assets. The tax structure and demand for goods and services from government ensured production required paying workers to the degree that wages were bid up even for the unskilled worker. And you hired the unskilled and trained them because you had no choice to meet demand for your production.

    Banks were tightly regulated so they couldn't rent seeking. Thus they would lend only to people with income so lower incomes forced reduced consumption lower profits leading to widespread support for government spending building stuff businesses wanted so workers had more money to spend.

    What the "neoliberal" invention is the free lunch. Lend money to the poor so the business can sell stuff without paying workers enough to buy what they want to sell.

    Peter K.

    "The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism, combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and brought populist policies with a vengeance."

    Again the term "populist." I don't like it.

    There has been a resurgence in leftwing movements which have coalesced around figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. There has been a rise of demagogues like Trump who blame immigrants and foreigners.

    What will the center-left do? Will Hillary and May actually put in place policies that work? Will they try?

    Or will they continue to make excuses and engage in diversions?

    I liked how Obama nodded to Bernie Sanders in his speech where if you cared about inequality or money in politics you rallied to Bernie. What was left unsaid there?

    David

    He makes three (kind of vague) proposals :

    1. The middle class needs to be encouraged or facilitated to acquire capital as a means of reducing inequality.
    2. Development NGOs should focus on "hard"' infrastructure development such as roads and schools.
    3. Europe cannot, due to demographics, become "fortress Europe" and needs to implement immigrant worker policies that don't necessarily grant citizenship, just the right to work and then return home (many countries currently do this - South Korea has thousands of American and Canadian and Australian English teachers who will never be citizens of SK).


    1. I think this is interesting. First you need a minimum wage that allows people to save a portion of their income and invest it - 15 bucks an hour say.

    Then, remember those classes like home economics in high school? They need to try a finance class in which kids learn how to get an online account, and basic investment strategies like investing in index funds or mutual funds.

    I say this as someone who has a portfolio that is currently 6x my yearly salary. I got lucky b/c I got in 2010. But long term index funds will kill treasury bonds if secular stagnation has any truth to it.

    I would had another thing: strengthen social security by a lot.

    2. Infrastructure investment is vital. NGOs should be held accountable for their budgets and should in fact be well regulated.

    3. Euhhhhh, immigration. A temporary foreign worker policy would be economically useful. But if there's more terrorist attacks in France...

    [Jul 31, 2016] The rich, like their money and their businesses, are transnational, nationalities are a fungible commodity. 10 million dollars and you can live in any country you like

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ProNewerDeal , July 29, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    I recall SCOTUS Justice R Bader Ginsburg mentioned if Trump is elected, she might take her husband's advice that if Murica gets too crazy, retire to the civilized New Zealand.

    I thought rich/OECD nations' immigration departments do not want older immigrants, not in the 50s much less the 80ish R Bader Ginsburg.

    I assume R Bader Ginsburg has at least $1M in "disposable wealth" & thus is eligible for the 1%er (or is it 0.1%er) Transnational "Investor" visa? If I understand correctly, if you are rich, you can "invest" & move to many nations, including Murica. I recall a clip (IIRC on PBS Newshour) where Chinese rich were emigrating to the US by investing $800K in expensive condos a few blocks from the Barclay's Center arena in NYC, on some program that was designed "to improve affordable housing".

    I would like to better understand this 1%er Transnational "Investor" visa phenomenon, perhaps an article exists that explains it?

    Perhaps its existence is a factor in explaining how US 1% BigBiz & their owned BigPols like HClinton & P Ryan are so callous about 99% economic issues inclding slashing the already crapified US social insurance, whether 0bama Grand Ripoff style raising of Social Security age above 67 & Medicare above 65; or the P Ryan approach of worsening 0bama by ACA Exchange-esque SS & MC & giving an inadequate coupon subsidy, & if you can't pay the remainder – Go Die (c) Lambert's Neoliberalism Rule.

    These BigPols with a spare $1M (e.g. most of them) have the option of permanent residency in Toronto/Melbourne/etc, a Get of of Jail, er Get out of Murica card should they need to use it, in actually Civilized nations with actual social insurance systems.

    Jim Haygood , July 29, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    It's all posted on the internet. NZ's point-based investor visa scheme starts at NZ$1.5 million (US$1.1 million) and goes up from there:

    https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/apply-for-a-visa/tools-and-information/business-and-investment/summary-of-investor-2-category-points

    You get zero points for being o-o-o-o-o-o-o-l-l-l-l-d-d-d-d (over 60). But if you've got over $10 million in dosh, it don't seem to matter. :-)

    Kurt Sperry , July 29, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    That's pretty much every country. The rich, like their money and their businesses, are transnational, nationalities are a fungible commodity. 10MM, you can live in any country you like, 100MM and you are above such petty concerns as borders at all. Those are for the miserable plebes.

    [Jun 28, 2016] Neoliberalism, Brexit (and Bernie)

    boingboing.net
    John Quiggin ( previously ) delivers some of the most salient commentary on the Brexit vote and how it fits in with Syriza, Podemos, Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders (etc) as well as Trump, French neo-fascists, and other hypernationalist movements.

    The core of this analysis is that while neoliberalism(s) (Quiggin argues that US and non-US neoliberalism are different things) has failed the majority of the world, and while things were falling apart after the financial crisis, the left failed to offer real alternatives. The "tribalist" movements -- Trump, Leave, Golden Dawn, etc -- are anti-neoliberal, but in the absence of any analysis, have lashed out at immigrants (rather than bankers and financial elites) as the responsible parties for their suffering.

    The US political system gives us a choice between neoliberals who hate brown people, women, and gay people; and neoliberals who don't. Trump offers an anti-neoliberal choice (and so did the Leave campaign). Bernie also offered an anti-neoliberal platform (one that didn't hate brown people, women, and lgtbq people), but didn't carry the day -- meaning that the upcoming US election is going to be a choice between neoliberalism (but tolerance) and anti-neoliberalism (and bigotry). This is a dangerous situation, as the UK has discovered.

    The vote for Britain as a whole was quite close. But a closer look reveals an even bigger win for tribalism than the aggregate results suggest. The version of tribalism offered in the Leave campaign was specifically English. Unsurprisingly, it did not appeal to Scottish or Irish voters who rejected it out of hand. Looking at England alone, however, Leave won comfortably with 53 per cent of the vote and was supported almost everywhere outside London, a city more dependent than any other in the world on the global financial system.

    Given the framing of the campaign, the choice for the left was, even more than usually, to pick the lesser of very different evils. Voting for Remain involved acquiescence in austerity and an overgrown and bloated financial system, both in the UK and Europe. The Leave campaign relied more and more on coded, and then overt, appeals to racism and bigotry, symbolised by the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, stabbed to death by a neo-Nazi with ties to extreme tribalist organizations in both the UK and US. The result was a tepid endorsement of Remain, which secured the support of around 70 per cent of Labour voters, but did little to shift the sentiment of the broader public.

    The big problem for the tribalists is that, although their program has now been endorsed by the voters, it does not offer a solution to the economic decline against which most of their supporters were protesting. Indeed, while the catastrophic scenarios pushed by the Remain campaign are probably overblown, the process of renegotiating economic relationships with the rest of the world will almost certainly involve a substantial period of economic stagnation.

    The terms offered by the EU for the maintenance of anything like existing market access will almost certainly include maintenance of the status quo on immigration. In the absence of a humiliating capitulation by the new pro-Brexit government, that will mean that Britain (or England) will face a long and painful process of adjustment.

    Reaping the Whirlwind [John Quiggin/Crooked Timber]

    [Jun 28, 2016] Brexit wins. An illusion dies

    medium.com

    Mosquito Ridge - Medium

    Britain has voted to leave the EU. The reason? A large section of the working class, concentrated in towns and cities that have been quietly devastated by free-market economics, decided they'd had enough.

    Enough bleakness, enough ruined high streets, enough minimum wage jobs, and enough lies and fearmongering from the political class.

    The issue that catalysed the vote for Brexit was the massive, unplanned migration from Europe that began after the accession of the A8 countries and then surged again after 2008 once the Eurozone stagnated while Britain enjoyed a limp recovery.

    It is no surprise to anybody who's lived their life at the street end of politics and journalism that a minority of the white working class are racists and xenophobes. But anyone who thinks half the British population fits that description is dead wrong.

    Tens of thousands of black and Asian people will have voted for Brexit, and similar numbers of politically educated, left-leaning workers too. Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield and Coventry - multi-ethnic university cities - they too went for Leave.

    Neither the political centre or the pro-remain left was able to explain how to offset the negative economic impact of low-skilled migration in conditions of (a) guaranteed free movement (b) permanent stagnation in Europe and (c) austerity in Britain.

    Told by the government they could never control migration while inside the EU, just over 50% of the population decided controlling migration was more important than EU membership.

    So the problem for Labour is not, yet, large numbers of its own voters "deserting the party". They may still do so if Labour plays this wrong - but even as late as the May council elections Labour's core vote held up.

    Instead Labour's heartland voters simply decided to change the party's policy on migration from below, and forever, by leaving the EU.

    The party's front bench tried, late and in a muddled way, to come up with micro-economic solutions - more funds for areas where the NHS and schools come under strain; a new directive to prevent employers shipping entire workforces from East Europe on poor terms and conditions. And a promise to renegotiate the free movement pillar of the Lisbon Treaty in the future.

    Because it was made late, and half-heartedly, this offer was barely heard. And clearly to some it did not seem plausible - given the insistence of the Labour centre and the liberal bourgeoisie that migration is unmitigatedly good and "there's nothing you can do about it". And also given the insistence of Jean Claude Juncker that there could be no renegotiation at all.

    Ultimately, as I've written before, there is a strong case for "Lexit" on grounds of democracy and economic justice. But this won't be Lexit. Unless Labour can win an early election it will be a fast-track process of Thatcherisation and the breakup of the UK.

    Unlike me, however, many people who believe in Lexit were prepared to vote alongside right wing Tories to get to first base.

    The task for the left in Britain now is to adapt to the new reality, and fast. The Labour right is already trying to pin the blame on Corbyn; UKIP will make a play for Labour's voters. Most likely there'll be a second independence referendum in Scotland.

    Corbyn was right to try and fight on "remain and reform" but his proposed reforms were never radical enough. He was also right to devote energy to other issues - making the point that in or out of the EU, social justice and public services are under threat. But the right and centre of Labour then confused voters by parading along with the Tory centrists who Corbyn had promised never to stand on a platform with.

    The Blairite Progress group is deluded if it thinks it can use this moment to launch a coup against Corbyn. The neoliberal wing of the Labour Party needs to realise - it may take them a few days - that their time is over.

    Ultimately it looks like Labour still managed to get 2/3 of its voters to voter Remain [I'll check this but that's what YouGov said earlier]. So the major failure is Cameron's. It looks like the Tory vote broke 60/40 to Brexit.

    It's possible Cameron will resign quickly. But that's not the issue. The issue is the election and what to fight for.

    Labour has to start, right now, a big political reorientation. Here is my 10 point suggestion for how we on the left of Labour go forward.

    1. Accept the result. Labour will lead Britain out of EU if it wins the election.

    2. Demand an election within 6–9 months: Cameron has no mandate to negotiate Brexit. The parties must be allowed to put their respective Brexit plans to the electorate and thereafter run the negotiations. In that Labour should:

    3. Fight for Britain to stay in the EEA and apply an "emergency brake" to migration under the rules of the EEA. That should be a Labour goverment's negotiating position.

    4. Labour should fight to keep all the EU's progressive laws (employment, environment, consumer protection etc) but scrap restrictions on state aid, trade union action and nationalisation. If the EU won't allow that, then the fallback is a complete break and a bilateral trade deal.

    5. Adopt a new, progressive long-term migration policy: design a points based system designed to respond annually to demand from employers and predicted GDP growth; make parliament responsible for setting the immigration target annually on the basis of an independent expert report; the needs of the economy - plus the absolute duty to accept refugees fleeing war and torture - is what should set the target, not some arbitrary ceiling. And devote massively more resources than before to meeting the stresses migration places on local services.

    6. Continue to demand Britain honours its duty to refugees to the tune of tens of thousands. Reassure existing migrant communities in Britain that they are safe, welcome and cannot be expelled as a result of Brexit. Offer all those who've come here from Europe under free movement rules the inalienable right to stay.

    7. Relentlessly prioritise and attack the combined problems of low wages, in-work poverty and dead-beat towns.

    8. Offer Scotland a radical Home Rule package, and create a federalised Labour Party structure. If, in a second referendum, Scotland votes to leave the UK, Labour should offer a no-penalty exit process that facilitates Scotland rejoining the EU if its people wish. In the meantime Labour should seek a formal coalition with the SNP to block a right wing Tory/UKIP government emerging from the next election.

    9. Offer the Republic of Ireland an immediate enhanced bilateral deal to keep the border open for movement and trade.

    10. The strategic problem for Labour remains as before. Across Britain there have crystallised two clear kinds of radicalism: that of the urban salariat and that of the low-paid manual working class. In Scotland those groups are aligned around left cultural nationalism. In England and Wales, Labour can only win an election if it can attract both groups: it cannot and should not retreat to becoming a party of the public sector workforce, the graduate and the university town. The only way Labour can unite these culturally different groups (and geographic areas) - so clearly dramatised by the local-level results - is economic radicalism. Redistribution, well-funded public services, a revived private sector and vibrant local democracy is a common interest across both groups.

    11. If Labour in England and Wales cannot quickly rekindle its ties to the low-paid manual working class - cultural and visceral, not just political - the situation is ripe for that group to swing to the right. This can easily be prevented but it means a clean break with Blairism and an end to the paralysis inside the shadow cabinet.

    From my social media feed it's clear a lot of young radical left people and anti-racists are despondent. It seems they equated the EU with internationalism; they knew about and sympathised with the totally disempowered poor communities but maybe assumed it was someone else's job to connect with them.

    I am glad I voted to Remain, even though I had to grit my teeth. But I underestimated the sheer frustration: I'd heard it clearly in the Welsh valleys, but not spotted it clearly enough in places like Barking, Kettering, Newport.

    I am not despondent though. The Brexit result makes a radical left government in Britain harder to get - because it's likely Scotland will leave, and the UK will disingegrate, and the Blairites will go off and found some kind of tribute band to neoliberalism with the Libdems.

    But if you trace this event to its root cause, it is clear: neoliberalism is broken.

    There's no consent for the stagnation and austerity it has inflicted on people; there's nothing but hostility to the political class and its fearmongering - whether that be Juncker, Cameron or the Blairites. As with Scotland, given the chance to disrupt the institutions of neoliberal rule, people will do so and ignore the warnings of experts and the political class.

    I predicted in Postcapitalism that the crackup of neoliberalism would take geo-strategic form first, economic second. This is the first big crack.

    It is, geopolitically, a victory for Putin and will weaken the West. For the centre in Europe it poses the question point blank: will you scrap Lisbon, scrap austerity and boost economic growth or let the whole project collapse amid stagnation? I predict they will not, and that the entire project will then collapse.

    All we can do, as the left, is go on fighting for the interests of the poor, the workforce, the youth, refugees and migrants. We have to find better institutions and better language to do it with. As in 1932, Britain has become the first country to break with the institutional form of the global order.

    If we do have a rerun of the 1930s now in Europe, we need a better left. The generation that tolerated Blairism and revelled in meaningless centrist technocracy needs to wake up. That era is over.

    [Jun 28, 2016] Brexit as Working Class Rebellion against Neoliberalism and Free Trade

    Notable quotes:
    "... Class, nationalist, and ethnic elements are all involved in the Brexit vote in a complex integration of protest. ..."
    "... Press and media emphasize the nationalist and ethnic (immigrant-anti-immigrant) themes but generally avoid discussing or analyzing the event from a class perspective. But that perspective is fundamental. What Brexit represents is a proxy vote against the economic effects of Free Trade, the customs union called the European Union. Free trade deals always benefit corporations and investors. ..."
    "... Free trade is not just about goods and services flows between member countries; it is even more about money and capital flows and what is called direct investment. UK corporations benefit from the opportunity to move capital and invest in cheap labor elsewhere in Europe, mostly the newly added members to the EU since 2000, in eastern europe. Free trade also means the unrestricted flow of labor. Once these east european countries were added to the EU treaty, massive inflows of labor to the UK resulted. Just from Poland, more than a million migrated to the UK alone. ..."
    jackrasmus.com

    By Jack Rasmus Global Research, June 26, 2016 Jack Rasmus 25 June 2016 Region: Europe Theme: Global Economy

    brexit 2

    Class, nationalist, and ethnic elements are all involved in the Brexit vote in a complex integration of protest.

    Press and media emphasize the nationalist and ethnic (immigrant-anti-immigrant) themes but generally avoid discussing or analyzing the event from a class perspective. But that perspective is fundamental. What Brexit represents is a proxy vote against the economic effects of Free Trade, the customs union called the European Union. Free trade deals always benefit corporations and investors.

    Free trade is not just about goods and services flows between member countries; it is even more about money and capital flows and what is called direct investment. UK corporations benefit from the opportunity to move capital and invest in cheap labor elsewhere in Europe, mostly the newly added members to the EU since 2000, in eastern europe. Free trade also means the unrestricted flow of labor. Once these east european countries were added to the EU treaty, massive inflows of labor to the UK resulted. Just from Poland, more than a million migrated to the UK alone.

    In the pre-2008, when economic conditions were strong and economic growth and job creation the rule, the immigration's effect on jobs and wages of native UK workers was not a major concern. But with the crash of 2008, and, more importantly, the UK austerity measures that followed, cutting benefits and reducing jobs and wages, the immigration effect created the perception (and some reality) that immigrants were responsible for the reduced jobs, stagnant wages, and declining social services. Immigrant labor, of course, is supported by business since it means availability of lower wages. But working class UK see it as directly impacting wages, jobs, and social service benefits. THis is partly true, and partly not.

    So Brexit becomes a proxy vote for all the discontent with the UK austerity, benefit cuts, poor quality job creation and wage stagnation. But that economic condition and discontent is not just a consequence of the austerity policies of the elites. It is also a consequence of the Free Trade effects that permit the accelerated immigration that contributes to the economic effects, and the Free Trade that shifts UK investment and better paying manufacturing jobs elsewhere in the EU.

    So Free Trade is behind the immigration and job and wage deterioration which is behind the Brexit proxy vote. The anti-immigration sentiment and the anti-Free Trade sentiment are two sides of the same coin. That is true in the USA with the Trump candidacy, as well as in the UK with the Brexit vote. Trump is vehemently anti-immigrant and simultaneously says he's against the US free trade deals. This is a powerful political message that Hillary ignores at her peril. She cannot tip-toe around this issue, but she will, required by her big corporation campaign contributors.

    Another 'lesson' of the UK Brexit vote is that the discontent seething within the populations of Europe, US and Japan today is not accurately registered by traditional polls. This is true in the US today as it was in the UK yesterday.

    The Brexit vote cannot be understood without understanding its origins in three elements: the combined effects of Free Trade (the EU), the economic crash of 2008-09, which Europe has not really recovered from having fallen into a double dip recession 2011-13 and a nearly stagnant recovery after, and the austerity measures imposed by UK elites (and in Europe) since 2013.

    These developments have combined to create the economic discontent for which Brexit is the proxy. Free Trade plus Austerity plus economic recovery only for investors, bankers, and big corporations is the formula for Brexit.

    Where the Brexit vote was strongest was clearly in the midlands and central England-Wales section of the country, its working class and industrial base. Where the vote preferred staying in the EU, was the non-working class areas of London and south England, as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland is dependent on oil exports to the EU and thus tightly linked to the trade. Northern Ireland's economy is tied largely to Scotland and to the other EU economy, Ireland. So their vote was not surprising. Also the immigration effects were far less in these regions than in the English industrial heartland.

    Some would argue that the UK has recovered better than most economies since 2013. But a closer look at the elements of that recovery shows it has been centered largely in southern England and in the London metro area. It has been based on a construction-housing boom and the inflow of money capital from abroad, including from China investment in UK infrastructure in London and elsewhere. The UK also struck a major deal with China to have London as the financial center for trading the Yuan currency globally. Money capital and investment concentrated on housing-construction produced a property asset boom, which was weakening before the Brexit. It will now collapse, I predict, by at least 20% or more. The UK's tentative recovery is thus now over, and was slipping even before the vote.

    Also frequently reported is that wages had been rising in the UK. This is an 'average' indicator, which is true. But the average has been pulled up by the rising salaries and wages of the middle class professionals and other elements of the work force in the London-South who had benefited by the property-construction boom of recent years. Working class areas just east of London voted strongly for Brexit.

    Another theme worth a comment is the Labor Party's leadership vote for remaining in the EU. What this represents is the further decline of traditional social democratic parties throughout Europe. These parties in recent decades have increasingly aligned themselves with the Neoliberal corporate offensive. That's true whether the SPD in Germany, the Socialist parties in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, or elsewhere. As these parties have abdicated their traditional support for working class interests, it has opened opportunities for other parties–both right and left–to speak to those interests. Thus we find right wing parties growing in Austria, France (which will likely win next year's national election in France), Italy, Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Hungary and Poland's right turn should also be viewed from this perspective. So should Podemos in Spain, Five Star movement in Italy, and the pre-August 2015 Syriza in Greece.

    Farther left more marxist-oriented socialist parties are meanwhile in disarray. In general they fail to understand the working class rebellion against free trade element at the core of the recent Brexit vote. They are led by the capitalist media to view the vote as an anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nationalist, right wing dominated development. So they in a number of instances recommended staying in the EU. The justification was to protect the better EU mandated social regulations. Or they argue, incredulously, that remaining in the free trade regime of the EU would centralize the influence of capitalist elements but that would eventually mean a stronger working class movement as a consequence as well. It amounts to an argument to support free trade and neoliberalism in the short run because it theoretically might lead to a stronger working class challenge to neoliberalism in the longer run. That is intellectual and illogical nonsense, of course. Wherever the resistance to free trade exists it should be supported, since Free Trade is a core element of Neoliberalism and its policies that have been devastating working class interests for decades now. One cannot be 'for' Free Trade (i.e. remain in the EU) and not be for Neoliberalism at the same time–which means against working class interests.

    The bottom line is that right wing forces in both the EU and the US have locked onto the connection between free trade discontent, immigration, and the austerity and lack of economic recovery for all since 2009. They have developed an ideological formulation that argues immigration is the cause of the economic conditions. Mainstream capitalist parties, like the Republicans and Democrats in the US are unable to confront this formulation which has great appeal to working class elements. They cannot confront it without abandoning their capitalist campaign contributors or a center-piece (free trade) of their neoliberal policies. Social-Democratic parties, aligning with their erstwhile traditional capitalist party opponents, offer no alternative. And too many farther left traditional Marxist parties support Free Trade by hiding behind the absurd notion that a stronger, more centralized capitalist system will eventually lead to a stronger, more centralized working class opposition.

    Whatever political party formations come out of the growing rebellion against free trade, endless austerity policies, and declining economic conditions for working class elements, they will have to reformulate the connections between immigration, free trade, and those conditions.

    Free Trade benefits corporations, investors and bankers on both sides of the 'trade' exchange. The benefits of free trade accrue to them. For working classes, free trade means a 'leveling' of wages, jobs and benefits. It thus means workers from lower paid regions experience a rise in wages and benefits, but those in the formerly higher paid regions experience a decline. That's what's been happening in the UK, as well as the US and north America.

    Free Trade is the 'holy grail' of mainstream economics. It assumes that free trade raises all boats. Both countries benefit. But what that economic ideology does not go on to explain is that how does that benefit get distributed within each of the countries involved in the free trade? Who benefits in terms of class incomes and interests? As the history of the EU and UK since 1992 shows, bankers and big corporate exporters benefit. Workers from the poor areas get to migrate to the wealthier (US and UK) and thus benefit. But the indigent workers in the former wealthier areas suffer a decline, a leveling. These effects have been exacerbated by the elite policies of austerity and the free money for bankers and investors central bank policies since 2009.

    So workers see their wages stagnant or decline, their social benefits cut, their jobs or higher paid jobs leave, while they see immigrants entering and increasing competition for jobs. They hear (and often believe) that the immigrants are responsible for the reduction of benefits and social services that are in fact caused by the associated austerity policies. They see investors, bankers, professionals and a few fortunate 10% of their work force doing well, with incomes accelerating, while their incomes decline. In the UK, the focus and solution is seen as exiting the EU free trade zone. In the US, however, it's not possible for a given 'state' to leave the USA, as it is for a 'state' like the UK to leave the EU. And there are no national referenda possible constitutionally in the US.

    The solution in the US is not to build a wall to keep immigrants out, but to tear down the Free Trade wall that has been erected by US neoliberal policies in order to keep US jobs in. Trump_vs_deep_state has come up with a reactionary solution to the free trade-immigration-economic nexus that has significant political appeal. He proposes stopping labor flows, but proposes nothing concrete about stopping the cross-country flows of money, capital and investment that are at the heart of free trade.

    The original source of this article is Jack Rasmus Copyright © Jack Rasmus , Jack Rasmus , 2016

    [Jun 28, 2016] The epitome of neoliberalism, in my view, goes under the euphemism of "labour market flexibility."

    crookedtimber.org

    Crooked Timber

    Sandwichman 06.26.16 at 11:44 pm

    "…the term 'neoliberal' is used, outside the US, to refer to the revival of 19th century free market ideas…"

    I would disagree with this characterization, although I'm not sure if you are making it or simply reporting it, John. The epitome of neoliberalism, in my view, goes under the euphemism of "labour market flexibility." Superficially this comes down to the same kind of policy prescription as 19th century laissez faire but with an entirely different - and pseudo-Keynesian ("New Keynesian") - theoretical rationale. Not the Chicago School and Mont Pelerin Society but Joseph Stiglitz, Richard Layard, Olivier Blanchard, Lawrence Summers, Paul Krugman et al.

    M… I… T… ("tee you off soon") k…e…y… nes ("why? because we LOVE you!") L… owe… you… S… E.

    Yes, Friedman and Hayek, Thatcher and Reagan may have started the ball rolling but it was the New Keynesians with their stinking "sticky wages" claptrap who gave it progressive street cred. I could go on but why bother?

    [Jun 27, 2016] Brexit Pulling the Signal Out of the Noise

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    One of the most best stories so far, both from the perspective of the granularity of the reporting and the caliber of the writing, is the Guardian's 'If you've got money, you vote in … if you haven't got money, you vote out' (hat tip PlutoniumKun). It gives a vivid, painful picture of the England that has been left behind with the march of Thatcherism and neoliberalism. From the article :

    And now here we are, with that terrifying decision to leave. Most things in the political foreground are finished, aren't they? Cameron and Osborne. The Labour party as we know it, now revealed once again as a walking ghost, whose writ no longer reaches its supposed heartlands. Scotland – which at the time of writing had voted to stay in the EU by 62% to 38% – is already independent in most essential political and cultural terms, and will presumably soon be decisively on its way…

    Because, of course, this is about so much more than the European Union. It is about class, and inequality, and a politics now so professionalised that it has left most people staring at the rituals of Westminster with a mixture of anger and bafflement. Tangled up in the moment are howling political failures that only compounded that problem: Iraq, the MPs' expenses scandal, the way that Cameron's flip from big society niceness to hard-faced austerity compounded all the cliches about people you cannot trust, answerable only to themselves (something that applied equally to the first victims of our new politics, the Liberal Democrats).

    Most of all, Brexit is the consequence of the economic bargain struck in the early 1980s, whereby we waved goodbye to the security and certainties of the postwar settlement, and were given instead an economic model that has just about served the most populous parts of the country, while leaving too much of the rest to anxiously decline. Look at the map of those results, and that huge island of "in" voting in London and the south-east; or those jaw-dropping vote-shares for remain in the centre of the capital: 69% in Tory Kensington and Chelsea; 75% in Camden; 78% in Hackney, contrasted with comparable shares for leave in such places as Great Yarmouth (71%), Castle Point in Essex (73%), and Redcar and Cleveland (66%). Here is a country so imbalanced it has effectively fallen over….

    What defines these furies is often clear enough: a terrible shortage of homes, an impossibly precarious job market, a too-often overlooked sense that men (and men are particularly relevant here) who would once have been certain in their identity as miners, or steelworkers, now feel demeaned and ignored. The attempts of mainstream politics to still the anger have probably only made it worse: oily tributes to "hardworking families", or the the fingers-down-a-blackboard trope of "social mobility", with its suggestion that the only thing Westminster can offer working-class people is a specious chance of not being working class anymore.

    This much-watch segment with Mark Blyth (hat tip Gabriel U) also focuses on the class warfare as a driver of the Brexit vote and how that plays into the broader EU political and economic context:

    Our Richard Smith echoed these themes from his own observations:

    In (for instance) North Lincolnshire, manufacturing is most likely to be the biggest EU export. That might get nuked a bit if the terms of trade with EU countries get stiffer.

    http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/brexiting-yourself-foot-why-britains-eurosceptic-regions-have-most-lose-eu-withdrawal

    So it does sound like a crazy vote.

    But the locals upcountry clearly feel they have been ignored, and now have nothing to lose. M and I bumbled through Wisbech and Boston a few years ago, expecting cute East Anglian port towns, and found instead murderously tense run-down ghettoes. You get this kind of story:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boston-how-a-lincolnshire-town-became-the-most-divided-place-in-england-a6838041.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/16/fear-anger-wisbech-cambridgeshire-insecurity-immigration

    These are extreme examples but there's clearly enough of the same thing going on elsewhere to swing the vote. These areas are sitting ducks for UKIP.

    At a more apocryphal level, stories of clueless Leavers suddenly saying they didn't mean it and asking to change their votes are doing the rounds.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leave-voters-changed-minds-voting-8275841

    Unless, improbably, around 700,000 such stories turn up, which would imply they swung the vote, this is another portrayal of the "Leave" voters as idiots.

    And the message is beginning to get through to the chattering classes. From Edward Luce in the Financial Times :

    Brexit's lesson for the US - and other democracies - is that fear mongering is not enough. Western elites must build a positive case for reforming a system that is no longer perceived to be fair. The British may well repent at leisure for a vote they took in haste. Others can learn from its blunder.

    But even this is weak tea. Luce isn't advocating a Sanders-style economic regime change. Indeed, his call for action is making a case for reform, implying that the more realistic members of the elites need to take on the reactionary forces. As we've said, the Clintons are modern day Bourbons: they've learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Luce's warning to Hillary Clinton, firmly ensconced in her bubble of self-regard, deeply loyal to powerful, monied interests and technocrats, is destined to fall on deaf ears.

    [Jun 02, 2016] Hoisted From Comments: Neoliberalism Tearing Societies Apart

    Notable quotes:
    "... we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe. ..."
    "... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
    "... Selected Skeptical Comments ..."
    "... All problems caused by the same cause … American predatory behavior. And our great political choice … iron fist without velvet glove. ..."
    "... Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind (if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe :) They all have more or less fascist governments. ..."
    "... Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as a government running on behalf of the corporations). ..."
    "... That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around. None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can be called fascist in any meaningful sense. ..."
    "... Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly anti-corporatist. ..."
    "... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
    "... Sheldon Wolin introduced us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means. ..."
    "... Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused. Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same. ..."
    "... "…the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
    "... an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile. ..."
    "... that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators' any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes ..."
    "... Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from) the workers get the husk. ..."
    "... Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am God, there doesn't need to be any other" ..."
    "... Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville? For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful Life enough times. ..."
    "... seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators ..."
    "... And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything. ..."
    "... accountable ..."
    "... And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on June 2, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. The first comment came in on a post that had gone cold, and I thought it was so revealing that it needed to be seen widely. The second is a synchronistic complement.

    As much as I carry on about the isolation of the Acela-riding classes from the acute distress in much of the US, I only have a very distant feel for it. For instance, I grew up moving through many small towns where a paper mill was a major, and in some cases, the biggest local employer. Those mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One of my brothers works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement, but it's been wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now in bankruptcy. The town in which he lives, Escanaba, Michigan, has lost over 20% of its population since the mid 1980s. Similarly, my uncle lived below the poverty line in Maine, lobstering until his knees gave out. But he had a fully paid for house he had inherited, and access to VA hospitals and doctors, so it could have been a lot worse. But Maine is a poor state, so even visiting there as a tourist in the summers, it's not hard to see the signs of struggle even in those who are getting by.

    The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.

    seanseamour, June 1, 2016 at 3:26 am

    We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises), to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.

    Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.

    What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent "un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America" barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.

    Praedor, June 1, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR) was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.

    In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging. There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent real people in favor of useless eater rich.

    Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity, and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    Disturbed Voter , June 2, 2016 at 6:49 am

    First they came for the blue collar workers …

    America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America …

    Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants, and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this, based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause … American predatory behavior. And our great political choice … iron fist without velvet glove.

    Jeff , June 2, 2016 at 7:58 am

    Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind (if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe :) They all have more or less fascist governments.

    Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as a government running on behalf of the corporations).

    Seb , June 2, 2016 at 8:07 am

    That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around. None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can be called fascist in any meaningful sense.

    Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly anti-corporatist.

    jsn , June 2, 2016 at 8:35 am

    From today's links, Poland for instance:
    http://www.euronews.com/2016/06/01/eu-warns-poland-on-rule-of-law/

    It's easy to overstate the case for fascism, until its too late…

    tgs , June 2, 2016 at 9:46 am

    True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone to moderation.

    Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.

    Jeff , June 2, 2016 at 10:05 am

    When I was young, there were 4 divisions:

    If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a totalitarian state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like the government or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private hands).

    If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism. I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production (mafia perhaps).

    Sheldon Wolin introduced us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means.

    When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I cite Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and the tear-down of social justice that worries me.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused. Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.

    jan , June 2, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Hi
    I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic policies of neoliberalism.

    myshkin , June 2, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.

    National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
    Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
    Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
    Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
    Ustaše Croatia
    National Socialist Movement of Denmark
    La Cagoule France
    National Democratic Party of Germany
    Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
    Fiamma Tricolore Italy
    Forza Nuova Italy
    Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
    Movimento Fascismo e Libertà Italy
    Pērkonkrusts Latvia
    Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
    National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
    National Revival of Poland (NOP)
    Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
    Noua Dreaptă Romania
    Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
    Barkashov's Guards Russia
    National Socialist Society Russia
    Nacionalni stroj Serbia
    Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
    Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
    España 2000 Spain
    Falange Española Spain
    Nordic Realm Party Sweden
    National Alliance Sweden
    Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
    National Youth Sweden
    Legion Wasa Sweden
    SPAS Ukraine
    Blood and Honour UK
    British National Front UK
    Combat 18 UK
    League of St. George UK
    National Socialist Movement UK
    Nationalist Alliance UK
    November 9th Society UK
    Racial Volunteer Force UK

    Kokuanani , June 2, 2016 at 7:10 am

    There's an excellent book, "Methland," about the scourge of meth across middle America. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6215979-methland

    As one of the commenters noted, it's not an "expose" or sensational "Breaking Bad," but rather a discouraging portrait of the conditions that prompt and sustain meth use. Apparently it's being made into a movie. I believe Clint Eastwood is involved, so that should give it some traction.

    Roger Smith , June 2, 2016 at 7:13 am

    "…the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism"

    This phrase is pure gold.

    allan , June 2, 2016 at 7:44 am

    The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck.

    sleepy , June 2, 2016 at 7:56 am

    I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.

    Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.

    Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination, but blue collar folks of all ages.

    weinerdog43 , June 2, 2016 at 8:25 am

    My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months. Kmart is long gone.

    I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere. But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.

    2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. (Yes, that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread out over 200 years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past, they were promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has to do the dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)

    Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.

    ChiGal , June 2, 2016 at 9:14 am

    Depends where you are in Chicago – in some parts the potholes, boarded up structures, homeless and addicted folks begging on every corner tell the same story. It is a tale of two cities.

    equote , June 2, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline. . . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.

    Robert O. Paxton, In The Five Stages of Faschism

    "… that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators' any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)

    Sinclair Lewis It Can't Happen Here page 141

    rfam , June 2, 2016 at 11:59 am

    From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.

    1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.

    2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after "Nixon Shock"

    https://www.google.com/search?q=gini+coefficient+usa+chart&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1371&bih=793&tbm=isch&imgil=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%253A%253B-Lt3-YscSzdOaM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.the-crises.com%25252Fincome-inequality-in-the-us-1%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%253A%252C-Lt3-YscSzdOaM%252C_&usg=__bipTqXhWx0tXxke6Xcj5MUAcn-o%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjY18rm2onNAhUPeFIKHREjAS4QyjcILw&ei=nFdQV9iZCo_wyQKRxoTwAg#imgrc=tRkxcVEo17ID8M%3A

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable (?).

    Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long, long time.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from) the workers get the husk.

    Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am God, there doesn't need to be any other"

    Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find a quick primer.

    Anonymous Coward , June 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville? For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful Life enough times.

    Steve Sewall , June 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.

    seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*

    And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.

    But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom" story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)

    To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself, let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of communities large and small.

    For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered, citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of which every one of us is a member.

    Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic, issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders, commercial, public, personal and even government sources.

    So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves so we can reverse America's rapid decline.

    OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.

    seanseymour, thanks for your insights and thanks, Yves, for putting them where we can see them.

    * For any Yalies out there, I documented these roles in this 30-page historical memorial to my dad.

    [May 31, 2016] Youre witnessing the death of neoliberalism – from within

    Notable quotes:
    "... This neoliberal ideology died already in 2008 and is kept alive artificially, it's Frankenstein ideology. ..."
    "... Certainly something very wrong with a system that sees a larger and larger share of our national wealth going to fewer and fewer people. ..."
    "... We're not quite there yet, but with the dawn of the information age, and the flow of information about how so called perfect "free"!markets are so recklessly constructed, controlled - not to mention generally to the benefit of those already with more than enough - it can't be long before we move on from this ridiculous charade to something altogether more intelligent. ..."
    "... the word "mature" was hiding complete irresponsibility of driven sociopaths. The usual confidence trick...: " don't you trust me, me the caring man !" ..."
    "... So do you think neoliberalism could adapt away from just focusing on growth, in its almost certain attempts at clinging to power? ..."
    "... Neo-liberalism is just another failed attempt but has perhaps been the most successful so far out of the different ideologies. ..."
    "... the lack of factual evidence demonstrating the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure. ..."
    "... The economists at the IMF - like most of their colleagues elsewhere in this dismal profession - have an unsullied track record of getting everything wrong. Why would they be right about this? ..."
    "... Neo-liberalism is bankrupt and austerity is the economic equivalent of a severely self-destructive bipolar personality disorder ..."
    "... Even when the British Empire was at its high point, there were still slums and poverty. Now the world population has gone up hugely India and China are huge consumers and so is the rest of the world. People are living much longer and have to be cared for. At the same time the food sources in the seas and land are being used up and their eco systems destroyed. Not to mention climate change and many other things that would take pages to write about. Yet we expect our standards of living to improve or at least be maintained. The outlook is not favorable, under any system of government. ..."
    "... I don't think the obsessions of endless growth and financialism are going to disappear within this century, but they're almost certainly going to have to downsize ambitions and take a more sustainable place alongside the state and ever increasing non-market-non-state sectors. Either that or party up with the proponents of soft totalitarianism. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is just Laissez-faire capitalism renamed. In-between the two we had welfare capitalism, or social democracy as some call it, that arose as a response to the crippling societal problems caused by neoliberalism - mass poverty, disease, economic collapse and war. As soon as some welfare reforms were put in place, using public money to provide stability for people, they were under attack by capitalists who have a pathological need to glean personal profits from anything and everything. So we came full circle, back round to Laissez-faire capitalism. ..."
    "... The history of capitalism is one of rapacious greed, intermittently tempered with redistribution policies when the either the elites cannot profit further without some form of redistribution taking place or they fear the pitchforks at the door. Capitalism cannot be fixed, it cannot be tempered, it will always end up back like this, as capitalism is the crisis. History shows us that accepting reform of the system only ever provides a fleeting fix, we need a new economic model entirely, capitalism has to end. It's not just a human issue, but for the sake of all life on Earth, we need an entirely different economic model. ..."
    "... The failure of an ideology premised on something that doesn't even exist (free-markets) should be of no surprise. Market ideology was built around a crackpot idea of capital flows, concomitant with rational individual 'self interest', behaving like a self-regulating eco-system. Just remove as much government, regulatory framework and hierarchy as possible, and let eco-Gaia set the natural balance. ..."
    "... The people promulgating this quixotic nonsense ranged from fugitives from totalitarian regimes like Hayek (whose motives for imagining a utopian fantasy land were at least understandable); to right-wing politicians who at root believed in anything but individual freedom. Thus, state spending increased under Reagan (except on the wealthier section of society), and the global free-market became a centrally-planned oligarchy. Furthermore, so much capital has become securitized that 'trickle-down' can no longer be taken seriously as a concept. ..."
    "... "Mass privatization not only does not deliver on its own terms, but is fundamentally anti-democratic." ..."
    "... While even Guardian columnists (the Guardian being a leading Neoliberal voice) talk prematurely about the downfall of Neoliberal ideology the fact is that the EU is so thick with Neoliberals hand picked by Merkel, and Germany/Merkel's unchallenged hegemonic power over the EU it could take decades to change the people at the top and decades more to change the bureaucracy of the EU. ..."
    "... The world has a very serious problem on its hands. Vast wealth has been accumulated by the oligarchs they have taken this wealth in the same way the Porsche family has taken billions from VW - every penny of which they get to keep in spite of it having been earned from fraud and racketeering. Huge amounts of oligarch wealth has been extracted by such illegal means. ..."
    "... Leave those fortunes in place and the same thing will happen that happened after the "reforms" of the New Deal - the oligarchs pay higher taxes for a brief time until they bribe and blackmail themselves back into control and it all starts again. ..."
    "... In the 70s, though, there was much more pluralism in economics. Although neoliberalism was hardly mainstream, it did have respected proponents and prestigious econ. departments were teaching it. Today that is not the case- 'economics' is taught as if the word referred to the neoclassical synthesis (from which neoliberalism is derived) alone, with all other traditions relegated to crank or historical curiosity status. There are very few respected universities where you can get an econ PhD and not produce work within the neoclassical framework (Utah being an honorable exception, as well as SOAS and City in the UK). ..."
    "... The old orthodoxy wasn't Keynesian by 1970. Keynesian economics had been progressively abandoned after about 1960. If you look at the Lewis Powell Memo of 1971 you can see the fundamentals of Neoliberalism were all in place and the takeover was beginning. ..."
    "... Only those who benefit from neoliberal dogma support it. It tends to screw everybody else over. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism seems to involve sacrificing anything and everything society has to give on the altar of "growth", which is what keeps derivatives markets profitable for the 0.0001%. ..."
    "... What a dreadful mess my generation has made of the world, the irony being that we are beginning to value more highly the intangible values we have lost than the gadgets we have created. It's beginning to appear that revolution is the only cure. ..."
    "... As I recall the 60's was the real start of "consumerism" with the ending of postwar austerity and the popularity of Hire Purchase, expansion of home and car ownership, people renting TV's buying washing machines, fridges and starting to take foreign holidays. ..."
    "... The world changed in 2008 just as in 1929 and 1973: an economic orthodoxy ran out of steam. We have yet to decide on an alternative, hence the interregnum, but the first thing to change is, as ever, discourse, because, like J.M.Keynes before them, the IMF, World Bank et al see their mission as saving Capitalism. Neoliberalism can be sacrificed as yet another false God, a discredited version of Capitalism, a virulent strain, a form of fundamentalism. ..."
    "... Unfortunately the real world does not conform to this free market libertarian fantasy. When China refused to buy its exports, Britain sent in its gunboats to force them to buy ..."
    "... If someone admits that they murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they cease to be a killer or that they can be forgiven and can now be trusted, the likelyhood is that they are simply sociopathic in nature. It was just a moment of reflection, or is it that they are trying to regain trust, if anything one should be on a higher level of alertness, the distraction has been made, now we must wait for their next move. ..."
    "... Great, thought provoking article. It raises the notion that neoliberalism has failed because it has only benefited an elite few whilst everyone else is worse off. Maybe that isn't a failure though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do? ..."
    "... Of course it was meant to do just that. Neo-liberalism is class warfare..... the rich and privileged won so decisively that I doubt we can emerge from neo-liberalism without violence or at least a period with populist autocratic governance. ..."
    "... Thatcher, Reagan - both arch-disciples of Hayek and others of the Austrian & Chicago schools of economic shite, and both massively responsible for it being liberally spread across the world. Would have been nice to see a recognition of their roles in this, along with the second wave of Clinton & Blair, with their "third way" economic take on the same models. ..."
    "... And now we have Hilary as a contender for the presidency, as orthodox a neolib bag carrier as they come, and someone who will continue to carry the torch for Bills policies. Failing that, we have the absolute lunacy of Trump to look forwards to, and as a man who so obviously worships at the alter of Mammon, no game changers from him to be expected either. ..."
    "... Neoliberal ideology has been an instrument for justifying the growing wealth and power of financiers and global corporations for about 40 years. They are highly unlikely to want to let go their gains, so reports of the impending 'death' of neoliberalism are a bit premature. The fact that this comes from the IMF makes me wonder if it isn't another ploy to divert attention from the ongoing process of wealth consolidation by making us think that a big change in policy is just around the corner. Ostry is an excellent scholar who has written some good papers warning about inequality and I have no doubt that he wants to influence decision-making. But it may be that he is being used as a 'useful idiot' by the powers that be. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has turned out to be similar in many ways to a better connected and more efficient form of feudalism. Great for those with power, greed and wealth and very much at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps newspapers and mass media have replaced swords, so it is an improvement in some ways. ..."
    "... It strikes me that rather than "neoliberalism having failed", the most striking movement since the 1960ies is how private capital managed to bend democratic socialism (which means the welfare state in its various incarnations including in the USA) and bend it to its own profit. ..."
    "... 'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that. The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so. ..."
    "... So this was the reason for the death of the Ancien Regime in France and the death of the Romanovs? I think people were not going to wait for an alternative to come along. ..."
    "... The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems are born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the same way. ..."
    "... Free markets without state interference invariably drift towards feudalistic monopolies. They end up exactly where communism also ends up. A small elite controlling the economic fate of the masses. A "market" where supply and demand no longer play any part, because any small competitor can be bought or liquidated at will by the monopolist. ..."
    "... Galbraith had seen this. He said that neoliberalism was like feeding the finest oats to the stallion in the hope it would generate some undigested droppings on which the sparrow could feed. ..."
    "... The Achilles heel of neo-liberalism was that it over emphasized the supply side. Costs had to be driven down by emasculating Trade Unions, curbs on workers bargaining power were introduced and salaries plummeted, government services had to be cut with direct consequences on jobs and quality of life and, taxes to the rich were simultaneously cut exacerbating income inequality. ..."
    "... Soviet state socialism lied, because it pretended to be a necessary step on the way to common ownership of the means of production: but instead fell into the hands of uncompromising thugs. It failed because the neoliberal capitalist system is a far more efficient way for uncompromising thugs to run things. ..."
    "... The state has been militarised to such an extent armed revolution is all but impossible. What really terrifies them is that we will simply ignore them and create our own alternatives. Take Argentina in 2001 as an example. It was the only country in history to default on it's debt due to popular revolt. The revolt in question centered on people forming alternative social and economic services in their own communities around the rallying cry of "Que se vayan todos" or they can all go to hell. There are a few books published under that title about it that are free online. Similarly, have a look at this vid from David Graeber. You can start at 2:56 for a direct answer but it's worth watching the whole thing: https://youtu.be/mU1pQIMv8_A ..."
    "... The dominant neoliberal, market fundamentalist order must, like any competent cult, enforce its authority by doubling down each time its worldview is threatened. This is accomplished by identifying and monetizing regions of social life that had hitherto been neglected or underutilized. In the latest sting, the student is reduced to the status of a consumer whose actions and decisions are governed purely by the market algorithm. The reduction must be so complete that the student-consumer identity should appear obvious and unquestionable. ..."
    "... The captured organs of government managed to again bail out the big speculators and players, privatizing their gains during the expansion of the bubble and socializing their losses during its bust. In other words, a smooth operation of radiating risk from high-stakes gamblers and scammers to the society at large. However, the ripple effects of the latest crash have not been completely damped out and, if anything, the magnitude of the shock waves keeps increasing after each manifestation of discontent and protest against the neoliberal machine. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    In the IMF's flagship publication, three of its top economists have written an essay titled " Neoliberalism: Oversold ?".

    The very headline delivers a jolt. For so long mainstream economists and policymakers have denied the very existence of such a thing as neoliberalism, dismissing it as an insult invented by gap-toothed malcontents who understand neither economics nor capitalism. Now here comes the IMF, describing how a "neoliberal agenda" has spread across the globe in the past 30 years. What they mean is that more and more states have remade their social and political institutions into pale copies of the market. Two British examples, suggests Will Davies – author of the Limits of Neoliberalism – would be the NHS and universities "where classrooms are being transformed into supermarkets". In this way, the public sector is replaced by private companies, and democracy is supplanted by mere competition.

    The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off. It causes epic crashes that leave behind human wreckage and cost billions to clean up, a finding with which most residents of food bank Britain would agree. And while George Osborne might justify austerity as "fixing the roof while the sun is shining", the fund team defines it as "curbing the size of the state … another aspect of the neoliberal agenda". And, they say , its costs "could be large – much larger than the benefit".

    Two things need to be borne in mind here. First, this study comes from the IMF's research division – not from those staffers who fly into bankrupt countries, haggle over loan terms with cash-strapped governments and administer the fiscal waterboarding. Since 2008, a big gap has opened up between what the IMF thinks and what it does. Second, while the researchers go much further than fund watchers might have believed, they leave in some all-important get-out clauses. The authors even defend privatisation as leading to "more efficient provision of services" and less government spending – to which the only response must be to offer them a train ride across to Hinkley Point C .

    Even so, this is a remarkable breach of the neoliberal consensus by the IMF. Inequality and the uselessness of much modern finance: such topics have become regular chew toys for economists and politicians, who prefer to treat them as aberrations from the norm. At last a major institution is going after not only the symptoms but the cause – and it is naming that cause as political. No wonder the study's lead author says that this research wouldn't even have been published by the fund five years ago.

    From the 1980s the policymaking elite has waved away the notion that they were acting ideologically – merely doing "what works". But you can only get away with that claim if what you're doing is actually working. Since the crash, central bankers, politicians and TV correspondents have tried to reassure the public that this wheeze or those billions would do the trick and put the economy right again. They have riffled through every page in the textbook and beyond – bank bailouts, spending cuts, wage freezes, pumping billions into financial markets – and still growth remains anaemic.

    And the longer the slump goes on, the more the public tumbles to the fact that not only has growth been feebler, but ordinary workers have enjoyed much less of its benefits. Last year the rich countries' thinktank, the OECD, made a remarkable concession . It acknowledged that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers is now at its lowest since the second world war. Even more remarkably, it said the same or worse applied to workers across the capitalist west.

    Red Plenty ends with Nikita Khrushchev pacing outside his dacha, to where he has been forcibly retired. "Paradise," he exclaims, "is a place where people want to end up, not a place they run from. What kind of socialism is that? What kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in chains? What kind of social order? What kind of paradise?"

    Economists don't talk like novelists, more's the pity, but what you're witnessing amid all the graphs and technical language is the start of the long death of an ideology.

    navarth , 2016-05-31 12:29:39
    This neoliberal ideology died already in 2008 and is kept alive artificially, it's Frankenstein ideology.
    RachelL , 2016-05-31 12:28:02
    The introduction of A.I and robotic technology will probably kill off capitalism for good, particularly if the threat of job losses is realised. those with disposable income will just save, unwilling to commit to purchases for fear that they too will be soon losing their jobs.

    Those who have lost their jobs won't buy anything other the most basic necessities.

    The failure to comprehend the most basic requirements of capitalism; that people require jobs and a disposable income to actually buy things will be the final downfall, and the robots will sit rusting and covered in dust.

    Cape7441 , 2016-05-31 12:27:59
    Certainly something very wrong with a system that sees a larger and larger share of our national wealth going to fewer and fewer people.
    pearjooce , 2016-05-31 12:27:21
    When the capitalist ideologists whooped with joy and declared that socialism was dead back in 1990, I whispered to myself that, well, sure, everything passes, and neo-liberal capitalism would be next then. I reckoned about 25 years would do it, more or less. We're not quite there yet, but with the dawn of the information age, and the flow of information about how so called perfect "free"!markets are so recklessly constructed, controlled - not to mention generally to the benefit of those already with more than enough - it can't be long before we move on from this ridiculous charade to something altogether more intelligent.
    mjhunbeliever , 2016-05-31 12:24:09
    For those of us that have been highlighting the shortfalls of the Neo-Liberal agenda this does not come as a surprise, but the question others should ask themselves is, when the impact of what they were doing was so evident why do they still persist?

    The answer is self evident, the people who benefit are not the ones suffering from their policies. Money and power has migrated upwards just as happened in Dickens time, and the real story behind the agenda is control of the masses using poverty and ignorance so that the few can continue to accumulate more and more at our expense.

    To say that the great unwashed should wake up and smell the coffee has been said before, but will always be the case,whilst people earning low wages and jobs are in short supply.

    The Bankers make profits from lending, people with savings do not borrow and the banks pay out interest on their accounts, the banks only like people to be poor as they are forced to borrow and pay interest, making them profit.

    Those same banks though print money out of thin air, every time they make a loan, isn't it time people woke up and realised that we can use that money more efficiently by creating jobs and infrastructure spending, rather than trapping people into eternal debt.

    This is the 21st century not the 1800s, why do people not see what is going on around them and why are they trapped like rabbits in the headlights, when the solutions rest in their hands?

    Jeremy Corbyn is light years ahead of public opinion, isn't it time to start asking what the meaning of Peoples QE is?

    Lets start asking him instead of believing lying Neo-Liberals that have crashed the world economy.

    shithook , 2016-05-31 12:17:14
    A good article-If further insight is needed into Neo Liberalism, I would suggest watching, The Mayfair Set as well The Power of Nightmares.
    Two excellent Adam Curtis Films which go toward explaining how and why we arrived at where we are today.
    HorseCart -> shithook , 2016-05-31 12:26:25
    An Adam Curtis documentary made in 2000, long before I knew who Adam Curtis was?

    You bet I'm going to watch it... I had no idea that even after catching up there is so much catching up left to do!

    Gerry4 , 2016-05-31 12:15:12
    Constant growth in a mature adult body we call cancer. Why expect it in mature economies?
    havetheyhearts -> Gerry4 , 2016-05-31 12:25:42
    the word "mature" was hiding complete irresponsibility of driven sociopaths. The usual confidence trick...: " don't you trust me, me the caring man !"
    HorseCart -> Gerry4 , 2016-05-31 12:29:24
    So do you think neoliberalism could adapt away from just focusing on growth, in its almost certain attempts at clinging to power? And would they tell us about it? Openly? (*collapses in first giggles of the day*)
    CABHTS , 2016-05-31 12:07:34
    Outside of the political elites and the cosy little Guardian CIF club, most people can't spell neoliberalism, let alone know what it means. The average person, neither know or cares about growth etc.

    What matters is whether they have a job, taxes, how pay rises compare to inflation and are the schools, health services and council services functioning? And in that respect, by and large they are ok, albeit sometimes held together with sticking plaster.

    They are more likely to be concerned about immigration than neoliberalism, but that is a taboo subject in political circles.

    Sowester -> CABHTS , 2016-05-31 12:14:59
    You have a point but years with no pay rises and the decomposition of public services does penetrate. The political sands are moving about but where they will come to rest is anyone's guess.
    kafkathecat CABHTS , 2016-05-31 12:20:36
    Because those elites constantly tell the that immigrants are the cause of all their woes whilst removing any semblance of a safety net from them. People aren't stupid they just don't have the time or energy to go digging for more complicated answers.
    JennM , 2016-05-31 12:06:21
    Say what? The ultra-ultra rich have realized that when there are only poor people left, they won't be able to squeeze any more money out of them? And look at Christina's outfit in that picture - the cost would support a family of five for a year in the US. I think they're just trying to figure out how to create more money without losing any for themselves. Business as usual.
    TankOfPeace , 2016-05-31 12:06:17
    I stopped reading when I got to "The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off."

    See https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/#declining-global-poverty-share-of-people-living-in-extreme-poverty-1820-2011-max-roserref . The only people to have seen no rise in living standards are people on middle incomes in rich countries, which is a problem for rich countries - but not a disaster.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-05-31 12:05:49

    They have riffled through every page in the textbook and beyond – bank bailouts, spending cuts, wage freezes, pumping billions into financial markets – and still growth remains anaemic.

    I have always been skeptical of the idea that we need perpetual growth and have wondered whether it is desirable or achievable ?

    In reality I think most people will be relatively happy if they have the basics of a roof over their head , enough food to eat a job which is not too time consuming ,monotonous or backbreaking and some time for themselves to enjoy their own entertainments outside of work.

    Why we need to have perpetual growth to achieve this state of affairs and why we need to continually keep on producing and consuming more and more has always been a bit of a mystery to me ?

    Surely things could be organised better and more sustainably and resources shared out more equably to give a more contented and harmonious society . Of course many people have thought the same but neither communism or capitalism has really managed to get it right yet. Neo-liberalism is just another failed attempt but has perhaps been the most successful so far out of the different ideologies.

    Seem like 'The end of history' did not happen in 1989 . https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/21/bring-back-ideology-fukuyama-end-history-25-years-on

    JayJay78 -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-05-31 12:34:04

    I have always been sceptical of the idea that we need perpetual growth and have wondered whether it is desirable or achievable ?

    Desirable depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to be better off there's 2 options
    1/ Grab a bigger slice of the same sized pie - this can get you a lot better off quickly but somebody else loses out
    2/ Have the same sized slice of a bigger pie - this will get you gradually better off year by year but nobody else loses out.
    Doing 1/ is what rich people are good at, that's how they get richer. Doing 2/ is how lower/middle income people get better off.
    So yes you would need growth to support middle income people, they usually can't do 1/.

    gbrading , 2016-05-31 12:04:29

    The sooner we can break the neoliberal consensus, the better. I do find it incredible, but also reassuring, to see the IMF using this language though, even as they defend privatization without any kind of factual evidence to back it up. Indeed, the lack of factual evidence demonstrating the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure.
    cartidge , 2016-05-31 12:02:41
    Perhaps a slightly older set of ideas regarding the role of the state and of capitalism should be considered? A few years ago there was a rather interesting government report on the topic:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_07_05_beveridge.pdf

    RaymondDance , 2016-05-31 12:02:11
    The economists at the IMF - like most of their colleagues elsewhere in this dismal profession - have an unsullied track record of getting everything wrong. Why would they be right about this?
    thisisafact , 2016-05-31 12:01:38
    Neo-liberalism is bankrupt and austerity is the economic equivalent of a severely self-destructive bipolar personality disorder..... yes, we know that; that's hardly news, but the idiots worshiping neoliberalism wont go voluntarily nor will they be booted out anytime soon. They will hang on even after the next major crash; trying one last desperate round of bailing out the financial gamblers.

    People with access to the media, like Chakrabortty here, must start advocating specific alternatives. We don't see much of that in the Graun....... mostly it's just complaints the traditional approach doesn't work.

    andybycz thisisafact , 2016-05-31 12:09:45
    Spot-on! Gives them too much power, as defined in dollars and sterling...while, at the other end, the consumoron is both constructed and blinded at the same time, by this very power...
    anyonelistening , 2016-05-31 12:01:00
    Even when the British Empire was at its high point, there were still slums and poverty. Now the world population has gone up hugely India and China are huge consumers and so is the rest of the world. People are living much longer and have to be cared for. At the same time the food sources in the seas and land are being used up and their eco systems destroyed. Not to mention climate change and many other things that would take pages to write about. Yet we expect our standards of living to improve or at least be maintained. The outlook is not favorable, under any system of government.
    gbrading , 2016-05-31 12:04:29
    The sooner we can break the neoliberal consensus, the better. I do find it incredible, but also reassuring, to see the IMF using this language though, even as they defend privatization without any kind of factual evidence to back it up. Indeed, the lack of factual evidence demonstrating the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure.
    PashaNicos , 2016-05-31 11:59:58
    Neoliberalism is destroying Europe
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/14/neoliberal-europe-union-austerity-crisis
    Atom57 , 2016-05-31 11:52:37
    in theory the premise behind neoliberalism is a good idea i.e. to create competition and avoid monopolies, but in practice and as Marx predicted corporations either sink or buyout the competition and you're left with monopolies.

    Neoliberalism is dead, its policy of greed and short-termism has ensured that.

    LabMonkey -> Atom57 , 2016-05-31 11:59:33
    And the trouble with competition in many sectors is that you spend a lot of time and money working to increase market share and less on actually serving customers/ clients.
    ohforgoodnesssake , 2016-05-31 11:51:00
    Great article as usual, hope you're right Aditya!

    I think this is the key point; 'From the 1980s the policymaking elite has waved away the notion that they were acting ideologically – merely doing "what works". But you can only get away with that claim if what you're doing is actually working.' Given current predictions, it's hard to imagine how our neoliberal form of capitalism will manage to adapt without resorting to directly attacking democracy itself, and doing some hardcore Pinocheting.

    I don't think the obsessions of endless growth and financialism are going to disappear within this century, but they're almost certainly going to have to downsize ambitions and take a more sustainable place alongside the state and ever increasing non-market-non-state sectors. Either that or party up with the proponents of soft totalitarianism.

    mypipsranout , 2016-05-31 11:50:45
    Neoliberalism is just Laissez-faire capitalism renamed. In-between the two we had welfare capitalism, or social democracy as some call it, that arose as a response to the crippling societal problems caused by neoliberalism - mass poverty, disease, economic collapse and war. As soon as some welfare reforms were put in place, using public money to provide stability for people, they were under attack by capitalists who have a pathological need to glean personal profits from anything and everything. So we came full circle, back round to Laissez-faire capitalism.

    The history of capitalism is one of rapacious greed, intermittently tempered with redistribution policies when the either the elites cannot profit further without some form of redistribution taking place or they fear the pitchforks at the door. Capitalism cannot be fixed, it cannot be tempered, it will always end up back like this, as capitalism is the crisis. History shows us that accepting reform of the system only ever provides a fleeting fix, we need a new economic model entirely, capitalism has to end. It's not just a human issue, but for the sake of all life on Earth, we need an entirely different economic model.

    richiep40 , 2016-05-31 11:50:00
    I am puzzled. Just about everyone agrees that there is too much debt around and another financial crash is inevitable.

    But many talk about debt as though it is some form of negative money, of course it is not, it is just a contractual commitment. Who ultimately are the beneficiaries of all this debt ?

    Sounds like a Debt Jubilee all round would be a good idea. Why has it not happened? Without knowing who would lose out you can't tell.

    Collectivist Hippopotamus -> richiep40 , 2016-05-31 12:01:19
    Because it would utterly destroy financial institutions and investors who have purchased large swathes of private and national debt. They'd be short cash big time! Of course you and I would say to hell with them, but these are the guys (and let's face it, they're mostly guys) who hang out in the gentleman's clubs or tennis clubs or golf clubs or country clubs and who donate political parties. The old boy network type of thing. They will never allow that to happen, never.
    WillShirley , 2016-05-31 11:49:56
    I'm so glad to see articles like this being published. I've been tracking the decline in our American system for several years with some real alarm. Our current gaggle of morons running for President is a great example of how our neoliberals have failed to notice their policies are destroying the base of the economy. They may end up with most of the wealth, but it won't do them any good if the dollar takes a plunge and/or the oceans swamp cities like New York and Washington D.C. It's insane that it will take a global sized calamity before the people decide to remove those in power from power while we still can. Sadly, we are in fact headed for just such a perfect storm of global calamities.
    Pinkie123 , 2016-05-31 11:45:42
    Super article from Aditya as ever.

    The failure of an ideology premised on something that doesn't even exist (free-markets) should be of no surprise. Market ideology was built around a crackpot idea of capital flows, concomitant with rational individual 'self interest', behaving like a self-regulating eco-system. Just remove as much government, regulatory framework and hierarchy as possible, and let eco-Gaia set the natural balance.

    The people promulgating this quixotic nonsense ranged from fugitives from totalitarian regimes like Hayek (whose motives for imagining a utopian fantasy land were at least understandable); to right-wing politicians who at root believed in anything but individual freedom. Thus, state spending increased under Reagan (except on the wealthier section of society), and the global free-market became a centrally-planned oligarchy. Furthermore, so much capital has become securitized that 'trickle-down' can no longer be taken seriously as a concept.

    Because, as a moderately intelligent child could tell you, a world without power structures is impossible. Which is why the supremacy of democratically accountable governments (rather than antidemocratic multi-national corporations) is imperative. Mass privatization not only does not deliver on its own terms, but is fundamentally anti-democratic. No one supporting the neoliberal project, which has eventuated in corporate feudalism, can legitimately call themselves a libertarian.

    themostbeautiful -> Pinkie123 , 2016-05-31 11:55:09
    "Mass privatization not only does not deliver on its own terms, but is fundamentally anti-democratic."

    Why? Simple question and please answer.

    Lafcadio1944 -> Pinkie123 , 2016-05-31 12:13:57
    I haven't seen the evidence that Neoliberals are akin to libertarianism. Although they may have tried to use it politically to get votes in silicon valley. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the extreme concentration wealth at the top was the goal all along and the Neoliberals have been very successful at it.

    While even Guardian columnists (the Guardian being a leading Neoliberal voice) talk prematurely about the downfall of Neoliberal ideology the fact is that the EU is so thick with Neoliberals hand picked by Merkel, and Germany/Merkel's unchallenged hegemonic power over the EU it could take decades to change the people at the top and decades more to change the bureaucracy of the EU.

    The world has a very serious problem on its hands. Vast wealth has been accumulated by the oligarchs they have taken this wealth in the same way the Porsche family has taken billions from VW - every penny of which they get to keep in spite of it having been earned from fraud and racketeering. Huge amounts of oligarch wealth has been extracted by such illegal means.

    Leave those fortunes in place and the same thing will happen that happened after the "reforms" of the New Deal - the oligarchs pay higher taxes for a brief time until they bribe and blackmail themselves back into control and it all starts again.

    There is simply no way to reform economies and allow the rich to remain rich.

    hartebeest , 2016-05-31 11:43:38
    I would like to think that we are experiencing a repeat/mirror of what happened to economic ideas in the 70s. Then it took the whole decade of crisis and stagnation for the old orthodoxy of Keynesianism to be abandoned in favour of neoliberalism.

    In the 70s, though, there was much more pluralism in economics. Although neoliberalism was hardly mainstream, it did have respected proponents and prestigious econ. departments were teaching it. Today that is not the case- 'economics' is taught as if the word referred to the neoclassical synthesis (from which neoliberalism is derived) alone, with all other traditions relegated to crank or historical curiosity status. There are very few respected universities where you can get an econ PhD and not produce work within the neoclassical framework (Utah being an honorable exception, as well as SOAS and City in the UK).

    So, a paper like this one from the IMF's research department is hailed as a significant moment, but its critique of neoliberalism is mild and limited, necessarily so because it works with the same basic assumptions as neoliberalism itself.

    There are interesting figures with some influence around (e.g Ha Joon Chang, Justin Lin). In general, though, the unwillingness of the economics discipline to even acknowledge the existence of plausible alternatives to their own favoured models has produced widespread intellectual poverty and rigidity. Proposals for true alternatives will tend to fall on deaf ears, though few now have the tools and imagination to produce them in any case.

    Jayarava Attwood -> hartebeest , 2016-05-31 12:04:03
    The old orthodoxy wasn't Keynesian by 1970. Keynesian economics had been progressively abandoned after about 1960. If you look at the Lewis Powell Memo of 1971 you can see the fundamentals of Neoliberalism were all in place and the takeover was beginning.

    But I totally agree on the potential impact of the IMF paper. A generation of economists, politicians and (crucially) journalists have been taught that economics is neo-classical economic and that there is no alternative. So there is not yet anything like a successful critique of the Big Lie.

    totaram -> Jayarava Attwood , 2016-05-31 12:29:40
    Have you even heard of MMT? Just for example:

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog /

    jsayles , 2016-05-31 11:43:20
    Only those who benefit from neoliberal dogma support it. It tends to screw everybody else over.
    qwertboi , 2016-05-31 11:42:54
    Incisive article Aditya.

    Yanis Varoufakis and Noam Chomsky investigate and develop your central premise in an excellent NYPL film on YouTube. Well worth watching (all 1 hour 43 minutes of it).

    Aditya Chakrabortty proves his value yet again.

    Wrongthink2987655 , 2016-05-31 11:40:53
    Neoliberalism seems to involve sacrificing anything and everything society has to give on the altar of "growth", which is what keeps derivatives markets profitable for the 0.0001%. That philosophy includes actively encouraging uncontrolled immigration. Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg would all be happy to see a 10% rise in population if it gives a 2% increase in GDP. They don't care that the real-world effect of that is to make the average Brit poorer. As long as the markets stay profitable for their chums.
    justamug -> Wrongthink2987655 , 2016-05-31 12:17:15
    Yes the focus on GDP as a marker of 'success' is deeply problematic. Especially as the average voter believes that increasing GPD equals better living conditions for householders generally. The reality of course, is very different.
    tater , 2016-05-31 11:39:54
    The next thing is what interests me. One of the effects of neoliberalism has been to create a stressed out competitive society where most people feel insecure and have a tendency to drink too much or otherwise distract themselves from the presented reality. This combination of powerlessness and pressure to perform is, I believe, what lies behind the rise of far right politics. At its heart far right politics is more a desire to escape individualism by defining an idea of "us" than it is about being nasty to "them". It is a desire to reclaim political, social and personal power from a system that offers no hope beyond the prospect of the next i phone.

    For many people who are too smart and well educated to become followers of the far right, it is a matter of picking far right attitudes and putting them through a nice person's moderate filter. The result is the Labour supporter who has "concerns" about Islam, accepts the UK is "full" and thinks cuts are needed to discourage scroungers. Just as with the far right, their response to living in failing neoliberalism is to see hope in rejecting "others".

    We all know, from the experience 30's and 40's Europe how easy the rich find it to adjust to far right politics. So while the far right are, for the moment, the leading contenders to inherit the political space dominated by neoliberalism, the left must face off the rich, the far right and sanitized far right thought in order to offer an alternative.

    Leftist ideas and ideals are so broad in their scope that left unity is extremely difficult to achieve and rarely converges into a set of coherent ideas, methods and objectives. It doesn't matter that the left has the stronger intellectual and moral positions on most issues. Its inability to apply the same intellect and morality to difficult issues like migration and come to a populist conclusion obstructs its ability to access mass support. Its inability to address the conflicting demands of wealth creation, social justice and the environment are not in reality weaknesses, but are frequently perceived as such by those who focus only on wealth creation.

    Just as the end of Soviet communism brought a difficult time for the people of the former Soviet empire, we have little to look forward to in the fall of neoliberalism. It invites international conflict and the worst form of politics and threatens to consign to the margins those who would try to build a world economy that reconciles our shared needs with those of a finite planet.

    Galitsa , 2016-05-31 11:35:14
    In other words, Marx's 19th Century critique of capitalism is pretty much spot on. We really do need some urgent answers but I fear we will not get them while party allegiance is prized over free thinking. I thank my lucky stars I am middle aged and have at least experienced (in the 60's and 70's) a world not so in thrall to consumerism and shallow self-interest. What a dreadful mess my generation has made of the world, the irony being that we are beginning to value more highly the intangible values we have lost than the gadgets we have created. It's beginning to appear that revolution is the only cure.
    Exlgo06 -> Galitsa , 2016-05-31 11:40:18
    As I recall the 60's was the real start of "consumerism" with the ending of postwar austerity and the popularity of Hire Purchase, expansion of home and car ownership, people renting TV's buying washing machines, fridges and starting to take foreign holidays.
    maxfisher , 2016-05-31 11:31:29
    Indeed, some of us have been making this argument since 2008 only to be pooh-poohed by columnists and savants btl.

    The world changed in 2008 just as in 1929 and 1973: an economic orthodoxy ran out of steam. We have yet to decide on an alternative, hence the interregnum, but the first thing to change is, as ever, discourse, because, like J.M.Keynes before them, the IMF, World Bank et al see their mission as saving Capitalism. Neoliberalism can be sacrificed as yet another false God, a discredited version of Capitalism, a virulent strain, a form of fundamentalism.

    transplendent , 2016-05-31 11:31:10
    Capitalism is a consensual transaction. Someone makes something, you are free to buy it or not. The worst scenario is you decide to purchase from someone else and one or other goes out of business. Or, horror of horrors, make it yourself. No one is being forced to either buy or sell. Neo-liberals are the extreme fringe of capitalism. Not representative of anything or anyone but themselves.

    I can't think of a single truly socialist sate (if such a thing could ever exist) that ever overproduced anything except grinding poverty and privation. Then attempt to sell the empty shelves to the people as the healthy option, usually just before being run out of town. Socialism, is however good in parts.

    HarryTheHorse -> transplendent , 2016-05-31 11:36:52

    Capitalism is a consensual transaction. Someone makes something, you are free to buy it or not.

    Unfortunately the real world does not conform to this free market libertarian fantasy. When China refused to buy its exports, Britain sent in its gunboats to force them to buy

    tiojo , 2016-05-31 11:26:37
    The failure of neo liberal economics has been evident for some time. In the UK there are clear market failures in education, transport, housing, energy and health. Yet the die hard neo liberal ideologues continue to prescribe market mechanisms as the only way forward. It is disappointing, however, that the voices putting forward an alternative are so quiet.
    Galitsa -> tiojo , 2016-05-31 12:29:48
    Those alternative voices are so quiet because the likes of The Guardian silence them or resort to ridicule. Look at the treatment Corbyn has received at the hands of this 'newspaper'. He is attempting to put forward alternatives that are really far from radical if you have lived in pre-neoliberal times, and has been utterly condemned.
    Meltingman , 2016-05-31 11:25:09
    This just makes you aware of how poorly read and politically illiterate hacks are.

    Everything goes in dogmatic cycles. After the war nationalisation , public ownership and controlled economies (via wages prices and incomes policies) ruled the roost. All political parties adhered to this "general consensus". But like all dogma's it ended up falling apart due to the paradoxes and plain unworkability of it all. Then we've had "privatisation is best" dogma since 1979 ; private is best, self regulation is best and so on and so on, and all political parties have adhered to this dogma (Blair the most fanatical) and like all previous dogmas it is falling apart.

    Private health etc was only 'better' when it had an excellent public health as the bench mark, forcing them to improve to justify making people pay. Now there is no or poor public services, private can-and does- offer any old shite at any price it cares to dream up. This would suggest that Harold McMillan got it spot on in the 50's with his "Mixed economy-public and private-is best"

    All that is happening-and that politically illiterate hacks fail to spot-is that the latest dogma has simply run its course. They fail to be saying that a return to -or even creation of-another dogma will lead to another crash when it implodes in 40 years time. Bering "left wing" or "Eight wing" they fail to be able to argue for what really serves us best. McMillans old mixed economy (something he probably didn't fully realise himself at the time)

    All we get though is the left or rights blinkered and harmful dogmatic drivels, bound to fail

    Galitsa -> Meltingman , 2016-05-31 11:47:33
    So true. A little light reading of political theory and less obsession with party politics by those in the media who seek to influence would serve the populace well. The problem is, it requires a little application - so much easier to comment on Corbyn's dress sense or Boris Johnson's hair.
    ID3924525 , 2016-05-31 11:25:04
    The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It would, as it has, increasingly relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap pools of laborers. Industries would mechanize their workplaces. This would trigger an economic assault on not only the working class but the middle class-the bulwark of a capitalist system-that would be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt as incomes declined or remained stagnant. Politics would in the late stages of capitalism become subordinate to economics, leading to political parties hollowed out of any real political content and abjectly subservient to the dictates and money of global capitalism.
    SubjectiveSubject , 2016-05-31 11:21:21
    European Central Bank concur austerity is going to destroy the eurozone and EU economy, the greedy bastards are only concerned now that it hurts them. Wikileaks transcripts of IMF/Germany discussion imply that the IMF intended for Greece to collapse.
    MrNight , 2016-05-31 11:21:14
    If someone admits that they murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they cease to be a killer or that they can be forgiven and can now be trusted, the likelyhood is that they are simply sociopathic in nature. It was just a moment of reflection, or is it that they are trying to regain trust, if anything one should be on a higher level of alertness, the distraction has been made, now we must wait for their next move.
    FelisLunartik , 2016-05-31 11:20:11
    Great, thought provoking article. It raises the notion that neoliberalism has failed because it has only benefited an elite few whilst everyone else is worse off. Maybe that isn't a failure though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do? It certainly feels like there's little impetus or inclination from the those who've done very well out of neoliberalism to pull the plug on it out of the 'goodness' of their hearts.
    WillShirley -> FelisLunartik , 2016-05-31 11:54:57
    I believe the failure is that of a system which is supposedly supportive of society, allowing flow of goods and services while protecting rights of individuals. The actual in-place system is not the one the politicos advertise, a typical bait ans switch. Yes, the current system does what it is designed to do: funnel money from the middle class to the ruling minority. It is not designed to be sustainable, merely last long enough for one man to end up with 100% of the wealth. That's the end game of this game. The problem is that governing is not a game and the events on the horizon require a government of people, by people and for the people because corporations do not support human life, they merely move money around.
    thisisafact -> FelisLunartik , 2016-05-31 12:09:08

    Maybe that isn't a failure though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do?

    Of course it was meant to do just that. Neo-liberalism is class warfare..... the rich and privileged won so decisively that I doubt we can emerge from neo-liberalism without violence or at least a period with populist autocratic governance.

    wladber , 2016-05-31 11:19:59
    Neoliberals can't see [Bretton] wood for the trees. Capitalist v Marxist? Boring. So ...pass the dripping Martha for me stale bread. Can't last you know.
    unitedbynature , 2016-05-31 11:19:33
    If you look at low growth worldwide. It really is a western disease, aside from failed states. Could it not be that a majority of people in the West live a reasonably comfortable life and are simply incapable of driving growth over 3% annually. How much shit do you need? You have a roof over your head, maybe a car, a job that pays the bills and the basics, the odd holiday, decent food to eat, reasonable health care provided. What else do you need? I don't think you can base an economy on "wants" long term an expect anything other than low growth. I've meet a lot of people in my life that are capable of driving themselves harder or smarter and earn substantially more money, but they're comfortable or lazy and see no "need".
    AuldCurmudgeon , 2016-05-31 11:17:05
    The essential failure of neoliberal theory lies in the notion that a free market is the second form democracy: any domain in which people are free to make their own choices. It fails because it assumes that, unlike the ballot in which all citizens take an equal share, that the market exists in a context where everybody is equally rich. In that case and that case only, free markets are a second form of democracy.

    Neoliberalism is consequently a form of democracy in which people have a variable form of representation, such that my vote could be worth 100th of yours or 100 times that of everybody else.

    Neoliberalism would work if there was a mechanism to ensure wealth was more evenly distributed. I think the ballot is generally a more viable proposition.

    themostbeautiful -> AuldCurmudgeon , 2016-05-31 11:21:26
    This was the idea of Mrs. Thatcher. To spread wealth and to create shareholders. It failed for many reasons.
    ID864902 -> AuldCurmudgeon , 2016-05-31 11:22:21
    well put
    jalte -> AuldCurmudgeon , 2016-05-31 11:30:10
    Wealth doens't only belong to individuals but to states,regions,cities,companies. That makes it even more difficult to distribute it more evenly. In rich countries many basic needs are fulfilled by those entities and not only by individuals,as unitedbynature notices. The drive to earn more may only exist if those entities don't get too important.
    In fact,neo-liberalism works pretty well. And a lot of opposition to it is ideological more than practical.
    BabylonianSheDevil03 , 2016-05-31 11:14:56
    The mantra of those attempting to prop up neoliberalism is that nothing can ever change and if we ever attempt to change things then we are heading for disaster. A bit like the EU debate. A storm whipped up to keep us in line. But there is always another way, another option, and if this is not offered to the people then they will look for other options themselves that could lead to disaster, namely the voting in of anti-establishment heroes like Trump.
    tomword -> BabylonianSheDevil03 , 2016-05-31 11:26:39
    "Anti-establishment heroes like Trump"? Haha! Trump IS the gross face of neoliberalism and the One Percent. Who the hell do you think he is? Hello!
    NorthernPessimist -> tomword , 2016-05-31 12:29:39
    That's true but its not how he is perceived in the US. Its the same type of thing with the rise of the Far Right in Europe. Dissatisfaction with the current shower leading to potentially more dangerous alternatives.

    If only the current shower would take note of that and start representing their constituents instead of taking advantage of them...

    marcoguard , 2016-05-31 11:14:29
    The IMF outing is too little, too late and way way way too short on apologies to the world.
    ariaclast , 2016-05-31 11:12:46

    In the IMF's flagship publication, three of its top economists have written an essay titled "Neoliberalism: Oversold?".

    The very headline delivers a jolt. For so long mainstream economists and policymakers have denied the very existence of such a thing as neoliberalism, dismissing it as an insult invented by gap-toothed malcontents who understand neither economics nor capitalism. Now here comes the IMF, describing how a "neoliberal agenda" has spread across the globe in the past 30 years. What they mean is that more and more states have remade their social and political institutions into pale copies of the market.

    The IMF under Lagarde has long since become a political weather vane, tilting in the direction of whatever theory happens to be fashionable. It should also be noted that academics will tend to make an argument in order to stimulate a debate; it would be foolish to immediately assume everything they have written is gospel (as has often been repeated during the referendum campaign, remember they thought the UK should have joined the Euro).


    There's no doubt "neoliberalism" has become a pejorative term, used by opponents of the free market to decry its excesses. It used to mean a capitalist economy with strong state intervention, essentially the same thing as a social democracy. It's now used to describe a laissez-faire capitalism associated with rolling back any and all state provision of services. As with all such terms the definition is slippery and not useful: it's delivered as an insult rather than a description of any particular economic reality.

    This is why "policymakers have denied the existence" of it. There is no "neoliberal agenda" being persued by a conspiratorial cadre of western leaders. That's a desperate simplification by people struggling to comprehend the vast proliferation of approaches to social democracy, with a range of countries all attempting in good faith to find a useful balance between free market capitalism and state intervention. Neoliberalism as Chakrabortty understands it exists only in the minds of its detractors

    JamesValencia -> ariaclast , 2016-05-31 11:32:32
    I've never hear "It used to mean a capitalist economy with strong state intervention" before.

    Neoliberalism is "what comes after liberalism" and refers to the Thatcher/Reagan axis following the interventionist and statist seventies.

    So pardon the blunt contradiction but neoliberalism is the opposite of what you say. It is reducing the state's role in the economy to the absolute minimum, which is, ideally, merely as the legal and executive power, and no economic role at all in business.
    Control of economics to be entirely in public hands. Hence privatising everything, obviously.

    "Laissez faire" economics has always been part of neoliberalism.

    Why "neo": it means "new" as you know, and the "new" is because up until teh late seventies, there was a tacit agreement between right and left that some essential industries should be run by the state for national security and other reasons.

    user0 -> JamesValencia , 2016-05-31 11:46:30
    And what you're describing sounds like libertarianism.
    JamesValencia -> user0 , 2016-05-31 11:58:41
    The one includes the other:

    • Libertarianism: No state interference in individual private citizen's lives.
    • Neoliberalism: As little state interference in the economy.

    The first is a subset and extreme simplified case of the second, and makes one think of trappers, the wild west, and Donald Trump. The second is a political system.

    BeenThereDunThat , 2016-05-31 11:12:04
    Thatcher, Reagan - both arch-disciples of Hayek and others of the Austrian & Chicago schools of economic shite, and both massively responsible for it being liberally spread across the world. Would have been nice to see a recognition of their roles in this, along with the second wave of Clinton & Blair, with their "third way" economic take on the same models.

    And now we have Hilary as a contender for the presidency, as orthodox a neolib bag carrier as they come, and someone who will continue to carry the torch for Bills policies. Failing that, we have the absolute lunacy of Trump to look forwards to, and as a man who so obviously worships at the alter of Mammon, no game changers from him to be expected either.

    So if we are, as this article claims, witnessing the death of neoliberalism, it is going to be a long, slow, agonising death, with a lot of collateral damage as the body economic writhes in its death throes. Oh dear, oh dear, oh fucking dear…..

    BabylonianSheDevil03 -> BeenThereDunThat , 2016-05-31 11:21:44
    Reagan and Thatcher spawned the neoliberal dystopia, Blair and Clinton carried on where they left off and so it goes on. Democracy has been sold to the highest bidders, and with no real options at the ballot box people are turning to extreme politics, those on the fringes, far right loons like Trump.
    In short - I despair.
    WillShirley -> BabylonianSheDevil03 , 2016-05-31 12:00:11
    Britain is a republic, rule of the few over the many.... USA is a not even a republic, but more like an oligarchy as our election system has been corrupted by the Party and with the Supreme Republican Court to back them up we steadily lose the rights and protections for the middle class. The Constitution is the direct result of the 18th century ruling class hating the middle classes, hating minorities and desiring a nobility class without a king to rule over them. Madison and Jefferson adamantly despised the very concept of "democracy". This is how we ended up contemplating a President Trump.
    bbcguard , 2016-05-31 11:11:30

    "Paradise," he exclaims, "is a place where people want to end up, not a place they run from. What kind of socialism is that? What kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in chains? What kind of social order? What kind of paradise?"

    The statement is thoroughly stupid. Consistent with Chrushov's mental capacity.

    History evolves in a discontinuous manner. Any social-economic transformation is performed by force and through a bloodshed, a civil war. This is simply a law of thermodynamics.

    The best example: the huge butchery of religious wars in Europe of the 17th century which gave rise to the era of Enlightenment and Progress. Because of it, we live immeasurably more comfortable life than our ancestors. We were thereby kicked in this paradise.

    Mkjaks -> bbcguard , 2016-05-31 11:22:09
    And let's not forget the fall of Rome. That "thermodymic" didn't go so well -- for many centuries.
    bbcguard -> Mkjaks , 2016-05-31 11:26:20
    Meaning exactly what? Are you sure you know what thermodynamics is being discussed?
    JamesValencia -> bbcguard , 2016-05-31 11:39:19
    You're mis-using themodynamics in "Any social-economic transformation is performed by force and through a bloodshed, a civil war. This is simply a law of thermodynamics."

    There's no relevance of thermodynamics there, even allowing for making an analogy.

    Saying "All socio-economic change is violent" which is what you're saying there is a simply opinion, and, incidentally, contradicted by historical fact. Propping it up with an arbitrary reference to science does not help :)

    Thermodynamics is about the transfer of heat and says three laws (1) energy is conserved (2) Entropy always increases (3) Entropy is a constant at absolute zero.
    (plus a zeroth law thich I forget).

    BaddHamster , 2016-05-31 11:11:13
    A bit of a sideline, but I was watching TV yesterday and an ad caught my eye that I found fascinating. It was for chocolate- cadburys or something like that.
    Essentially, an animated lady was giving a talk about 'boring economic stuff' and as she talked her face actually stretched and became distorted until the whole 'economic/ finance thing' was abandoned in favour of eating chocolate bars. The narrator's voice was what I presume marketing people think of as 'working class'.
    what I took from the ad (I may be wrong) was a not so subtle message that 'boring' economics isn't for the likes of us (ii.e. the masses), and we'd be better off stuffing our faces with chocolate rather than thinking about 'hard stuff.'
    I found it quite disgusting. Has anyone else seen this and, if so, what do you think?
    Of course its possible that I'm a paranoid loon just a few steps away from hiding out in a bunker and talking to a balloon with a face drawn on...
    Panda Bear -> BaddHamster , 2016-05-31 11:14:27
    I rarely watch TV these days so haven't seen the advert but I will bet you are correct. That's if I was a betting person of course.

    Trust your instincts.

    richiep40 -> BaddHamster , 2016-05-31 11:24:47
    That's why they are changing the education system so radically, can't have the plebs thinking for themselves can we ? They want just drone factories for the majority of the population.

    Ironically R4 are doing a pretty good adaptation of Brave New World at the moment.

    BastaYa72 -> richiep40 , 2016-05-31 12:25:42
    Do you mean as a radio play or their editorial policy?
    TomBakerIsGod , 2016-05-31 11:10:58
    "no return to Tory boom and bust".

    G. Brown, Labour Party conference 2000.

    ID724312 -> TomBakerIsGod , 2016-05-31 11:15:06
    Global Banking Crisis 2008
    arbitrarynight -> TomBakerIsGod , 2016-05-31 11:33:18
    It appears that Osborne - with zero growth-rate, zero-inflation, zero wage increases - is trying to give us that very paradise with a stagnant economy.

    Not sure it's all it's cracked up to be.

    Hammersfan , 2016-05-31 11:10:37
    Yes neoliberalism has been oversold because neoliberalism is a catch-all. means nothing, basket insult for all policies that liberals hate. Blair was apparently a neoliberal, but the state grew under Blair and there was huge investment in public services. Take away the investment under Labour, and the NHS really would be on its knees now.

    Secondly, we are still in crisis following the crash, the worst economic reversal since the Great Depression. nobody ever said it would be easy to climb out of this economic hole and the doomsayers might like to compare the lot of the working classes in 2016 with the lot of the poor in the 1930s, Perhaps Aditya would like to read Steinbeck to get a handle on what real poverty is, or if it is too difficult a read, he might tune in to some episodes of the Waltons.

    There are no real shocks in the IMF issuing papers challenging political or economic orthodoxy - they do it all the time - and I seem to remember that Lagarde has long been a critic of Osborne's policies; the IMF, on balance, are Keynesian in outlook.

    If you want to nail the real custodians of what is termed neoliberalism, then you need to the nail the EU. These are the technocrats who are running Europe for the benefit of the elites!

    Panda Bear -> Hammersfan , 2016-05-31 11:21:12
    A bit of history of Globalization and Neoliberalism or a different perspective from yours.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCqKYftRVE8
    Hammersfan -> Panda Bear , 2016-05-31 11:42:12
    History books will one day refer to the "so called neoliberals who were, in truth, free market capitalists packaged up under a new name." For your "Neoliberal" I offer you "New Labour" or "Snickers bars" or "Starbursts".
    BastaYa72 -> Hammersfan , 2016-05-31 12:23:18
    Your first mistake is to assume that Neoliberalism is equivalent to free market capitalism when its anything but that.
    ChiefKeef , 2016-05-31 11:10:14
    Yep its great,hope for the first time in decades,the right wingers are shitting bricks.
    LorenzoStDubois , 2016-05-31 11:09:41
    An interesting piece. Though it fits into a recent pattern of the Guardian picking up on stories that were in the FT a couple of days earlier.

    Amusingly, in this case, the link to the IMF "oversold?" piece actually takes you to the FT's paywall, when the original piece is freely available on their site.

    yoghurt2 -> LorenzoStDubois , 2016-05-31 12:42:35
    Thanks for the link. Interesting.
    Pinkie123 , 2016-05-31 11:09:22
    What needs exposing is the purported 'pragmatism' promulgated by the likes of Blair and Clinton. A centrist position of ideological neutrality is a myth. 'What works' has become a synecdoche for what maintains the neoliberal model - which ironically, as the author explains, no longer works.

    A purely managerial, non-ideological perspective is impossible. Anyone advancing a non-ideological world-view is a self-effacing ideologue. The best trick the devil ever played was to convince you he doesn't exist.

    richiep40 -> Pinkie123 , 2016-05-31 11:15:50
    I'm proud to call myself a social democrat, which in today's terms means I am far left.

    I only care about what works.

    David Owen of all people in an interview about the EU actually attacked New Labour for the marketisation of the NHS. In fact they didn't invent it, but they continued it with gusto. It doesn't work.

    thisisafact -> Pinkie123 , 2016-05-31 12:39:35

    which ironically, as the author explains, no longer works.

    It never worked.... not for one minute. It just seemed to work because first the nation states were indebting themselves; then the private sector indebted itself and everyone. The "success" of neoliberalims was based on credit expansion all the time.

    The model was always to enrich those at the top, while the unemployed lazy bastards at the bottom were stressed more and more to create a race to the bottom for the desperate and money less. The insanity of this policy, which took enormous amounts of money out of circulation was glossed over for decades by the never-ending expansion of credit. The credit expansion kept the middle class out of harms way thereby securing the political support to simply continue...... but keeping the middle class away from economic harm will end as soon as credit can no longer be expanded.

    gilstra , 2016-05-31 11:08:41
    Brilliant, thank you.
    DAreisait , 2016-05-31 11:08:28
    I cannot believe Guardian readers spend so much time contemplating their navels. No wonder Labour party is in such a mess. Believe in Britain....regain control of our money, borders and democracy!!
    mattk81 -> DAreisait , 2016-05-31 11:57:25
    I'm afraid you're looking in the wrong place if you want us to 'regain control of our money'- it's actually the commercial banks in the City that have us by the knackers... assisted by action or inaction their political wing the Tory party. Google 'Positive Money' for starters.

    As with many problems we have in the UK, blaming the EU is either a deliberate red herring or just plain ignorance.

    MAC4096 -> DAreisait , 2016-05-31 12:15:47
    If we do not contemplate it them whom? This incessant need for 'growth' is a myth. How far can we grow? By it's very definition to continue with this mad strive for a wealthier state is at the expense of other states. There is PLENTY to go around but the current neoliberal philosophy has simply moved it to a few. Borders an illusion, there is only one planet and it is dying because of the neoliberal agenda for 'growth'. Democracy, in it's current form, is also an illusion. How can we be democratic when the state watches our every move, email, phone call and browsing history. Surly democracy should include some element freedom. Money is an illusion. The central banks print money to order, quantitative easing, bank bailouts, offshore tax havens. When the money is printed it immediately has a cost, a promise to pay bond yeilds as an element of its creation. So all money is debt. We live in an insane world with systems that will ultimately be our doom.
    FlintstoneF , 2016-05-31 11:06:40
    Great stuff AC

    The whole EU project is reminding me of Brazil (1985 film) directed by Terry Gilliam and written by Gilliam, Charles McKeown, and Tom Stoppard.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%281985_film%29

    Thatcher/Reaganism was always a con trick, and incredibly sinister forces were always behind it.

    themostbeautiful -> FlintstoneF , 2016-05-31 11:31:24
    Yes, an excellent film . The EU in its current form has turned into a tool to circumvent national parliaments and to achieve legislation which is good for you and me and others. You can pass any law you want, if you bribe the right people. That said, we need a strong EU parliament and an informed audience to stop this. If necessary, Brexit could serve a wake up call, but the preferred way should be to hold these guys accountable.
    yoghurt2 -> FlintstoneF , 2016-05-31 12:46:06
    Great film. Worth rewatching.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSBtDLgBSQ

    zalacain , 2016-05-31 11:06:06
    To debate this, wouldn't you first have to define what neo-liberal means?
    thisisafact -> zalacain , 2016-05-31 12:43:57
    Neo-liberalism = Everything can be made in into a market. Everything!!
    Sowester , 2016-05-31 11:05:42
    What disappoints me most about the current political situation is Jeremy Corbyn. It is not that I disagree with much of his economic policy (not that we know a huge amount about it) it is his inability to connect with voters.

    Is there someone in Labour who is not a Blairite that does not behave like a 1970s left wing geography teacher?

    packc47 -> Sowester , 2016-05-31 11:08:43
    What paragon of perfection are you looking for. The message is the important thing not the packaging. Blair surly taught us that. My geography teacher was a old conservative woman.
    DepotCat -> Sowester , 2016-05-31 11:12:34
    I must pass that on to my mate who started teaching geography in the late 1970s and who is an absolute Corbyn fan. He's very disappointed that his sixth form students do not feel remotely the same way.
    Galitsa -> Sowester , 2016-05-31 11:39:24
    I do think Corbyn needs time. The more the Tories and neoliberal ideologues eat themselves, the more the public will be receptive to alternatives.
    zalacain , 2016-05-31 11:04:36
    The best way of working out which type of society works best and worse is to find out where people emigrate from and where do they emigrate to. Capitalism, with low levels of corruption, wins hands down.
    Surrealistic -> zalacain , 2016-05-31 11:10:25
    I don't have an issue with capitalism per se. It can work very well as part of a balanced economy. However when almost everything is forced to become part of the market we can clearly see a problem.
    deirdremcardle -> zalacain , 2016-05-31 11:12:22
    but surely Capitalism is inherently corrupt . It's mantra is "maximise profit " and that's it . Isn't that what the Left are being unrealisitic about .They want some sort of purified religious experience of fiscal control . But we humans are of systems that need corruption and renewal ,just like our bodies ? Talk about the National Health failing -- Nobody wants to do the housework that's all ?
    zalacain -> deirdremcardle , 2016-05-31 11:18:35
    Maximising profit isn't corrupt. Breaking the law is corrupt.
    wartypig , 2016-05-31 11:02:48
    I'd like to thank Aditya for his article and I hope your right.

    In my opinion all ideology creates shackles especially when taken to extremes. It creates distinct hierarchies that are imposable to circumvent if you just so happen to disagree or dislike it.

    As you state neoliberalism is the extreme end of the capitalist system.

    There's one major flaw in all hierarchal systems, if somebody is to climb up, someone must be pulled down. It can create animosity, greed and infighting so they are all inherently unstable. I'm not suggesting such systems are wrong, if they are based on cooperation and fairness then I think balance could be achieved.

    jimmicki , 2016-05-31 11:02:27
    A previous poster talked about automation destroying jobs and income which leads to depressed markets as consumers do not have the income to spend. Surely the current lack of growth is the result of manufacturing and other jobs exported abroad to save wage costs in developed countries. This results in the same lack of spare income to fuel growth. So free market policies are destroying the very markets they depend upon.
    One solution is for government to own manufacturing in important areas such as combatting global warming. If the uk uses the £70bn proposed for HS2 and Hinkley we could set up manufacturing of solar panels, small wind turbines and other small renewable systems. Pay real living wage, use areas already with high unemployment and boost the economies in these areas. Manufacture under license and include batteries such as the Elon musk storage batteries.
    Either install free or for small charge we could produce and fit renewable systems on 10 million homes trying to produce 40 gigawatts of electricity which is equal to uk off peak use - 4kwh x 10m. Costs £5000 per system + £2000 per battery = £7k x 10m = £70bn.
    Result more good jobs, boost to economy, boost to deprived areas, less CO2, no nuclear, free electricity for many, less cost of imports of oil, gas, coal, less cost of social security. I am sure the list of benefits can be expanded into feel good factors and less inequality.
    Surely common sense will prevail before riots and revolution will end this madness.
    Exlgo06 -> jimmicki , 2016-05-31 11:10:48
    What on earth leads you to believe that a UK Government could manufacture solar panels and wind turbines at a profit? Does the civil service have hitherto hidden talents relating to business start ups, manufacturing and energy technology?
    themostbeautiful -> jimmicki , 2016-05-31 11:12:03
    We are at a world population approaching 10bn people which need to be fed, clothed and served with clean water and electricity. And your answer - sorry to say, green dreamers - provides no answer at all. You can talk to as many worms as you want to. It is fantasy of rich people.
    mwardman -> jimmicki , 2016-05-31 11:29:43
    What on earth leads you to think that a 4kw *peak* solar system in the UK could produce 4kw of electricity cnosistently :-).

    Your expectations of the average power produced by solar panels are exaggerated by a factor of about 6-7.

    packc47 , 2016-05-31 11:00:18
    I hope you are right.
    Martyn Blackburn -> packc47 , 2016-05-31 11:05:22
    She isn't. She is wrong. We are witnessing a re-adjustment of neoliberalism.
    livingwill , 2016-05-31 10:59:21
    Yes Soviet Communism was indeed "a place where people run from " which Western capitalism isn't.
    MAC4096 , 2016-05-31 10:55:02
    There is no doubt that people are waking up to the massive inequality imposed on us all by a greedy, compassionless, short sighted set of idiologies perpetuated by our neoliberal rulers. And the philosophy that has driven this is corporate capitalism which has created a stench so profound that it may literally cost us the earth.

    The fact that it has progressed so rapidly and deaply into the human psyche can only be attributed to two things. Mans inherant greed and the media (who are an intrisic part of corporate capitalism). I heard a statistic that, in the first world war, only 17% of soldiers in the trenches pointed their guns at the enemy, not wishing to be party to the massacre of fellow human beings. I also understand this was little changed in the 2nd WW. To combat this (pardon the pun) recent developments in media have created computer based games of mass murder so that soldiers in the battle field, in aircraft and flying drones simply play out the games on their Xbox and annihalate 'the enemy'. War is very big business, for some. This form of brainwashing is an incidious method to do the bidding of the rich and powerful and there is, without doubt, a direct correlation between neolibralism and mass murder. The hawks of administrations, like Bush, Blair and co , have used it citizens to further their own agenda's for fiscal gain leaving behind millions of dead, service men missing limbs or dead, sevearly mentally damaged and what for? The road to peace is not through bombs and bullets but this makes money and lots of it. The media (not all, thank god for the internet) panders to the basest emotions of humanity to brainwash us into radicalised, subserviant masses ready to do the bidding of these cororations. It has created a Frankenstien which is now out of control. IF we start today to try and undo the immense harm it will take many generations to even begin to put things right, if at all possible. Every journey starts with a single step but we must RUN if humanity has any chance of survival. Stop the war on terrorism, stop the war on drugs, both proven and huge failures and start a war for tollerance, equality and, dare I say it, love.

    nihilist , 2016-05-31 10:53:26
    Seems to me that the wealth accrued by neoliberal beneficiaries could be more fairly distributed but it is not; why is that? On the other hand, "communisim" in the Soviet sense does not seem to work either when Dimitri has his house windows manufactured free gratis on the factory floor. Politicians and large corporations are self serving and insular, as are most people. The EU debate in the UK has descended into completely predicatable mud slinging as the electorate are increasingly ignored in the debate despite token efforts by the media. Those involved are watching after themselves, in or out is a sidebar to hang it on.
    FineLeg , 2016-05-31 10:53:24
    Neoliberal ideology has been an instrument for justifying the growing wealth and power of financiers and global corporations for about 40 years. They are highly unlikely to want to let go their gains, so reports of the impending 'death' of neoliberalism are a bit premature. The fact that this comes from the IMF makes me wonder if it isn't another ploy to divert attention from the ongoing process of wealth consolidation by making us think that a big change in policy is just around the corner. Ostry is an excellent scholar who has written some good papers warning about inequality and I have no doubt that he wants to influence decision-making. But it may be that he is being used as a 'useful idiot' by the powers that be.
    Briar , 2016-05-31 10:39:23
    If only. Social democracy was the popular choice in 1945 - the people knew what it was and voted for it. But neoliberalism was imposed on us in a flurry of fake claims and false dreams - low taxes, trickle-down riches, freedom is consumer choice etc. We could have it all, the hucksters promised, lying in their teeth. And now that the system is showing its true nature, how do we get rid of it. There isn't an institution, public or private, which isn't run by people who are professed neoliberals incapable of thinking there is an alternative - if they were, they wouldn't be where they are: they'd be mocked and undermined and shuffled out of the way, Everything from the BBC to the Health Service is run by people who believe in the power of the market, and think it's the same as democracy. We have to get rid of these servants of the market to make a fresh start, and they're not about to leave.
    LordMurphy -> Briar , 2016-05-31 11:15:35
    TTIP is the desperate last stand to get this permanently embedded as a supra-governmental policy in perpetuity. The crooks behind neoliberalism know that the wheels are about to fall off the bus and TTIP is their answer.
    Selena Oldham , 2016-05-31 10:34:58
    Whilst it's great that the report (rightly) condemns neoliberalism it appears to me that it is also contradictory.

    On the one hand 'the IMF researchers concede, [the results of neoliberalism] have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off' but then goes on to say 'The authors even defend privatisation as leading to "more efficient provision of services" and less government spending'.

    Privatisation of state assets has proven time and time again to be a false economy. The failed privatisation of Hinchingbrooke Hospital; The failed privatisation of East Coast Rail which was then put back into public ownership (under which it became profitable again) and was then re-privatised for no good reason; The Royal Mail scandal - hedge funds were permitted to buy millions of (undervalued) shares which they then immediately sold for a massive profit whilst ordinary people were limited to just £749 worth.

    Am I missing something here? Isn't privatisation and the selling off of state assets to the neoliberal elite exacerbating and perpetuating the problem?

    I'm still wading through Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century but from what I've read so far it appears that the message is that extreme wealth inequality is not only morally unfair but is unsustainable as it is counter-productive and creates economic instability. It's this very instability and glaring unfairness which has led to the rise in ever more extreme politics isn't it? The Right cling to this neoliberal model of economics and then bitch and complain when Trump gets elected. What on earth did they expect? If elected officials continue to act in self-interest instead of the public interest then the successes of monsters like Trump are an inevitability which can only bad for everyone including the neoliberal elite.

    themostbeautiful -> Selena Oldham , 2016-05-31 10:39:36
    Not really. Privatisation is not an answer but if you red Orwell, the opposite is not a solution either.
    BeenThereDunThat -> Selena Oldham , 2016-05-31 11:18:18
    " I'm still wading through Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century but from what I've read so far it appears that the message is that extreme wealth inequality is not only morally unfair but is unsustainable as it is counter-productive and creates economic instability ."

    Not sure that you need to read Piketty to understand that. The accumulation and hoarding of wealth in offshore havens by the elite should be treated as an economic crime, as once this money is transferred out of the system, it ceases to function, the economy is impoverished, and these unelected super-wealthy are given powers many elected country leaders can only dream of. How the perpetrators of this cannot understand absolutely boggles me. But then again, to wish to have so much wealth indicates serious sociopathic issues, and not much ability to empathise with those who struggle and are deprived as a result of this accumulation of such wealth in the hands of a few individuals.

    Selena Oldham -> BeenThereDunThat , 2016-05-31 11:36:06
    Whilst I simply feel indignation, exasperation and anger regarding social injustice and extreme wealth inequality Piketty uses well researched data to support his arguments against it. It's not an easy read and I've been dipping in and out of the book on and off over the last year. I'm determined to finish it one day though.

    I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the regarding your assessment of the super rich as sociopathic. How much money is enough? Why would they need or want so much economic control over so many people?

    If you haven't seen it already I would certainly recommend watching Mr Robot - very topical and spot on regarding the psychopathic mindsets of the arrogant super rich the series condemns. The opening scene begins with a reference to the Bilderberg Group - 'they're the top 1% of the top 1%. They're the people who play god without permission'.

    MrNight , 2016-05-31 10:34:41
    They are starting to come out and admit it, they are still not to be trusted though.

    "The specter of a break-up is haunting Europe. A vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it," Donald Tusk, May 2016.

    LordMurphy , 2016-05-31 10:32:38
    It beggars belief that Mark carney is now bemoaning the results, as events that we now are witnessing right across the globe, from his Alma Mater Goldman Sachs's policies that were foisted onto the world, have spawned. Low and now even negative yields on safe fixed term investments are now making it very difficult or even impossible for pension providers to deliver decent incomes to their customers. Tax evasion has been legitimised and rebranded as tax efficiency and corporations are mega monopolistic structures that no longer need to worry about a bottom line as they have rebranded profits into interest payments to tax havens.
    SuffolkJason , 2016-05-31 10:24:46
    After 8-9 years argument about austerity, it finally feels like we have reached a tipping point. Surely now no serious political or economic commentator will defend austerity. There are parallels with the climate change debate.

    The Labour Party (encouraged by many in the media- including many Guardian journalists) for too many years pursued a policy of austerity appeasement. Many knew it was economic nonsense but felt that the argument was too difficult to win against the massed ranks of the Tories and the vested interests of the mainstream media. I recall so many discussions where it was pointed out that economists such as Krugman had destroyed the austerity case but "sensible" commentators continued to argue that the Labour Party would be destroyed if it dared to "speak truth unto power". Those that advocated austerity appeasement should be ashamed and apologise (I won't hold my breath).

    Corbyn's greatest achievement in his first 8 months has been his firm stand against austerity. He and John McDonnell have significantly moved the debate, so much so that I fully expect that Osborne (if he survives the Referendum fall out) will start to adopt Labour policies (e.g. allow investment expenditure to be excluded from deficit target and, if recession spreads beyond manufacturing, some form of Infrastructure QE).

    arsenico -> Charmant_mais_fou , 2016-05-31 10:35:16
    Corporativism is fascism, the rule by an oligarchy who "knows better"...for themselves, of course.

    Get your terms right

    JekonGregory , 2016-05-31 10:22:57
    Neoliberalism has turned out to be similar in many ways to a better connected and more efficient form of feudalism. Great for those with power, greed and wealth and very much at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps newspapers and mass media have replaced swords, so it is an improvement in some ways.

    But for all those anticipating a return to something better, what will eventually come next? A return to nice, safe, gentle Western European style mild socialism is not a foregone conclusion. It will take a lot of effort and maybe 20 years to establish a new settlement and perhaps quite a lot of strife in the meantime. Now that the last convulsion that gave rise to a continent wide effort to attain a just society, the Second World War, is fading from memory and educational syllabuses, will it take another convulsion to teach us how to behave again?

    Gallicdweller -> JekonGregory , 2016-05-31 10:38:45
    Very well put. I don't think it will take another convulsion, the majority of Europe's population are fat unfit slobs but when there's no consumer swill in the bins, maybe.
    OhNotAgain -> JekonGregory , 2016-05-31 11:09:29
    I've had many discussions about what is necessary to make people active enough to change the status quo, although I do think that WW2 crystallized what was already public opinion, putting people into a position where camaraderie was sufficient to have reformists like Bevan take a lead and win. I sincerely hope it won't take another European conflict to increase class consciousness again.
    BarrieJ -> Gallicdweller , 2016-05-31 11:16:16
    As long as people have just enough and can be made afraid of losing it, they'll do nothing.
    When they have nothing worth losing, then they'll kick off.
    Rulers have known this since at least Napoleon, not all have acknowledged it.
    As a people the British are a long way from it, recent arrivals might in time feel differently.
    Michael Clarke , 2016-05-31 10:18:13

    long before any public protests, the insiders led the way in murmuring their disquiet. Whisper by whisper, memo by memo, the regime is steadily undermined from within. Its final toppling lies decades beyond the novel's close, yet can already be spotted.

    When Red Plenty was published in 2010, it was clear the ideology underpinning contemporary capitalism was failing, but not that it was dying. Yet a similar process as that described in the novel appears to be happening now, in our crisis-hit capitalism. And it is the very technocrats in charge of the system who are slowly, reluctantly admitting that it is bust.

    The difference between a public document and a secretive memo seems a glaring one, which illuminates the fundamental difference between the two systems and as such the reason why capitalism will survive and communism cannot

    I agree with the bits about economic consensus and neoliberalism but I can't for a moment agree that such problems are inherent to capitalism or reveal its flaws. If anything those problems show - as did the failings of communism - the impossibility of asserting stable state control over markets so large and complex as to be effectively random

    ID1098053 -> Michael Clarke , 2016-05-31 10:31:57
    While Julian Assange is incarcerated I don't think you can make the claim that Capitalism has no secrets. Hilary Cliinton's emails were leaked, and there were some pretty dastardly secrets in there. And who knows why fracking is being pushed onto people when practically no one, expert or public supports it. What secret deals are behind that? And of course David Cameron's tax evasion is a "private matter". In fact capitalism rests on the assumption that property is private. Now adays music and thought are considered private property. The bright boy who released JSTOR free on line had the book thrown at him and commited suicide under threats of decades in a private prison, where by all accounts rape is encouraged.
    JamesValencia , 2016-05-31 10:10:00
    Very interesting, that's a good read.
    It also strikes me that "globalisation" and the frequently assumed "global neoliberal paradigm", is not correct. That is, the frequent assumption that free markets are the norm, and that this is how national and global exchanges function.

    What we have instead in brief is a global free market capitalism which is financed and subsidised by the public sector. The often talked about "socialism for the rich".

    It strikes me that rather than "neoliberalism having failed", the most striking movement since the 1960ies is how private capital managed to bend democratic socialism (which means the welfare state in its various incarnations including in the USA) and bend it to its own profit.

    How it did this: "democratic socialism" (this isn't communism: all it means is "market regulation in the public interest" and includes public services such as education, health, defense) which flourished after the 1930ies was bit by bit taken over by the private sector. Not in terms of ownership, but in terms of supply and management.

    So neoliberalism as it's commonly understood is a foil, a fiction, camouflaging the underlying reality of democratic socialist government which is in part at least run by private enterprise.

    The practical consequences: Government support and financing of a range of industries, and private sector involvement in running government services: the neo-liberal "The market knows best" is an illusion.

    Its complicated, and needs some thought, but I reckon there's some subtlety here, and my intention is not to rant "socialism for the rich" - its more subtle and more interesting than that slogan.

    soundofthesuburbs , 2016-05-31 10:06:33
    Neo-Liberalism - the more you see of it the less you like it.

    Getting to the rotten core of Neo-Liberal globalisation, a UK journey.

    1) Tony Blair announces the UK is a meritocracy where anyone can get to the top through hard work, drive and ambition.

    Next elected prime minister – Eton educated and married into the aristocracy.
    Eton boys occupy a myriad of positions of power.
    Privately educated elite firmly re-established.

    2) Everyone must be subject to market discipline and compete in a global market place.
    Industries that cannot compete in the global market place must fail.

    Heavy industry, manufacturing and mining decimated, severely affects the North of England and Midlands.

    The financial sector fails and is given unconditional bailouts with no effort to punish those who made the losses, the tax payer will just pick up the bill.

    3) The lasting damage to the economy caused by the financial crisis must be passed onto those at the bottom of society through austerity to balance the budget.

    Are you rich or are you poor?
    Neo-Liberalism helps the rich and disadvantages the poor.

    Nice rich bankers – how much do you want?
    Traditional industry – left to the whims of the global market place.

    Neo-liberalism is rotten to the core.

    hirpling -> soundofthesuburbs , 2016-05-31 10:17:53
    WTF?
    1. Margaret Thatcher announces the UK is a meritocracy where anyone can get to the top through hard work, drive and ambition.
    hirpling -> soundofthesuburbs , 2016-05-31 10:18:53
    Blair was a johnny-come-lately two decades on in the neoliberal project.
    ghislain -> soundofthesuburbs , 2016-05-31 10:19:56
    All very true, except that your milestone 1) should begin with Regan and Thatcher (and Deng Xiaoping!) not Blair, who merely continued it with a more soft-edged approach.
    CheshireSalt , 2016-05-31 10:03:32
    'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that. The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so.

    It is important to understand the crucial advantage of capitalism over its rival, namely that it is self-organising. Milton Friedman gave the example of the ordinary 'lead' pencil which requires wood, paint, graphite, alloy metal for the ferrule and rubber for the eraser. Arranging for all that to happen by centralised control is an enormous undertaking yet in the capitalist world pencils sell for 50 cents apiece. Nobody believes in world economic direction by Central Committee and so it is likely that global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in the road along the way.

    SlumVictim -> CheshireSalt , 2016-05-31 10:13:19
    'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to be superior.

    So this was the reason for the death of the Ancien Regime in France and the death of the Romanovs?

    I think people were not going to wait for an alternative to come along.

    5abi -> CheshireSalt , 2016-05-31 10:21:33
    .....global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in the road along the way.....

    The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems are born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the same way.

    NewSolomon -> CheshireSalt , 2016-05-31 10:36:27
    It isn't either / or, black or white as you seem to suggest. A mixed economy is the ideal set-up. That's an economy where you recognise which sectors function best as services and which run best left to competition. That is the failure of neoliberalism, which throws almost every single enterprise into the jaws of the competitive market. The railways should never have been privatised. Our utilities should never have been privatised. The NHS should not be opened to 'any willing provider'. Strategic industries should have had more protection. The housing market should not have been globalised etc etc etc. Most of us know well who is most responsible for these failing policies.
    atuocool , 2016-05-31 10:03:10
    A child could figure out that neo liberalism wouldn't work for most people. I did when I was 11. But the super elite will always be willing to take a punt only an ideology tailor-made to make them richer while oppressing us more. Then all they have to do is get the slimey politicians who work for their interests to sing the anthem and get their little pay off.
    MereMortal , 2016-05-31 10:02:45
    Aditya is writing cracking article after cracking article these days. I thought that the one about Boots was riveting as well as disheartening.
    We've had 40 years of relentless propaganda about private = good and public = inefficient or downright bad.
    well it's surely true that private is good if you're making something like an iPhone or a Tesla, you need entrepreneurs driven by a fanatic obsession with perfection and the profit motive.
    It's surely not true if you're trying to provide public housing, electricity, gas, water, rail or the prison system etc..
    We've seen how groups of private individuals have been trusted to do right by society when their remit was always to do right by themselves and by their shareholders. How could it have been otherwise?
    It's no use having a privatised utility and then blaming it for cutting costs and raising prices. The problem is a political one.
    Leave what is best done by private individuals and companies to them, but get them totally out of our public commons. And regulate the financial industry so that it cannot trade with the certain knowledge that it will be bailed out by the politicians it has totally bought.

    What killed neoliberalism ultimately was hubris. It worked very hard to eliminate every political obstacle, the left, trade unions, regulation, until it was squarely able to shoot itself not just in both feet, but in the head too.

    CheshireSalt , 2016-05-31 10:03:32
    'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that. The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so.

    It is important to understand the crucial advantage of capitalism over its rival, namely that it is self-organising. Milton Friedman gave the example of the ordinary 'lead' pencil which requires wood, paint, graphite, alloy metal for the ferrule and rubber for the eraser. Arranging for all that to happen by centralised control is an enormous undertaking yet in the capitalist world pencils sell for 50 cents apiece. Nobody believes in world economic direction by Central Committee and so it is likely that global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in the road along the way.

    SlumVictim -> CheshireSalt , 2016-05-31 10:13:19
    'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to be superior.

    So this was the reason for the death of the Ancien Regime in France and the death of the Romanovs? I think people were not going to wait for an alternative to come along.

    5abi -> CheshireSalt , 2016-05-31 10:21:33
    .....global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in the road along the way.....

    The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems are born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the same way.

    NewSolomon -> CheshireSalt , 2016-05-31 10:36:27
    It isn't either / or, black or white as you seem to suggest. A mixed economy is the ideal set-up. That's an economy where you recognise which sectors function best as services and which run best left to competition. That is the failure of neoliberalism, which throws almost every single enterprise into the jaws of the competitive market. The railways should never have been privatised. Our utilities should never have been privatised. The NHS should not be opened to 'any willing provider'. Strategic industries should have had more protection. The housing market should not have been globalised etc etc etc. Most of us know well who is most responsible for these failing policies.
    atuocool , 2016-05-31 10:03:10
    A child could figure out that neo liberalism wouldn't work for most people. I did when I was 11. But the super elite will always be willing to take a punt only an ideology tailor-made to make them richer while oppressing us more. Then all they have to do is get the slimey politicians who work for their interests to sing the anthem and get their little pay off.
    MereMortal , 2016-05-31 10:02:45
    Aditya is writing cracking article after cracking article these days. I thought that the one about Boots was riveting as well as disheartening.
    We've had 40 years of relentless propaganda about private = good and public = inefficient or downright bad.
    well it's surely true that private is good if you're making something like an iPhone or a Tesla, you need entrepreneurs driven by a fanatic obsession with perfection and the profit motive.
    It's surely not true if you're trying to provide public housing, electricity, gas, water, rail or the prison system etc..
    We've seen how groups of private individuals have been trusted to do right by society when their remit was always to do right by themselves and by their shareholders. How could it have been otherwise?
    It's no use having a privatised utility and then blaming it for cutting costs and raising prices. The problem is a political one.
    Leave what is best done by private individuals and companies to them, but get them totally out of our public commons. And regulate the financial industry so that it cannot trade with the certain knowledge that it will be bailed out by the politicians it has totally bought.

    What killed neoliberalism ultimately was hubris. It worked very hard to eliminate every political obstacle, the left, trade unions, regulation, until it was squarely able to shoot itself not just in both feet, but in the head too.

    Josh Graver , 2016-05-31 09:59:55
    Got to hand it to the neoliberalists for keeping it going for 40 odd years

    "You'll love it, we get filthy rich and we chuck a few quids down to you!"
    "Don't say that, say trickle-down effect"
    "Ok, you'll love it, the trickle-down effect will make everyone better off!"
    Over 40 years
    "Are you still here? I told you, it's great because of the trickle-down effect"
    "Where's the trickle-down effect, it's not happening"
    *silent* "Fuck right off, I don't want you snooping around my offshore trust funds, not illegal, go on piss off"

    eatonTheDonis -> Josh Graver , 2016-05-31 10:09:28
    A neoliberal will seriously argue that despite real median incomes stagnating in the US for forty years and in the UK for almost a decade and a half that we're all better off because nearly everybody can afford a smartphone and washing machines are cheaper.
    Panda Bear , 2016-05-31 09:55:22
    It's not Neoliberalism that is crashing, it's Capitalism! They got too greedy and tunnel visioned with their 'market knows all' dream in a system that favours and rewards what used to be considered corruption and now they looting are putting in repressive and restrictive measures to control the devastation they have caused. They are floundering about trying to work out how to stop the major crash coming and keep their ill gotten gains and gravy train for the legions of self serving enablers as I call them!

    Prof Richard D Wolff a Marxist economist, here's this weeks talk, 1 hour. Based on US news topics but in the second half he talks about the Neoliberal god... 'the market' or rather the use of (or not) markets in economic systems. Krugman and Uber get mentions in the first half.
    Markets from 30.00
    http://www.democracyatwork.info/eu_listen_prof_krugman

    uuuuuuu , 2016-05-31 09:52:53
    Free markets without state interference invariably drift towards feudalistic monopolies. They end up exactly where communism also ends up. A small elite controlling the economic fate of the masses. A "market" where supply and demand no longer play any part, because any small competitor can be bought or liquidated at will by the monopolist.

    For capitalism to work the state needs to be both, strong and accountable to the people, not the vested interests. In a global marketplace this control needs to come from a global organisation, like the UN.
    A t present the global corporations play the nation states against each other in a race to the bottom (the end game in this game is to make the UK the Bangladesh of the North, which it was in the 18th and 19th century). At some point we will turn the corner; the question is just whether it is done with or without armed conflict.

    ayupmeduck2 , 2016-05-31 09:50:05
    This might not be the 'in depth' analysis some would like, but I think that Chakrabortty is correct that there has been a big change in the background. The majority of politicians don't see this, from Boris Johnson to Jean-Claud Juncker, they are clueless and out of touch, but Chakrabortty makes an astute observation that:

    ...policymaking elite [claims it was doing] ... merely doing "what works". But you can only get away with that claim if what you're doing is actually working.

    Today you can read Ben Bernankes PhD thesis and see that it is wrong, you can see that the IMF/EU Greek 'Bail Out' failed 3 times in a row, you can see that Osbourne has missed every single economic target he set himself, you can see that 'trickle-down' economics never worked, etc., etc.

    Meanwhile Steve Keens open source economic simulator works rather well, and explains why the the UK, USA, Europe and Japan are very unlikely to ever recover if they keep on with the current economic policies.

    YeOldPhart , 2016-05-31 09:48:35
    All political systems fall under thier own weight. The infamous bread v guns can still be applied to nation states but not obviously economic systems. The workers or any other outside group can never change economic systems (they can only protest through populist politicians who will bend to the system when in power), only insiders can do that. You have to hope that the change they come up with is an improvement but it is unlikely given that almost all will want the status quo maintained.
    SlumVictim , 2016-05-31 09:47:55
    It was clear in the 80s the Thatcherite experiment wouldn't work and it was widely discussed and most of the reasons put forward why it wouldn't work, have proved correct.

    But we all have the evidence of privatisation. Britain has effectively been asset stripped by the Tories, aided and abetted by New Labour but where are all the promised tax cuts? As a nation we pay about the same in taxes as Germany, yet Germany owns the most state assets of any country in Europe. It is what ideological neoliberal call socialist but it does better than us. Meanwhile, for all the privatisation in the UK, our taxes are still high and on top of that, the privatised services and utilities and businesses are more expensive, more inefficient and more unreliable and we have to pay for much of them, on top of our already high taxes!!!

    The biggest joke came when the nationalised East Coast Line came in as the most cost efficient mainline in the country, which had the Tories desperate to privatise if as quickly as possible to get rid of a sample of state run trains being more efficient than privatised trains. Well, we just have to look at many European countries to see most state railways are more efficient than privatised ones. In Holland when rail was privatised, it more or less collapsed and had to be effectively renationalised and then partly privatised again but the trains still are useless compared to what they were when they were completely state run.

    Neoliberalism was always a corrupt ideology with corruption conscious;y at its heart. Neoliberalism has normalised corruption to the point where the establishment and our political masters don't even try to hide corrupt practices, they are every day work and business practices. The biggest question is, why we aren't rioting on the streets like the French. Why are we British so damn passive when we are being ripped off and abused? Our we really like an abused wife or child, who has grown used to abuse and can't imagine life without it?

    juliameg , 2016-05-31 09:45:58
    Economics has long been practiced at the level of a voodoo cult - light the candle and chant a mantra.
    This was apparent in 2007 when Northern Rock went bankrupt having been handing out mortgages 120% over the value of over valued property thus accelerating a house price bubble and instantly putting mortgagees into a position of negative equity.

    It was most apparent when China kept announcing, cheered on by a chorus of economists, a 10% growth rate whilst it tipped 70% of the world's concrete into non viable mega projects, produced a mountain's supply of cheap steel that far exceeded any demand and pumped out clouds of gaseous pollution and lakes of poisonous waste to the detriment of the global environment (uncosted)

    Since then, well it seems that most of that extra money that was pumped into the unregulated money markets got invested in London's luxury property market and fracking - both unsustainable, environmentally damaging and unnecessary.

    I am afraid that a mass extinction event will be the only solution.

    Toeparty , 2016-05-31 09:44:16
    Great piece Aditya

    The impossibility of capitalism

    The quantity of capital needed just to stay in the game nowadays is so gobsmackingly vast that 62 individuals now control more personal wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poorest. This is a level of concentration of wealth and power that the absolutist monarchies of yore could not even have dreamed of. Corporate cartels and monopolies dominate and charge their monopoly prices snuffing out not just their competitors but production in general as others have to charge below value whilst the monopolists charge way above. The financial structures that kept this situation going for the past 30 years has now collapsed owing several times the national debts of the nations that hosted them and which liabilities they have now assumed. Even the smallest percentages of growth require such vast amounts of capital but there is no room for further concentration or state support for it as they are bankrupt. US-sponsored globalization and all the institutions built upon it as a result of the death of capitalism is unraveling at an alarming rate. Globalization behind the greatest discreet political power the world has ever seen was as far as capitalism could take us and it has to be said that a lot of the `development' of the last half-century has been purely destructive and will have to be reversed before we can once again go forward. Which brings us to the second reason for the impossibility of capitalism. The political necessity of growth, without which capitalism as a political economic system is finished, is obstructed not just by sclerotic monopolisation and bankruptcy but by the fact that every tiny percentage of growth requires transforming huge swathes of the nature on which we depend into useless product and nature does not have anything left to give on this basis. Catastrophic global warming is upon us along with a myriad of other environmental catastrophes such as the death of our oceans. It is as it was prophesied that it must eventually be a matter now of socialism or barbarism. Socialism or a New Dark Ages from which are species is unlikely to emerge or survive. We either transcend capitalist globalization, neo-liberal bourgeois internationalism, through world proletarian revolution and a world commonwealth of nations or we die with capitalism.

    nishville , 2016-05-31 09:41:58
    The authors even defend privatisation as leading to "more efficient provision of services" and less government spending – to which the only response must be to offer them a train ride across to Hinkley Point C.

    Or try to get anywhere in the Netherlands by train when fallen leaves or an inch of snow completely paralyses our privatised rails.

    Privatisation is a total bullshit served in a very expensive sandwich to the taxpayers.

    Ziontrain , 2016-05-31 09:39:33
    I would have like to see the author consider the role of power in this situation. With absolute power comes also the ability to determine "reality" - distorted or not. If the emperor wields absolute and devastating power, well who's to tell him he is naked and should abdicate?

    So it, vital to note that a huge change our societies at this moment is the increasing militarisation of civil society, erection of an unprecedented surveillance machiney, reallocation of resources from human development to the military state under many guises, along with a close collaboration of military and business.

    In short, basically anything the author is saying is already in a scenario painted by the likes of Rand Corp - and accounted for in the current state of affairs. There are many disguises for all this including supposedly "threat" of migrants.

    Honestly I don't think there is any stopping this train on its way to a crash.

    Unusualsuspect -> Ziontrain , 2016-05-31 09:54:54
    Except the military as a whole haven't exactly benefitted from austerity. That said, as Iraq demonstrated yet again, senior military personnel who go to Whitehall soon adopt the political drive and beliefs of their masters.
    Ziontrain -> Unusualsuspect , 2016-05-31 10:54:13
    "Austerity" in the west applies to human development programs. Not to the machinery of warfare - or internal policing - or domestic surveillance. All of which are also essential pillars of neoliberalism.

    And there is a carve-out as well. See here:
    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

    Wales Summit Declaration

    Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales

    05 Sep. 2014 - | Press Release (2014) 120Issued on 05 Sep. 2014 | Last updated: 31 Jul. 2015 09:05
    14. Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.

    Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:

    halt any decline in defence expenditure;

    aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;

    aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

    Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.

    Barmaidfromhell , 2016-05-31 09:35:23
    If you think the western neo cons will go with a whimper like the ussr me thinks you are mistaken. The Chinese new yuan is gold backed and has the support of Japan Russia and France as the new international currency. If every American paid 100% tax it wouldn t cover the federal expenditure annually. Without the hall mark of international exchange the dollar is paper. And you think these old east European ideologues led by Kessinger are gong to let their vision of hell go quietly into the night?
    Mukkinese -> proximity1 , 2016-05-31 10:07:55
    This newspaper long ago bought into neo-liberalism. A few individual journalists allowed to write here know what a social-conscience is, but they are "tokens"to present a fig-leaf of social values and justice.

    We see no genuine outrage anymore, no campaigning for the truth or justice, just a resigned, brow-beaten shrug and "what can we do?"

    On the whole the Graun is a paper aimed at the middle-class, professional who wants to talk as if they care, but in the end will scurry over to the side of whoever will look after their investments and protect them from becoming one of those whose situations they wring their hands over...

    proximity1 -> Mukkinese , 2016-05-31 11:04:07
    Exactly! The virtue-signalling done in these pages makes me want to puke.

    In short, while Chakrabortty himself is sincere, most people at this paper reek of hypocrisy.

    nishville , 2016-05-31 09:31:46
    Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off.

    Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it is not even a doctrine - it is a legalized thievery, a plundering of public resources aided and abetted by corrupt politicians.

    It is pre-revolutionary France situation all over again, is it possible that the human race cannot invent a working political-economic system that could effectively keep greedy, egotistical psychopaths at bay?

    Writeangle , 2016-05-31 09:26:17
    The only real news is that the IMF researchers have caught up with research elsewhere but that not to say that the big boys in the IMF have lost faith in making the rich richer as the answer.
    Neoliberialism does not describe the real problem. The real problem is financialisation of western economies which started in the 1970s. This leads to ever less money being invested in the real economy because the financial sector can make bigger returns from bets and rents.
    Some links for financialisation
    https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/how-financialisation-is-destroying-us-economy-how-far-is-india-from-it /
    http://www.industryweek.com/competitiveness/financialization-economy-hurts-manufacturing
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/06/03/why-financialization-has-run-amok/#4bdb261d3e0d

    The trend varies slightly country by country, but the broad direction is clear," says Adair Turner, a former British banking regulator .... "Across all advanced economies, and the United States and the U.K. in particular, the role of the capital markets and the banking sector in funding new investment is decreasing." Most of the money in the system is being used for lending against existing assets such as housing, stocks and bonds....To get a sense of the size of this shift, consider that the financial sector now represents around 7% of the U.S. economy, up from about 4% in 1980. Despite currently taking around 25% of all corporate profits, it creates a mere 4% of all jobs. Trouble is, research by numerous academics as well as institutions like the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund shows that when finance gets that big, it starts to suck the economic air out of the room. In fact, finance starts having this adverse effect when it's only half the size that it currently is in the U.S. Thanks to these changes, our economy is gradually becoming "a zero-sum game between financial wealth holders and the rest of America,"... from http://time.com/4327419/american-capitalisms-great-crisis /

    Assuming financialisation continues
    ...In the United States, for example, "trickle down" economic policies that support tax cuts for the rich with the aim of boosting economic growth and jobs have led to a $2 trillion annual redistribution of wealth from the bottom 99 percent of earners to the top 1 percent over the last 30 years...If the trend continues, by 2030, the top 1 percent of Americans will earn 37 to 40 percent of the country's income, with the bottom 50 percent getting just 6 percent...
    Europe won 't be much different as the richest 1% are global so we are heading to a plutocracy where the 1% will own pretty much everything making government a waste of time. Ownership is the real power. Politics is BS.
    The economy is working well for the 1% so they will not be interesting in changing it. There may be rising dissension throughout the West but that's not their problem to even care about. Any alternative means them getting a smaller cut of the cake - not gonna happen.

    tnbskts -> Writeangle , 2016-05-31 09:42:45
    That's what Rana Foroohar (economics writer at Time magazine) has been saying; she's recently written a book about the finacialisation of the global economy, called Makers and Takers. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/21/crisis-in-capitalism-and-role-of-wall-street
    variation31 , 2016-05-31 09:17:10
    Neoliberalism = wealth-stripping countries to pad the nests of the executive class.
    Neoliberalism = granting more and more legal protection to those who already have greater power over their fellows on account of private wealth.
    Neoliberalism = Blair not in prison for war crimes.
    Neoliberalism = sweetheart tax deals, privatisations, a bust and back-broken NHS, shut libraries if not enough pensioners can be guilt-tripped into sitting there all dya giving a pretence of business as before.
    neoliberalism = horsemeat in the savoury pancakes.

    Really, such a foul and ugly construct should have died YEARS ago. For the sake of basic national wellbeing and human decency. Except this paper has been doing what it can to conflate it with Labour (and with "moderates"!!!!), defend it and perpetuate it.

    GarfieldTheCat -> variation31 , 2016-05-31 09:22:28
    "Neoliberalism = wealth-stripping countries to pad the nests of the executive class.
    Neoliberalism = granting more and more legal protection to those who already have greater power over their fellows on account of private wealth."

    Those first two are also prevalent in other regimes - North Korea or Venezuela for example. And last time I looked neither of those were exponents of Neo-Liberal economics.

    ramous -> GarfieldTheCat , 2016-05-31 10:07:17
    Funny how the ideology of freedom once run its course winds up in the exactly same position as all the other despot systems, with a grossly undeserving wealthy elite making the rules to preserve their reign over everyone else. We have less freedom now than we did before neoliberalism. We live under a financial tyranny.
    variation31 -> GarfieldTheCat , 2016-05-31 10:13:23
    Yes, they are prevalent in far more nakedly barbaric and cruel ways to run countries.

    Neoliberalism is the professional-seeming way of enabling the rape of resources and the demolition of social structures by means other than military dictatorship or brainwashing the people into drooling at the cult of the god-ruler.

    I do hope that "North Korea do something similar too" wasn't supposed to be a subtle defence of neoliberalism!

    hartebeest , 2016-05-31 09:16:21
    Good stuff from Chakrabortty again. However, it's important to stress that the IMF article operates within the same paradigm as the agenda it critiques and so is quite limited in many respects.

    By far the most surprising and important aspect of the paper is symbolic, in that it uses the word neoliberalism. The IMF (and most 'serious' people) tend to think of neoliberalism as a term employed by Rage Against the Machine fans whose economic knowledge extends to having thumbed through a copy of The Shock Doctrine in a hostel on their gap year.

    In terms of the detail, there's actually not much new in the paper. It sounds a lot like Latin American ideas from the 1990s, some of which later appeared in diluted form within the World Bank and which are still basically grounded in neoliberal logic. Essentially: markets are the gold standard for optimal distribution of resources, but they don't always function perfectly in the real world and so it is the task of the state to ensure they do work properly, using strong, efficient institutions and efforts to boost competitiveness (education etc.).

    It's basically the same adaptation (but not abandonment) of the old structural adjustment logic that the World Bank made in the mid 1990s, in the face of mounting evidence that adjustment wasn't working (because they'd stripped away the capacity of govt. to even implement the favoured reforms).

    proximity1 -> hartebeest , 2016-05-31 09:40:43
    ..." in the face of mounting evidence that adjustment wasn't working (because they'd stripped away the capacity of govt. to even implement the favoured reforms)."

    You may ve surprised how quickly and easily this capacity, supposedly "stripped away," can be reasserted as soon as that's what those in power agree they should do.

    hartebeest -> proximity1 , 2016-05-31 11:10:00
    Well, that depends what you mean. I was talking about the paring down and then reorientation and partial reassembling of many developing countries' administrative structures under the direction of the World Bank and IMF in the 80s and 90s. Those sorts of organisations wouldn't countenance a return to anything like the state of play prior to the 1980s.

    However, if you are talking about security, then this is one area where developing countries are very much encouraged to build state capacity as far as is possible (given the 'development=security' mantra now adopted by DFID and the like).

    ID17071882 , 2016-05-31 09:15:03
    I question whether Aditya Chakrabortty has actually read the article in question. Chakrabortty claims that "The results [of the neoliberal agenda], the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible" In reality the article says:

    There is much to cheer in the neoliberal agenda. The expansion of global trade has rescued millions from abject poverty. Foreign direct investment has often been a way to transfer technology and know-how to developing economies. Privatization of state-owned enterprises has in many instances led to more efficient provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments.

    The IMF writers actually address three specific failings of recent neoliberal policy, rather than gives a critique of newliberalism in general:

    An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:

    • The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.­

    • The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.­

    • Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.­

    Like I say, it appears that Chakrabortty has not actually read the IMF article and is actually discussing what he would have liked to have been in the article.

    Perplexed123 -> ID17071882 , 2016-05-31 09:31:15
    Thank you. Scrolling down I can see that others have picked this up. Very, very lazy journalism pushing a particular agenda.
    slinky09 , 2016-05-31 09:08:23
    One article in one magazine does not mark a shift so no, nothing has yet changed in terms of rampant globalisation and neoliberal economic policy. What I do see changing though is the growing realisation that nearly forty years since Thatcher and Reagan set us on this path (with their wealthy supporters urging them on) we're finally getting some realisation that it's a failed model - the trickle down doesn't happen, the elites still gain more, workers and middle classes stagnate ... I don't believe for one minute though that those at the top of the pyramid will give up easily. What next though?
    BrassTrumpet -> galava , 2016-05-31 09:21:15
    While neoliberalism is delusional rightist nonsense, as we can see if we open our eyes.
    Brightdayler -> galava , 2016-05-31 09:22:27
    It doesnt matter what the IMF research "actually said". Neoliberalism doesnt work - if by "work" you mean benefit the majority of people rather than a small minority - and it's delusional to suggest otherwise.
    It's an extreme form of neoclassical economics, most of whose assumptions - required to make its bizarre assertions even remotely plausible - would cause the average person to fall about laughing. Except of course its practitioners are careful to ensure that the average person never does confront its absurdities head on, partly by hiding its doctrines away, partly by disguising them in false platitudes like the "law" of supply and demand and the definition of the economic problem as matching scarce resources and unlimited wants (resources arent scarce and wants are not unlimited).
    Think yourself lucky that it's only Aditya you have to contend with. He seems unaware of the vast amount of work being done by genuinely good economists who have carried on from Keynes and his model of a monetary production economy (hint: most of those claiming to be Keynesians - such as Paul Samuelson - are nothing of the kind).
    crinklyoldgit , 2016-05-31 09:03:50
    I am not so optimistic that this article signals the end of neoliberalism. As AC says, it is a description of a process, or way of thinking that is supposedly non-ideological( and therefore 'does not exist'. The term is a kind of denial, in itself.
    It is about the supremacy of technology and technical systems, but only partly so, because there is always the impression that there is a wilfulness to the decision making process which is used as a screen to obscure the malicious undercurrents of 'pragmatic' decision making -where certain economic elements are defined as having an inevitable quality akin to the enthalpy of energy changes-'we cannot resist the (economic ) laws of nature' is the
    siren call of these duplicitous money-grubbers-while all the time their simplistic nostrums ignore the subtler importances of the entropy of the system, leading to ever greater disorder and ever greater human costs.
    One of the most interesting aspects of living through the "Thatcher' era , when she and her acolytes were promoting this simplistic 'revolution in thinking-the supremacy of the market idea ' - leaving behind the failures of statism the forlorn social contract and the established principle of seeking out complex, negotiated accommodations of conflicting interests, was the clear impression that behind all that quasi- philosophical/right wing ideological stuff was a simple deep desire to rip off the dupes (the wider public) who had no idea what was really happening under their noses.
    It was nothing more than a considered cynical position to take advantage of the money making opportunities offered by public systems that had been heavily invested in over decades, and were therefore available for carpetbagging capitalism.
    Essentially it was the use of insider knowledge and trading. The elevation to a philosophical perspective was simply a cover for the criminal activity and insider plundering.

    Essentially we saw the identical pattern emerge after the collapse of the Soviet Union where serendipity, desperation and ruthless gangsterism coincided to create the squalor of what we now see being enacted in the west-end property casino of London.
    What should be remembered is the Yeltsin era, when, to all intents and purposes. western 'scrap metal' dealers or their agents were snuffling around the wreckage, looking for the quick profits of (the equivalent of) ruthlessly ripping out the copper pipes and plumbing of that empire.
    What did we get? We got a regression into the Putin (orderly and systematic theft) statist despotism, and the lurch into a competing despotism, which we see in places like the Ukraine, being fascist puppet operated for the convenience of malignant interests in the west.

    Socrates69 , 2016-05-31 09:02:04
    No political party or country can stand up to neoliberalism and decide to go their own way. Sooner or later the guys with the baseball bats, probably German, will pay them a visit.

    It's pessimistic but like global warming, things will only change after a catastrophe hits really close to home. We may have more information than we had in the past but the deadening comforts of western middle class living has left us dull and unable to respond.

    lawsorna , 2016-05-31 09:01:03
    Galbraith had seen this. He said that neoliberalism was like feeding the finest oats to the stallion in the hope it would generate some undigested droppings on which the sparrow could feed. It seems that the sparrows now want more of the oats and not from the droppings. Corbyn and Bernie Sanders-phenomena that Blair purports not to understand- are symbols of dissatisfaction of the increasing and disenchanted young people denied opportunities. They do have plans to put in place of neoliberalism. Let us hope that this uncaring world changes.
    oddballs , 2016-05-31 08:53:26
    The Stock Exchange, once an instrument to raise capital for investment is now nothing more than a casino.
    German family owned businesses are the backbone of the German economy, in the UK companies listed on the Stock Exchange are the fiches on the casino table.
    Just look where it all 'ends', huge pharma (Pfizer) companies buying up the competition, not for research, not for the good of the employees but as a way to embark on tax dodging.
    Chakraborty one of the best in this news medium
    shaksvshav , 2016-05-31 08:51:41
    The ultimate novel on neoliberalism must be Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'. Here is part 3 of an interesting commentary on it: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/ayn-rands-demented-mind-understood-through-atlas-shrugged with links to parts 1 and 2.
    craighm -> shaksvshav , 2016-05-31 08:56:12
    Ayn Rand is a joke.
    shaksvshav -> craighm , 2016-05-31 09:11:17
    Agreed. Horrifying that it has cult status amongst neocons.
    Gordon1929 , 2016-05-31 08:48:29
    Reminds me of the old joke. My father died peacefully in his sleep....unlike the passengers on his bus who went screaming to their deaths. Better if neoliberalism's demise were to be assisted by a viable alternative economic theory. If not, it'll take us all with it, over the cliff into oblivion. So, anyone got a plan?
    themostbeautiful -> Gordon1929 , 2016-05-31 08:55:15
    We will rely more and more on machines and AI to make a plan. They can play chess and maybe they can come up with a plan. The machines of the first industrial revolution were daft, nowadays these machines start to become smart. This is a huge difference.
    Leigh Harkness -> Gordon1929 , 2016-05-31 09:11:05
    My 2012 paper "Saving the Euro" describes an economic model of Europe that replicates the GFC monetary crisis and then tests the effect of a range of policy options on the model. Some policy options have positive effects. The paper is available at: buoyanteconomies.com/SavingTheEuro.pdf
    eidos3 , 2016-05-31 08:46:59
    The remarkably naive idea that any market could be free, and that some god called 'market forces' would always take care of things, is awfully primitive, but also very human. Time to get heads out of sand, however, and face facts. We are never going to have the ideal anarchist state; we are never going to see real communism (as opposed to state capitalism) work; and neo-liberalism was dead in the water from the start.
    There are ways to make economies work, but they involve much more thinking and work, and much less knee-jerk spouting of opinion.

    I just hope we survive the mess left by the last 35 years' mismanagement of everything.

    Mick James -> eidos3 , 2016-05-31 09:28:07

    There are ways to make economies work, but they involve much more thinking and work, and much less knee-jerk spouting of opinion.

    If you read the report that's pretty much what it concludes.

    This is the second piece in as many days that completely travesties a reports (Z WIlliams article on pregnancy advice is the other).

    I would suggest as a rule of them that whenever you see the word "report" in a Guardian opinion column you go looking for it on the internet, because what you are about to read will have very little to do with the research, rather a projection of the author's own views onto it.

    What's sad about his is not just the level of misinformation being spread about but how resistant the views even of intelligent and articulate people are to evidence and research. They read the reports, and just say what they were going to say anyway.

    eidos3 -> Mick James , 2016-05-31 11:25:46
    Quite right. A lack of what used to be called 'reason' or 'rationality' has been dominant for decades now, and it seems to be getting worse.

    It should have been clear from the start that Thatcher, Reagan, et al. were wrong. A more equitable distribution of wealth, and hence a more healthy economy, will involve all sorts of things at which both left-wing and right-wing conservatives (by that I mean those on both sides of the political spectrum who cling to old ideas) will scream bloody blue murder. One could start with the complex of environmental concerns, for example.

    Robert Tressell , 2016-05-31 08:46:20
    Another insightful article from Chakrabortty, who, along with John Harris continues to provide welcome sense, in contrast to a host of Westminster bubble hacks that get regularly aired in the Guardian (my personal frustration list includes Behr, Freedland and Rawnsley).

    I don't, however, yet think we can be sanguine about a lessening grip from this destructive ideology. It has a grip in higher education economics departments, where it seems to take the Jesuits approach to grabbing them whilst young and impressionable. It also has a grip on what passes for media in many western countries, where it continues with its poisonous propaganda in which symptoms morph into causes.

    Read any of the articles in this paper in which the EU referendum is mentioned, and see the blaming of immigration for everything from zero hour contracts and pressure on housing and services to the weather (OK, I made the last one up, but you get the drift). A classic is the article on Stephen Hawkings views on Trump and the referendum where btl is infested with all sorts of crap about how he 'doesnt get it because he's not working class'.

    Neo-liberalism is and has been the establishments ideology for a few decades now, and whilst it's cheer leaders and supporters continue to exert their influence over the media and HE it could stagger on a while longer yet.

    JoeSoapy , 2016-05-31 08:45:32
    neoliberalism...to me the biggest problem is globalisation..a race to the bottom..
    . http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/25/adidas-to-sell-robot-made-shoes-from-2017
    Mick James -> JoeSoapy , 2016-05-31 09:32:57
    You don't need globalisation to make shoes with robots.

    If cheap labour is out of the equation then robots will most likely return production to local markets, as shipping will be an unnecessary cost.

    And Adidas have been using evil sewing machines for decades, also naughty electricity: how far do you want to roll back this particular "race to the bottom"?

    Collectivist Hippopotamus -> JoeSoapy , 2016-05-31 11:24:24
    Automation is terrible in neo-liberalism. But Guy Standing, Paul Mason, David Graeber, Yanis Varoufakis and Robert Reich make clear that you can have automation and still have social cohesion and security. Universal Basic Income is step one on the road to Postcapitalism.
    ermagerd , 2016-05-31 08:45:21
    Yes; lots of valid points - although you left out that the report didn't say neoliberalism was all bad - nothing lasts thirty years in a democracy if it's entirely sh*t. We all voted for more cheap tellies, cheap clothes, cheap holidays, cheap nannies etc etc.

    The question is not even 'How do we adapt to the death of neoliberalism?" It's 'How much can we even afford to let neoliberalism die?' No politician who wants to stay in the job for ten minutes, is going to tell the electorate what the future of globalized free trade (which means globalized free movement of labour units) really looks like - so they keep filtering the whole thing through the old meaningless panto of "left and right."

    Farage and Trump are punting exactly the same "hard-left" protectionism that the likes of Arthur Scargill once fought for, yet the media (and politicians) still shriek about them being "right wing," while Sanders and Corbyn have an internationalist view that George Soros would happily endorse.

    We've already had the mainstream begin to adapt - eg; Hillary Clinton faking concern about neoliberalism's excesses in order to see off the threat from Saunders, while the Conservatives had to concede an EUref to UKIP. And while it's (on balance) a welcome death - we'd better hope that it's a reasonably gentle one that acknowledges what works, not the kind of infantilized 'pull-up-the-drawbridge' populist crap that Trump spoon-feeds his demographic. The faster the mainstream adapts, the better.

    AvidViewer , 2016-05-31 08:44:11
    Neoliberalism necessarily impoverishes. Its object is to produce goods and services more cheaply, ie reduce wages. Unfortunately, workers are also consumers, so reducing wages means reducing consumption, which in turn means reducing production.

    A pleasanter system may be to separate production (by machines) from consumption (by humans), hence the interest in helicopter money and citizens income- methods by which individuals are paid by their society to consume.

    The simpler, and so perhaps more likely scenario, is war and pestilence, to create shortages.

    Collectivist Hippopotamus -> AvidViewer , 2016-05-31 11:22:03
    Universal Basic Income yes, helicopter money no. Helicopter money is the last bullet of neo-liberalism. Printing and dumping cash in the hopes that people will spend or invest it. It's the ultimate act of can kicking.
    jessthecrip , 2016-05-31 08:44:09

    Last year the rich countries' thinktank, the OECD, made a remarkable concession. It acknowledged that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers is now at its lowest since the second world war. Even more remarkably, it said the same or worse applied to workers across the capitalist west.

    I wonder if these bastions of economic probity, the IMF and the OECD, will ever apologise for supporting neoliberalism. I wonder if they will ever take any responsibility for advocating a system which has resulted in the rich geting so much richer whilst most of the rest see little or no improvement in their lives, and now increasing numbers of the poor become destitute. I wonder, but I doubt
    totallydude , 2016-05-31 08:38:30
    Yes, it's dying, but not dead yet. It's as much a social doctrine as it is an economic ideology. DBS checks and criminal registers are still very much alive, and these are beacons of neoliberal philosophy. But creating environments where the masses destroy each other-and the rich few prosper- is not a new thing. For years Christianity advocated a similarly dogmatic stance. The biblical "meek shall inherit the earth" has been catastrophically and deliberately misrepresented by those with a vested interest in doing so. You think there is absolute truth and morality? Think again, the market defines what is and is not moral, always has done, always will do. The only thing that neoliberalism changed was the moral goalposts. Instead of blasphemy it uses sexual deviancy as it's antithesis. Oh the myopic masses.
    ramous , 2016-05-31 08:36:06
    All the problems we face today have their roots in the neoliberal ideology. It created a monster that now stamps across the world crushing any country with independents from the grip of this corporate elite. They use financial weapons to destroy economies that don't give into their way of doing things. It breaks up communities to make workers vulnerable, drives wages down, reduces the tax on their profits, sells off all state assets the taxpayer built to made to modern world possible... at rock bottom prices. The list of destructive aspects that can be attributed to neoliberalism is long. Here are a couple of biggies we won't be able to recover from for generations to come. Intergenerational theft by it's approach to the housing market used to prop up the decreasing wages and create and illusion we were all getting richer. All it was doing was stealing from their children to enrich themselves in the present. Then the problems now with care in the community, a result of the break-up of communities to exploit labour. This could turn into an extremely long post if I was to just name all the major problem but Pensions and the privatising the utilities have left the lives of the children of today blighted. Oh and then there is the climate, another problem exacerbated by neoliberalism. Its control of media outlets means the public will never be properly informed about this issue or any issue that might challenge the neoliberal agenda.
    I think we can now say after this debacle that the most productive cohesive and successful period the west has had was under socialist democratic control after the WW2.
    Shadenfraude , 2016-05-31 08:33:29
    The Achilles heel of neo-liberalism was that it over emphasized the supply side. Costs had to be driven down by emasculating Trade Unions, curbs on workers bargaining power were introduced and salaries plummeted, government services had to be cut with direct consequences on jobs and quality of life and, taxes to the rich were simultaneously cut exacerbating income inequality.

    Some of us have been saying this for sometime, that if you create unemployment in the name of efficiency and drastically reduce the salaries of those already in employment who is going to buy the goods and services which were now being produced "efficiently" under neo-liberalism. You can not get growth under this scenario, ultimately you have to reckon with question of decline in aggregate demand and the concomitant income in equality caused by neo-liberalism. What the proponents of neo-liberalism thought was the holy grail of economics turned out to a be a veritable cul-de- sac. The rising tide that was supposed to lift all boats has turned out to the whirl pool that threatens to suck all of us to the bottom of the sea.

    rpfuller , 2016-05-31 08:32:25
    The only death here is in the acknowledgement of neoliberalism's essential failure to deliver a fair and equitable society.

    Soviet state socialism lied, because it pretended to be a necessary step on the way to common ownership of the means of production: but instead fell into the hands of uncompromising thugs. It failed because the neoliberal capitalist system is a far more efficient way for uncompromising thugs to run things.

    Unfortunately, unlike soviet state socialism, there is no practical alternative to neoliberalism, since all the institutions that opposed it or ameliorated it have been destroyed or suborned. Consequently, neoliberalism no longer needs to pretend that it is an ideology committed to fairness or equality.

    This is not the death of neoliberalism. It is neoliberalism beginning to shed a false skin, coming out of the closet.

    It is neoliberalism coming to life, and walking the streets unashamed of its true nature.

    The only death is the death of its pretence to be a system that benefits all: and this results from an arrogance that considers all alternatives, such as socialism or Islam, to have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

    Collectivist Hippopotamus -> rpfuller , 2016-05-31 11:07:43
    I would disagree. Have a look at this: https://youtu.be/mU1pQIMv8_A
    ordinaryukdweller , 2016-05-31 08:31:33
    These lying ideological bastards have destroyed millions of lives and dented the hopes and aspirations of millions more. Their warped gurus, Hayek and Mitford et al are economic illiterates who have been peddling their failed filth for years, buttressed by soulless politicos such Reagan, Thatcher and Blair. They and their failed experiment based on greed rather than need should be confined to the dustbin of history.
    Sproggit , 2016-05-31 08:24:03
    Interested to read the comment about the fact that UK workers no longer enjoy a share of economic growth. I'm 50 and have one 48-year-old sibling. As we grew up as children in the 70's and 80's, our father's salary as a department manager in a major high street supermarket chain was more than enough for us to have a very comfortable childhood. For children today to have the same experience would require both parents to work - and much longer hours.

    The fable 'you never had it so good' is a blatant lie.

    We can't turn back the clock and even if we could I have no desire to return to the strikes and conflict of the 1970s. Yet at the same time it is abundantly clear that as a people we are being squeezed until the pips squeak... Today it is zero hours contracts and "If you don't like it, quit, and I'll hire a migrant on half your salary"... This isn't freakonomics, it's fearonomics - and it's far too effective to go away any time soon.

    Thooley , 2016-05-31 08:22:44
    the real irony being that capitalism is driven and sustained by demand, while neo-liberalism privileges supply, which increases inequality.

    This becomes a problem as capitalism is also dependent upon the poorest half spending for its health. Neo-liberalism is, in essence, economic Anorexia Nervosa.

    No where in their bag of tricks did they try the one that would actually work, increase the spending power of the lower half, but that is anathema to neo-liberal philosophy.

    The real advantage for neo-liberalism is that they've already made off with most things of value that weren't legislatively nailed to the floor.

    ID4545445 , 2016-05-31 08:22:10
    Excellent article - particularly the reference to the NHS.

    The biggest damage done by neoliberal ideology is the disfigurement of thinking, and its hostility to opposing views.

    V good.

    Collectivist Hippopotamus -> Monkeybiz , 2016-05-31 10:58:18
    The state has been militarised to such an extent armed revolution is all but impossible. What really terrifies them is that we will simply ignore them and create our own alternatives. Take Argentina in 2001 as an example. It was the only country in history to default on it's debt due to popular revolt. The revolt in question centered on people forming alternative social and economic services in their own communities around the rallying cry of "Que se vayan todos" or they can all go to hell. There are a few books published under that title about it that are free online. Similarly, have a look at this vid from David Graeber. You can start at 2:56 for a direct answer but it's worth watching the whole thing: https://youtu.be/mU1pQIMv8_A
    fakeamoonlanding , 2016-05-31 08:14:56

    It acknowledged that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers is now at its lowest since the second world war.

    When the economy crashed in 2008 they labelled it credit crunch. The explanation was, and still is, that lenders ran out of credit to carry on lending. But all along they knew that they needed credit primarily to cover their ever mounting losses and carry on business as usual. If their loanees were keeping up payments, not a single lender would crash because of lack of credit.

    Quite basically neoliberal capitalism bit off the same finger that fed it. By going for eternal suppression of wages, forever reducing taxes, and forever shrinking states, they set up a system that helped them to keep more and more proceeds of growth for themselves. Sounds great until you realise that demand has disappeared from the economy. That is what happened in 2008. There was never a credit crunch. If there is real demand, credit would be found somewhere. Central banks can make credit available to meet real demands.

    If the economy is to start growing again, there has to be a fairer distribution of the proceeds of growth. It means higher and fairer wages, higher taxes, a more robust state (the state has always been a major redistributor of wealth). This would bring back demand into the economy. These changes go against every principle of neoliberalism. But then that's why it died,

    DannyNicol , 2016-05-31 08:13:19
    Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it's about class interests. Neoliberal principle is turned on its head whenever that's in the interests of the economic elite - witness the nationalisations and state aids during the banking crisis.
    Drewv -> DannyNicol , 2016-05-31 08:22:15

    Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it's about class interests.

    Why can't it be an ideology that is organically linked to class interests? The fact that an ideology involves an internal, situational gap between official rhetoric and policy substance, is not enough to disqualify it as an ideology. It just means that the ideology is more complex than its surface suggests.

    RedSperanza , 2016-05-31 08:10:44
    We live in the Breshnev era of neoliberalism. The ideology is utterly discredited, and all around is stagnation and despair, but the more it fails in fact, the more it is enshrined in law. TTIP is one example, the Berlin-Brussels determination to "constitutionalise" neoliberalism in the EU by outlawing alternatives is another. If anyone does not know what I'm talking about, I refer them to the Fiscal Compact, and to the ongoing assault on Greek democracy.

    The tragedy is that the Soviet example demonstrates that such zombie systems can continue for decades. The post-mortem phase of the Stalinist system was of much greater duration than its brief pre-mortem era (if it ever was alive for more than 5 minutes). Metaphorically speaking, the embalmed corpses of Thatcher and Merkel may be inspecting parades in Red Square for years to come, as one wasted generation gives way to another.

    ShiresofEngland -> RedSperanza , 2016-05-31 08:41:32
    I hope you are wrong, and there is hope that you are. One of the big ones is me being able to talk to you from here in Angola where I am currently working. The internet.

    Nothing like that existed in Russia, or anywhere else in the world. They could only go by word of mouth as nothing was written to give an alternative. People were isolated, they lacked credible information, yet today we are awash with more information than any of us can handle. The job today is to sort the wheat from the chaff.

    2008 woke up the people when they found out what the banks have been up to, but that was also as the internet was growing exponentially. Even granny is on Facebook today. The best bit is governments cannot control it in the same way they could control the media before.

    There is hope.

    mandatoryusername , 2016-05-31 08:08:37

    ...what you're witnessing amid all the graphs and technical language is the start of the long death of an ideology.

    The start ?

    Y'know I could swear I remember both the IMF and the World Bank officially donning hair shirts and admitting what research had clearly shown: that the imposition of neoliberal policies as preconditions for financial aid packages had generally proved totally disastrous for those they were supposed to help.

    That was back in the 1990s... In practice very little has changed--except that nowadays an article such as the one we're commenting on may include journalists--in this case TV correspondents --in the list of those who continue to reassure us, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, that neoliberal policies really are working.

    Thus the delectably cynical modern definition of a journalist: one who is paid by the rich to tell the middle classes to blame the working classes.

    heathermary , 2016-05-31 08:08:32
    It all feels a bit late. Growth figures have become meaningless. It doesn't matter what the state of the economy is, because all most of us see is zero hours contracts and zero public services. The result has been Trump, the rise of the far right, and the probable break-up of the EU (and possibly UK as well). Our political elites are still asleep on the job. I genuinely don't know where this is taking us.
    WatermelonClaus , 2016-05-31 08:04:26
    From the IMF paper:
    "Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs
    due to supply-side channels, they also hurt demand-and thus
    worsen employment and unemployment. The notion that fiscal
    consolidations can be expansionary (that is, raise output and
    employment), in part by raising private sector confidence and
    investment, has been championed by, among others, Harvard
    economist Alberto Alesina in the academic world and by former
    European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet in
    the policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation
    have been followed, on average, by drops rather than by
    expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent
    of GDP increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage
    point and raises by 1.5 percent within five years the Gini
    measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013)."

    And here in Australia, the Liberal government is trying to sell us a $50 billion reduction in company tax, and an even larger, unspecified reduction in government spending to return to budget surplus as a "plan" for "jobs and growth".

    Seamus Daly , 2016-05-31 08:02:28
    This sucker went down in 2008. What has happened since has been a nightmare. The money-printing, giving that money to the rich, economic 'growth' based on immigration has rewarded those that brought 08 about, whilst punishing it's victims again. Hopefully either Trump, Corbyn, Brexit or Russia re-exerting it's power can finally drive a stake through the neolib heart.
    BelieveItsTrue , 2016-05-31 07:53:27
    " Global Financial Crisis Coming – Japan Warns of "Lehman-Scale" Crisis At G7

    Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe warned his Group of Seven counterparts on Friday that the world may on the brink of a global financial crisis on the scale of Lehman Brothers."
    This quote from an article on zerohedge.com this morning.

    Yet most of humanity remains in the dark, continuing their lives without thought of what is about to happen - a financial crash of such enormity, life will never be the same again. Hardly anyone is preparing and even if they do, it will be to no avail because apart from the elite who will disappear into fortified underground bunkers, we shall be left to fight for our lives by whatever means possible.

    Too bleak a picture? Food riots going on in Venezuela should be enough to demonstrate what can happen. And the US is partially to blame, labelling Venezuela a threat to their security. That Venezuela will pushed into using the dollar for trade is one way of protecting the petrodollar and the reason behind such a stance. Is there no end to the hegemony of a would be slavemaster?

    Indeed, as per the ending of the book Red Plenty "What kind of socialism is that? What kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in chains? What kind of social order? What kind of paradise?"

    HansB09 , 2016-05-31 07:52:30
    Yes; it's dying from within. It was theory, and scholars are abandoning it. But those who put the theory into practice are still there, and they're clinging to their ideology as much as to their seats.

    Neoliberalism is bankrupt in every sense of the word but that doesn't stop the EU, in particular, from imposing its destructive "remedies" - read poison - on member states. And the problem is that we can't remove either the Commission or the bureaucrats, no matter how much they fail. The EU is not a democracy but a kleptocracy. Once you're in, you're in for good. The high-placed bureaucrat who fears for his/her job doesn't exist. Elections are a sham. Nobody - absolutely nobody - votes for a European party or a European platform. The minority that goes to the voting booths uses their ballot as a way to express approval or disapproval of national governments.

    And so we are stuck with neoliberalism, just as the Soviet Union was stuck with communism under Breznev and Andropov. It wasn't working, but the bureaucrats and leaders had a vested interest in keeping it going.

    trp981 , 2016-05-31 07:44:08

    "Two British examples, suggests Will Davies – author of the Limits of Neoliberalism – would be the NHS and universities 'where classrooms are being transformed into supermarkets'. "


    The dominant neoliberal, market fundamentalist order must, like any competent cult, enforce its authority by doubling down each time its worldview is threatened. This is accomplished by identifying and monetizing regions of social life that had hitherto been neglected or underutilized. In the latest sting, the student is reduced to the status of a consumer whose actions and decisions are governed purely by the market algorithm. The reduction must be so complete that the student-consumer identity should appear obvious and unquestionable.

    "Since the crash, central bankers, politicians and TV correspondents have tried to reassure the public that this wheeze or those billions would do the trick and put the economy right again."

    The financial crash of 2008 was the biggest and latest bursting in a series of asset bubbles, following on the footsteps of the 2000 bust of the Dotcom bubble. Taking the long view over the last thirty years, the blowing and bursting of one asset bubble after another has served as a means of vacuuming up the social wealth, as the top economic tiers have been successively bailed out at the expense of the majority of the population.
    To express it in the precise language of physics, the bubble-burst-bail cycle is the pump'em-fleece'em-blame'em game that the economic elite perpetrate on the unsuspecting commoners.

    The captured organs of government managed to again bail out the big speculators and players, privatizing their gains during the expansion of the bubble and socializing their losses during its bust. In other words, a smooth operation of radiating risk from high-stakes gamblers and scammers to the society at large. However, the ripple effects of the latest crash have not been completely damped out and, if anything, the magnitude of the shock waves keeps increasing after each manifestation of discontent and protest against the neoliberal machine.

    A cascading series of cracks are beginning to appear in the illusion of the steady-state equilibrium of the world, fracturing the end-of-history narrative that the neoliberal order has been energetically maintaining for the past three decades. Nevertheless, the this-can't-go-on-but-it-will-go-on state of affairs seems to be sputtering and not going on as smoothly as before. Occupy Wall Street, Corbyn, Sanders, Syriza, Podemos, etc., are the fissures through which the pent-up and inchoate frustrations of various social forces are periodically finding an outlet to the surface.

    The dangers of the ever-increasing extreme inequality and the instability it can cause are explored by various scholars including Acemoglu and Turchin . The latter applies a dynamical system approach to estimate political stress pressures that could lead to crises. According to his analysis we are on the cusp of one such instability. The increasing instability of the neoliberal order implies the shifting of the ground beneath it. The previous givenness of the passive citizenry is becoming less so, and critical junctures might approach fast and unforeseeably.

    Collectivist Hippopotamus -> trp981 , 2016-05-31 10:24:52
    A very interesting and convincing post, thanks. Could you elaborate on Turchin and his prediction of instability, what exactly does he mean?
    Stumphole , 2016-05-31 07:33:52
    It's reaching end game in the US. The global elite now control most of the world's wealth. Congress is corrupt as hell. TTIP will grab any jewels the people own, like the NHS.
    But communism fell internally when the people didn't want it. one way to stop the global elite is to tax them properly, including their corporations, like Facebook and Google. The French are at least taking Google to court for extra tax. And these damned tax-shelters need to be closed down and firms outlawed from sending their money their.
    Even Luxenbourg is a parasite. It offers these company's a nice low tax rate ( in the EU!) and their citizens have the highest standard of livening in the EU for doing zero.
    RollyW -> Stumphole , 2016-05-31 09:04:31
    Please, do not keep equating the Russian dictatorships to Communisim.
    It isn't, never was and never could be.
    The USofA demonised the concept of true socialism by using the excesses of the USSR as a blind in order for its wealthy ruling elite to further mislead the general population.
    Collectivist Hippopotamus -> Stumphole , 2016-05-31 10:11:06
    As Rolly said, USSR was neither socialist nor communist. It was a torture chamber with a red flag and social welfare. There are multiple paths to a communist society, to the tragedy of the people who lived under it that was not one of them. The Spanish anarchists have it a fair go and did particularly well given the circumstances. I don't know if I would follow any of these ideologies as a way out but alternatives do at least exist.
    politicsblogsuk , 2016-05-31 07:33:17
    "... the start of the long death of an ideology."

    Yes, it's certainly too soon to add bunting and balloons to the shopping-list and, as the Straw Man says in The Wizard of Oz, it will probably get worse before it gets better, with those who truly, madly and deeply believe in the ideology or cult of neoliberalism exercising and inflicting it more savagely and ruthlessly in the years to come.

    Neoliberalism is a heist of wealth from those who create it at the bottom to those who plunder and squander it at the top.

    It is forever aided and abetted by useful idiots, who think that earning a few multiples of the average wage or having a few thousand in the bank puts them on a level which is closer to Carlos Slim or Warren Buffet than the sanctioned, hardworking, wage-free supermarket shelf-stacker and charity food-bank shopper.

    The cheerleaders and shills who swarm like flies around shit.

    urryCanary , 2016-05-31 07:21:04
    Excellent article. I particularly enjoyed 'fiscal waterboarding'.

    This is one of Spufford's crucial insights: that long before any public protests, the insiders led the way in murmuring their disquiet.

    ... what you're witnessing amid all the graphs and technical language is the start of the long death of an ideology.

    Well, we live in hope. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing neoliberalism dead and buried. Unfortunately, it's clear that the key word in each of those quotes is 'long'. The relatively few who are benefiting from the neoliberal model won't give it up without the mother of all power struggles.
    RadioPartizan -> FurryCanary , 2016-05-31 10:04:09
    "The relatively few who are benefiting from the neoliberal model won't give it up without the mother of all power struggles."

    Yeah - thats the nub. They are not going to give up their huge power and privilege merely because the system it relies on is screwing everybody else. Intellectual critques will get nowhere without change being forced by unrelenting pressure from mass movements of ordinary people - strike, occupy, demonstrate, boycott and organise.

    TheDudleyOmmer , 2016-05-31 07:18:48
    What is remarkable is how long it has taken for institutions like the IMF to state what has been obvious to most populations for many years. The contrast with the rise of rewards at the top and food banks at the bottom should have been a red rag to a bull for any organisation which supposedly has the whole of the worlds population to consider. The lies about 'public bad and private good' have led to whole sectors of teachers, doctors and other public servants to be alienated.
    I find the difficulty of voting to stay in an obviously neoliberal Europe or a probably more neoliberal UK a difficult choice. My gut feeling at the moment is to vote out and hope the more extreme neoliberal policies of Redwood and Johnson will quickly alarm the British public and we may get back to electing a socially minded government and not have to endure this lying 'caring conservatism' which voting remain will entrench for many years.
    DiscoveredJoys -> TheDudleyOmmer , 2016-05-31 07:28:36
    It seems that the political arm of the IMF which supports Bremain is at odds with the research arm which is more ambivalent about the excesses of neoliberalism.
    amesValencia -> MattyTwo , 2016-05-31 10:13:43
    The "Free market" is a non-sequitur: A free market ends up in monopoly.
    Inevtitably.
    That's why all free market economies have at their root a mechanism for preventing monopolies working.

    Economist is fundamentally illogical based on the basic fact that economics deals in "Value", and that value is something essentially illogical. It is not possible to objectively give a value to a kilo of potatoes, much as economists have tried, not elast Marx who was a clever person.

    This need to prevent monopolies originates in that, in various tortuous and complicated labyrinthine ways.

    geoffhoppy -> themurf , 2016-05-31 10:44:00
    The reality is that a "free market" only exists where there are numerous buyers and numerous sellers. Once supply is consolidated in the hands of the few (i.e. almost every commodity in our modern world) then the market is distorted and no longer free.

    Whereas states previously had powers to prevent monopoly power in their own country there is no such mechanism to regulate at a global level.

    zoominu -> GodfreyRich , 2016-05-31 11:43:13

    But the fundamental reality of a market is the basis of human society.

    What is that supposed to mean exactly?

    "...Lessons of October (156k) written only shortly after Lenin's death in 1924, issued a serious warning to workers about the mistakes and inadequacies of the clique already forming around Stalin. It obliquely draws lessons from the failure of the German revolution, "a perfectly exceptional revolutionary situation of world historic importance," due in part to the failure of leadership of Stalin himself, which left the Russian revolution isolated.

    But it is Trotsky's In Defence of October which is most recommended to the new reader. Trotsky concludes this remarkable explanation of the ideas of Marxism (as developed by Lenin and Trotsky) with the words:

    "The historic task of our epoch consists in replacing the uncontrolled play of the market by reasonable planning, in disciplining the forces of production, compelling them to work together in harmony and obediently serve the needs of mankind."
    (In Defence of October)

    http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/russia/r2frame.htm?intro.htm

    bootsyjam -> themurf , 2016-05-31 13:33:39
    There are no free markets at all. Lesson 1 in "Mistakes people make when discussing economics."

    [Apr 24, 2016] What Can Replace Neoliberalism

    addisfortune.net
    In a popular piece that recently appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, headlined, "The Future of History", Francis Fukuyama pointed out that, despite widespread anger at Wall Street bailouts, there has been no great upsurge of support for left-wing political parties. Fukuyama attributed this – rightly, I believe – to a failure of ideas.

    The 2008 financial crash revealed major flaws in the neoliberal view of capitalism, and an objective view of the last 35 years shows that the neoliberal model has not performed well relative to the previous 30 years. This is in terms of economic growth, financial stability and social justice. But a credible progressive alternative has yet to take shape.

    What should be the main outlines of such an alternative?

    A progressive political economy must be based on a firm belief in capitalism – that is, on an economic system in which most of the assets are privately owned and markets largely guide production and distribute income. But it must also incorporate three defining progressive beliefs: the crucial role of institutions; the need for state involvement in their design in order to resolve conflicting interests and provide public goods; and social justice, defined as fairness, as an important measure of a country's economic performance.

    It was a great mistake of neoclassical economists not to see that capitalism is a socioeconomic system and that institutions are an essential part of it. The recent financial crisis was made far worse by profound institutional failures, such as the high level of leverage that banks were permitted to have.

    Empirical research has shown that four sets of institutions have a major impact on the performance of firms and, therefore, on a country's economic growth. These include the institutions underpinning its financial and labour markets, its corporate governance arrangements, its education and training system and its national system of innovation (the network of public and private institutions that initiate and diffuse new technologies).

    Another defining belief of progressive thinking is that institutions do not evolve spontaneously, as neoliberals believe. The state must be involved in their design and reform.

    In the case of institutions underpinning labour and financial markets, as well as corporate governance, the state must mediate conflicting interests. Likewise, a country's education and training system, and its national system of innovation, are largely public goods, which have to be provided by the state.

    It should be clear that the role for the state that I have been describing is an enabling or market-supporting one. It is not the command and control role promoted by traditional socialists or the minimalist role beloved by neoliberals.

    The other defining belief of progressive thinking rejects the neoliberal view that a country's economic performance should be assessed solely in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) growth and freedom. If one is concerned with a society's wellbeing, it is not possible to argue that a rich country in which the top one percent holds most of the wealth is performing better than a slightly less wealthy country in which prosperity is more widely shared.

    Moreover, fairness is a better measure of social justice than equality. This is because it is difficult to devise practical and effective policies to achieve equality in a market economy.

    In addition, there is a real tradeoff between equality and economic growth, and egalitarianism is not a popular policy even for many low-income people. In my experience, trade unions are much more interested in wage differentials than in a simple policy of equal pay for all.

    These are the core principles that I believe a new progressive political economy should embrace. I also believe that Western countries that do not adopt this framework and instead cling to a neoliberal political economy, will find it increasingly difficult to innovate and grow.

    In the new global economy, which is awash with cheap labour, Western economies will not be able to compete in a "race to the bottom", with firms seeking ever-cheaper labour, land and capital, with governments seeking to attract them by deregulating and shrinking social benefits.

    The only way Western economies will be able to compete and improve their standard of living is by seeing themselves as being involved in a race to the top. That is, firms must improve their value added through innovation in existing industries and by developing the capability to compete in new and more sophisticated industries, where value added is generally higher.

    Companies will be able to do this only if governments abandon the belief that they have no role to play in the economy. In fact, the state has a key role to play in providing the conditions that enable dynamic companies to innovate and grow.

    [Apr 24, 2016] Theres a new parliamentary group in UK on Limits to Growth that had its first meeting this week

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'There's an interesting theory – called the 'green paradox' – that low oil prices are in part the reaction of an industry fearful of the impacts of climate change policy on its future revenues. ..."
    "... The German economist Hans-Werner Sinn has argued that "if suppliers feel threatened by a gradual greening of economic policies.. they will extract their stocks more rapidly" thus pushing their prices down' ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    George Kaplan , 04/22/2016 at 2:14 am
    There's a new parliamentary group in UK on Limits to Growth that had it's first meeting this week.

    'A 2015 analysis of the remaining fossil fuel resources in China, USA, Canada and Australia, which includes unconventional resources, suggests that overall oil production is in fact peaking already'

    I hadn't heard this before:

    'There's an interesting theory – called the 'green paradox' – that low oil prices are in part the reaction of an industry fearful of the impacts of climate change policy on its future revenues.

    The German economist Hans-Werner Sinn has argued that "if suppliers feel threatened by a gradual greening of economic policies.. they will extract their stocks more rapidly" thus pushing their prices down'

    http://limits2growth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Jackson-and-Webster-2016-Limits-Revisited.pdf

    [Apr 24, 2016] Neoliberalism as the Agent of Capitalist Self-Destruction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Second, one would have to be extraordinarily naïve to believe that the neoliberal project has been about establishing 'free' markets in the first place, although this myth has been assiduously perpetrated by social democratic parties who, eager to disguise their own capitulation to neoliberalism, emphasize their opposition to the marketisation of all social relationships, even though no-one – except perhaps the followers of Ayn Rand – seriously imagines this is either possible or desirable. ..."
    "... There are two foundational aspects of capitalism: the 'horizontal' competition between capitals and the 'vertical' conflict between labour and capital. The role of the capitalist state is to impose a dual social order determined by these two processes: over competing capitals so that market relations do not collapse into 'the war of all against all', and over the conflict between capital and labour so that it continues to be resolved in the interest of the former. Beyond this, states also have to establish 'general conditions of production', which individual competing capitals would be unwilling or unable to provide, including some basic level of technical infrastructure and welfare. These functions are mainly 'internal' to the territory of nation-states, but they must also represent the collective interests of the 'internal' capitalist class 'externally' in relation to other capitalist states and classes, up to and including the conduct of war. ..."
    "... Joseph Schumpeter yielded to no-one in his admiration for the heroic entrepreneur, but also noted during the Second World War that, with the possible exception of the United States, the bourgeoisie was so incapable of self-rule that it required a non-bourgeois group as a 'master'. ..."
    "... In the case of the UK the regime began, not with Margaret Thatcher's General Election victory in 1979, but around half-way through the preceding Labour Government of 1974–9 and it persists, with variations, to this day, whatever the bleating from Polly Toynbee and others on the liberal left about the supposedly fundamental differences between the two main parties. ..."
    "... The answer is in the way in which neoliberalism has reconfigured politics.The necessary distance between the state and capital (or between state managers and capitalists) that Smith, Marx and Schumpeter from their different political perspectives all regarded is being essential for the health of the system, is being minimised. In particular, the regime adoption of timescales associated specifically with the profit-maximising drives of financial capital is important as it indicates the short-termism involved. Three factors are important in producing this tendency. ..."
    "... Ironically, one reason for the rise of neoliberalism in the US was a paradoxical outcome of the successful demand for greater democratic accountability during the 1960s and 1970s. This led to the weakening of both congressional committees and party structures, and produced a new breed of 'entrepreneurial politicians' interested in highlighting issues popular with specific audiences which would provide them with a stable following. ..."
    "... For all practical purposes then, members of the ruling class in the West are now united in accepting neoliberalism as the only viable way of organising capitalism as an economic system, but they are divided in relation to how capitalism should be organised as a social system. They may all be neoliberals now, but they are not all neoconservatives. ..."
    "... Defence of the system is always the principle objective of the bourgeoisie, even at the expense of temporary system malfunction. In a situation where economic desperation was leading to mounting disorder, far-right parties would be brought into play to direct attention from the real source of social anguish onto already-identified scapegoats, no matter what price they exacted in terms of policy. ..."
    salvage.zone
    Salvage

    The neoliberal era can be retrospectively identified as beginning with the economic crisis of 1973, or, more precisely, with the strategic response of state managers and employers to that crisis. Previous eras in the history of capitalism have tended to close with the onset of further period of systemic crisis; 1973, for example, saw the end of the era of state capitalism which began in 1929. The neoliberal era, however, has not only survived the crisis which began in 2007, but its characteristic features are, if anything, being further extended and embedded, rather than reversed.

    Yet, although neoliberalism has massively increased the wealth of the global capitalist class, has it also restored the health of the system itself? The crisis which gave rise to neoliberalism was, after all, caused by the end of the unprecedented period of growth which characterised the post-war boom, and the consequent accelerating decline in the rate of profit, unimpeded by the countervailing tendencies – above all arms spending – which had held it in check since the Second World War. These levels of growth were never resumed, but it would be wrong to claim that capitalism experienced no recovery after 1973. The boom from 1982 to 2007 was certainly uneven and punctuated by particularly sharp financial crises and recessions in 1987, 1991, 1997 and 2000; but these were normal expressions of the business cycle and only a misplaced fixation with using the unique and unrepeatable period between 1948 and 1973 as a comparator could justify treating these as symptoms of crisis. When crisis did return in 2007–8, it simply proved that neoliberalism was no more capable of permanently preventing this than any other mode of capitalist regulation.

    Neoliberalism does, however, represent a paradox for capitalism. Its relative success as a ruling-class strategy, particularly in weakening the trade union movement and reducing the share of profits going to labour, has helped to disguise that some aspects of this mode of regulation are proving unintentionally detrimental to the system. Serving the interests of the rich is not the same – or at least, not always the same – as serving the interests of capital and may, in certain circumstances, be in contradiction to it. Simply doing what the rich want is unlikely to produce beneficial results for the system as a whole, although it may help increase the wealth of individual capitalists. For not only are capitalists generally uninterested in the broader social interest, which we might expect, but they are also generally incapable of correctly assessing their own overall collective class interests, which might seem more surprising – although as we shall see, it is a long-standing phenomenon, observed by many of the great social theorists from late eighteenth century onwards. As a result, capitalist states – or more precisely, their managers – have traditionally acted to make such an assessment; but in the developed West at least, neoliberal regimes are increasingly displaying an uncritical adherence to the short-term wishes of particular business interests. This is not the only emergent problem: the increasingly narrow parameters of neoliberal politics, where choice is restricted to 'social' rather than 'economic' issues, has encouraged the emergence of far-right parties, usually fixated on questions of migration, which have proved enormously divisive in working-class communities, but whose policies are in other respects by no means in the interests of capital.

    The self-destructive nature of neoliberal capitalism has nothing necessarily to do with the removal of restrictions on markets. The rise of neoliberalism made it fashionable to refer to Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, the assumption being that neoliberalism is in the process of realising Polanyi's nightmare: reversing the second part of his 'double movement' – the social reaction against markets – and unleashing the mechanisms that he saw as being so destructive of society and nature.

    Leaving aside the fact that capitalism was always capable of producing social atomization, collective violence and environmental destruction, even in periods when the state was far more directly involved in the mechanisms of production and exchange then it is now, there are two problems with this position. First, rhetoric apart, capitalists no more favour untrammelled competition today than they did when monopolies and cartels first appeared as aspects of the emerging system in the sixteenth century. Second, one would have to be extraordinarily naïve to believe that the neoliberal project has been about establishing 'free' markets in the first place, although this myth has been assiduously perpetrated by social democratic parties who, eager to disguise their own capitulation to neoliberalism, emphasize their opposition to the marketisation of all social relationships, even though no-one – except perhaps the followers of Ayn Rand – seriously imagines this is either possible or desirable. In what follows I will mainly draw on the experiences of the UK and the US, since these were the first nation-states in which neoliberalism was imposed under democratic conditions – unlike Chile or China, for example – and where it has in many respects gone furthest. To understand the real nature of the difficulties inadvertently caused for capital by neoliberalism we have to begin with the role of capitalist states 'in general'.

    How did capitalist states operate before neoliberalism? There are two foundational aspects of capitalism: the 'horizontal' competition between capitals and the 'vertical' conflict between labour and capital. The role of the capitalist state is to impose a dual social order determined by these two processes: over competing capitals so that market relations do not collapse into 'the war of all against all', and over the conflict between capital and labour so that it continues to be resolved in the interest of the former. Beyond this, states also have to establish 'general conditions of production', which individual competing capitals would be unwilling or unable to provide, including some basic level of technical infrastructure and welfare. These functions are mainly 'internal' to the territory of nation-states, but they must also represent the collective interests of the 'internal' capitalist class 'externally' in relation to other capitalist states and classes, up to and including the conduct of war.

    In order to maintain links to capital in all its multiple incarnations, the state must partly mirror capital's fragmentation. As this suggests, not every action carried out by the state need necessarily be in the direct collective interest of the ruling class – indeed, if it is to give the appearance of adjudicating between different class and other interests then it is essential that they are not, so long as these actions are ultimately subordinated to ruling class interests. Nevertheless, the capitalist state has nevertheless tended not to be run by capitalists themselves. Why not?

    The earliest social theorists to concern themselves with the emergent capitalist system – which they tended to refer to as 'commercial society' – were unambiguous in their assessment of how narrow business interests were. Since Adam Smith is – quite unfairly – treated as the patron saint of neoliberalism is may be worth reminding ourselves of his still-refreshingly candid views about the capacity of business interests for deception and oppression, and their inability to see beyond their own immediate interests. Nearly a century later in the 1860s, Smith's greatest successor, Karl Marx, was able to point in Capital to the example of the British Factory Acts as an example of how the state had to intervene to regulate the activities of capital in the face of initial opposition from the capitalists themselves. Reflecting on the entire legislative episode, Marx noted the way in which it took Parliamentary legislation to force capital to accept regulation of the length of the working day. Indeed, the most irreconcilable positions were expressed not by employers but by their ideologues, the most important of whom was Herbert Spencer, who saw – and here we can detect the genuine ancestry of contemporary neoliberalism – the spectre of socialist slavery in any form of state intervention.

    The thesis concerning bourgeois incapacity was not only restricted to critical supporters of capitalism like Smith or opponents like Marx. Joseph Schumpeter yielded to no-one in his admiration for the heroic entrepreneur, but also noted during the Second World War that, with the possible exception of the United States, the bourgeoisie was so incapable of self-rule that it required a non-bourgeois group as a 'master'. Without the kind of constraints provided by this pre-capitalist framework, the more sober instincts of the bourgeois would be overcome by the impulse towards what Schumpeter called 'creative destruction'. The delegation of power to the state therefore exists because of the inaptitude of the capitalist class compared to other ruling classes in history: feudal lords combine an economic and political role; capitalists perform only the former – although the necessity for capitalists to devote their time to the process of accumulation and their own multiple internal divisions also militate against their functioning directly as a governing class.

    Schumpeter was, however, too pessimistic: from the First World War in particular, the pre-capitalist classes which had acted as the shepherds of capital were increasingly replaced by state managers: the professional politicians and civil servants respectively responsible for the legislative and executive wings of the state. At the most fundamental level, the common interest between capitalists and state managers stems from their common class position: both are part of the bourgeoisie. If we visualise the bourgeoisie as a series of concentric circles, then the capitalist class as such (actual owners and controllers of capital) occupies the centre and a series of other layers radiates outwards, with those closer to the periphery being progressively less directly connected to the core economic activities of production, exploitation, and competition, and more involved with those of the ideological, administrative, or technical aspects, which are nevertheless essential to the reproduction of capitalism. The incomes that state managers are paid from state revenues ultimately derive from the total social surplus value produced by the working class, as are the profits, interest, and rent received by different types of private capitalist. And this applies not simply to the source of their income but also to its level, since the relatively high levels of remuneration, security, and prestige enjoyed by these officials depend on the continued exploitation of wage labour. At that level the interests of state managers and capitalist are the same.

    These groups have a shared ideological commitment to capitalism, but their particular interests arise from distinct regions of the totality of capitalism, in its various national manifestations. A shared background in institutions like schools, universities, and clubs helps to consolidate a class consciousness that articulates these interests, but a more fundamental reason is that the activities of states are subordinated to the accumulation of capital. In the British case, the state may not do this as successfully as the capitalist class might wish, but that is an indication of the problems of managing long-term relative decline, not that the state managers have different goals. Regardless of their class origins, state managers and capitalists are drawn together into a series of mutually supportive relationships. The former need the resources provided by individual national capitals, principally through taxation and loans, in order to attend to the needs of the national capital as a whole; the latter need specific policy initiatives to strengthen the competitive position of their sector of the national capital within the global economy. There have nevertheless always been tensions, above all the fear on the part of capitalists that states – which they regard as Weberian autonomous entities with their own interests – will either restrict or abolish their right to private property. What gives these fears plausibility is precisely the fact that state managers have both to facilitate the process of capital accumulation and ameliorate its effects on the population and environment, returning us to the Factory Acts and capitalist responses to them described by Marx in 1867.

    Has the neoliberal era seen the capitalist class finally succeeding in 'binding Leviathan', to quote the title of an early British neoliberal text by William Waldegrave? We need to be clear that it is not the nature of capitalist states themselves that has changed: they still need to perform the core functions described at the beginning of this section. There is no 'neoliberal state', but there are 'neoliberal regimes'. In the case of the UK the regime began, not with Margaret Thatcher's General Election victory in 1979, but around half-way through the preceding Labour Government of 1974–9 and it persists, with variations, to this day, whatever the bleating from Polly Toynbee and others on the liberal left about the supposedly fundamental differences between the two main parties.

    What has changed is that the relationship between neoliberal regimes and capital since the 1970s has prevented states from acting effectively in the collective, long-term interest of capitalism. Neoliberal regimes have increasingly abandoned any attempt to arrive at an overarching understanding of what the conditions for growth might be, other than the supposed need for lowering taxation and regulation and raising labour flexibility. Apart from these, the interests of the total national capital is seen as an arithmetical aggregate of the interests of individual businesses, some of which, to be sure, have rather more influence with governments than others. In so far as there is a 'strategic view' it involves avoiding any policies which might incur corporate displeasure, however minor the inconveniences they might involve for the corporations, which of course includes regulation. These developments have, not unexpectedly, led to complete incomprehension among remaining Keynesians of the liberal left such as Ha-Joon Chang and Will Hutton, but they are not beyond explanation. The reason is not simply because of successful lobbying and PR on behalf of individual businesses or industries, pernicious and pervasive though these increasingly sophisticated activities undoubtedly are. But corporations have always done this: why are state managers now so predisposed to respond positively to their efforts? The answer is in the way in which neoliberalism has reconfigured politics.The necessary distance between the state and capital (or between state managers and capitalists) that Smith, Marx and Schumpeter from their different political perspectives all regarded is being essential for the health of the system, is being minimised. In particular, the regime adoption of timescales associated specifically with the profit-maximising drives of financial capital is important as it indicates the short-termism involved. Three factors are important in producing this tendency.

    The first is the depoliticization of the political wing of the state managers through the delegation of functions away from the government in office to ostensibly 'non-political' bodies, the introduction ostensibly 'objective' assessments of the effectiveness of policy and imposition of binding 'rules' which restrict the range of actions which politicians can take. In relation to the latter in particular, each successive phase of the neoliberal experiment saw the incremental abandonment of the repertoire of measures through which governments had traditionally influenced economic activity, beginning with Geoffrey Howe's abandonment of exchange controls in 1979 and concluding (to date) with Gordon Brown's transfer of the power to set interest rates from the Treasury to an unelected committee of the Bank of England.

    As a consequence of their heightened 'managerial' function, politicians have increasingly become a professional caste whose life-world is increasingly remote from any other form of activity, economic or otherwise, and therefore more autonomous, while simultaneously becoming more committed to capitalist conceptions of the national interest, with business as an exemplar. Consequently, most discussion of politics – in the developed world at least – is devoted to expending more or less informed commentary and speculation on essentially meaningless exchanges within Parliaments and other supposedly representative institutions. Debates therefore have the quality of a shadow play, an empty ritual in which trivial or superficial differences are emphasised in order to give an impression of real alternatives and justify the continuation of party competition. To understand why, we have to focus on the weakening of the labor movement, since one of the inadvertent roles which it historically played was to save capitalism from itself, not least by achieving reforms in relation to education, health and welfare. These benefitted workers, of course, but also ensured that the reproduction of the workforce and the conditions for capital accumulation more generally took place. In this respect social democracy occupied a similar place to the pre-capitalist elites identified by Schumpeter as necessary to rule on behalf of a congenitally incapable capitalist class. But with the weakening of trade union power and the capitulation of social democracy to neoliberalism, there is currently no social force capable of either playing this reformist role directly or by pressurizing non-social democratic state managers into playing it.

    The second factor, opposed to the depoliticization of politicians, is the politicization of the non-political wing of the state managers: the civil servants. As the political parties became less distinct from each other, the officials required to implement their increasingly similar policies are required to turn themselves more completely into extensions of the parties themselves. In the US, the politicization of the civil service has always been a more significant factor than in the UK, but even there the neoliberal era saw a heightening of the existing tendency. The permeability and lack of technocracy of the US state bureaucracy compared to the French or British may have some advantages for capital, but generally hinders the separation of policy making from political considerations and leads to the politically motivated choice of budget projections. These tendencies were exacerbated by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 which further weakened the autonomous basis of the government bureaucracy. In the UK, following hard on the heels of the United States as always, there has been since 1979, and especially since 1997, a more generalised influx of private-sector appointees into the civil service, to the point where it has been effectively subject to a corporate takeover. But even in relation to the permanent home civil service, the expectation that senior civil servants in particular will not attempt to point out the difficulties involved in governmental policies or even consider alternative ways of delivering policies, but simply present arguments to justify them, regardless of the empirical data.

    The third and final factor in producing chronic short-termism in neoliberal regimes is the de-politicization of the electorate. Except it is not so much de-politicization as abstention by sections of the electorate who no longer have any parties for whom to vote. Many of those electors still involved in casting their vote do so – appropriately enough – on a consumer model of political choice, where participation is informed by media-driven perceptions of which result will be to their immediate personal benefit. Unsurprisingly, the numbers prepared to carry out even this minimal level of activity are declining. This can be reversed, as was demonstrated in the popular insurgency for a Yes vote during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, where 97 percent of population registered to vote and 85 percent actually did; but under 'normal' conditions, those who vote are more likely to belong to the middle-classes, who tend to have a more focused view of their material interests and deploy more interventionist strategies for maintaining them than those bearing the brunt of austerity. Ironically, one reason for the rise of neoliberalism in the US was a paradoxical outcome of the successful demand for greater democratic accountability during the 1960s and 1970s. This led to the weakening of both congressional committees and party structures, and produced a new breed of 'entrepreneurial politicians' interested in highlighting issues popular with specific audiences which would provide them with a stable following.

    A model for 'returning power to the people' along these lines was built early on in the neoliberal experiment, in the US. The most fully developed version can be found in California. Since the mid-1970s, politics in the world's fourth biggest economy have been characterised by a combination of falling voter participation among working class and minority groups, and a targeted use of local referendums on 'propositions'. The latter have been designed to defend property values by blocking integrated schooling and urban development, and by preventing progressive taxation. Proposition 13 was passed in 1978 and signalled the commencement of the neoliberal era in the US by capping taxes on property, even though house values were rising. As a result, the burden of taxation fell disproportionately on income tax, even though for most worker's salaries and wages were stagnant or falling – and even increasing income tax requires a two thirds majority in both Houses of the State Legislature.

    It is the self-interested behaviour of a mobilised middle-class that has brought California to fiscal crisis in 2009, after which the usual remedies of cutting public services, including child health care, were now being offered as a solution to the structural inability of the state to raise the necessary levels of taxation. The paralysis of California may foreshadow the future of US politics as a whole and, in turn, the US may foreshadow the future of politics in the rest of the world, a development for which there are, unfortunately, historical precedents.

    The entire neoliberal project was premised on the irreversibility of the process: the abolition of regulatory mechanisms, dismantling of welfare programs, ratification of international treaties for which there are no formal mechanisms allowing them to be either amended or annulled, and so on – all these could be reversed, but it would require new legal and administrative structures which would in turn require planning and a political will to do so which has not existed since the beginning of the neoliberal era. For all practical purposes then, members of the ruling class in the West are now united in accepting neoliberalism as the only viable way of organising capitalism as an economic system, but they are divided in relation to how capitalism should be organised as a social system. They may all be neoliberals now, but they are not all neoconservatives. In the US both Democrats and Republicans are openly committed to capitalism, but there are also real divisions of opinion between them concerning, for example, gay rights or environmental protection.

    Electoral support for the far-right in these circumstances is based on the apparent solutions it offers to what are now two successive waves of crisis, beginning respectively in 1973–4 and 2007–8, which have left the working class in the West increasingly fragmented and disorganised, and susceptible to appeals to blood and nation as the only viable form of collectivism still available, particularly in a context where any systemic alternative to capitalism – however false it may have been – had apparently collapsed in 1989–91. The political implications are ominous. The increasing interchangeability of political parties, discussed above gives the far-right an opening to appeal to voters by positioning themselves as outside the consensus in ways which speak to popular appetites for destruction fostered by capitalism itself.

    The potential problem for the stability of the capitalist system is however less the possibility of far-right parties themselves coming to power with a programme destructive to capitalist needs, than their influence over the mainstream parties of the right, when the beliefs of their supporters may inadvertently cause difficulty for the accumulation process. Take an important area of Republican Party support in the US. Since the late sixties Republicans have been increasingly reliant on communities of fundamentalist Christian believers, whose activism allows them to be mobilised for voting purposes. But this religious core vote, or at any rate their leadership, naturally also demand the implementation of policies in return for their support. The problem for the Republicans is not, however, only that the extremism of fundamentalist Christianity may alienate the electoral 'middle-ground' on which the results of American elections increasingly depend. What is perhaps interesting here is less the consciously oppositional elements of right-wing populist ideology, which tend to be directed against the socio-cultural views of one (liberal) wing of the ruling class, and more what I referred to earlier as outcomes which might be unintentionally 'detrimental' to capital. In other words, politicians may be constrained from undertaking policies which may be necessary for American capitalism, or be forced into taking decisions which may harm it.

    But it is not only religious belief which can cause difficulties for US capital; so to can overt anti-migrant racism. One concrete example of this is the Tea Party-inspired Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act – HB56 as it is usually known – which was passed by the State legislature in June 2011, making it illegal not to carry immigration papers and preventing anyone without documents from receiving any provisions from the state, including water supply. The law was intended to prevent and reverse illegal immigration by Hispanics, but the effect was to cause a mass departure from the many of the agricultural businesses which relied on these workers to form the bulk of their labour force. But the effects went deeper. Before the laws introduced it was estimated that 4.2 percent of the workforce or 95,000 people were undocumented but paying $130.3 million in state and local taxes. Their departure from the state or withdrawal to the black economy threatened to reduce the size of the local economy by $40 million. Moreover employers had to spend more money on screening prospective employees, on HR staff to check paperwork, and on insuring for potential legal liabilities from inadvertent breaches of the law. In an earlier era, social democratic reforms were usually intended to enable the system as a whole to function more effectively for capitalists and more equitably for the majority, however irreconcilable these aims may be in reality. But far-right reforms of the type just discussed are not even intended to work in the interests of capitalists, nor do they: they really embody irrational racist beliefs which take precedence over all else.

    The British Conservative Party has encountered similar problems to the Republicans in relation to Europe. The imperial nationalism unleashed by the Conservatives before 1997 in relation to 'Europe', was not because the EU was in any sense hostile to neoliberalism, but as an ideological diversion from the failure of neoliberalism to transform the fortunes of British capital. The nationalism invoked for this purpose now places a major obstacle for British politicians and state managers who want to pursue a strategy of greater European integration, however rational that may be from their perspective. A 2013 British Chambers of Commerce poll of 4,387 companies showed only eighteen percent agreeing that full withdrawal from the EU could have a positive impact, while a majority of sixty-four percent supported remaining inside the EU while repatriating some powers: unsurprisingly, the real source of anti-EU feeling is small business. The key beneficiary of the anti-European hysteria has been UKIP and its success has in turn emboldened the right within the Conservative Party, even though the policies associated with both are incoherent. But these contradictions may not matter in terms of the political struggle for power. The narrowly-won Swiss referendum vote in 2014 to introduce quotas on migrants from the EU, passed against the wishes of local capitalists and ruling classes of Europe and potentially bringing retaliation from Brussels, gives a small indication of what might follow.

    If I am right that certain aspects of far-right politics are counter-productive in relation to the needs of capital, it does not follow that the increased chaos consequent on the implementation of these policies would necessarily be of benefit, even indirectly, to the left. Defence of the system is always the principle objective of the bourgeoisie, even at the expense of temporary system malfunction. In a situation where economic desperation was leading to mounting disorder, far-right parties would be brought into play to direct attention from the real source of social anguish onto already-identified scapegoats, no matter what price they exacted in terms of policy.

    What we see emerging is a symbiotic relationship between one increasingly inadequate regime response to the problems of capital accumulation and another increasingly extreme response to the most irrational desires and prejudices produced by capital accumulation. In Descent, the most recent novel by the Scottish science fiction author, Ken McLeod, the author imagines a situation in the near future where the ruling classes of the world take coordinated legal and military action in a passive revolution ('the Big Deal') to smash the dominance of financial capital, restore that of industrial capital and essentially put an end to the neoliberal era. This aspect of the novel is far more incredible than the alien encounters that occur elsewhere in its pages. Clearly, in situations of absolute, immediate crisis, short-term emergency measures would be introduced in the same way as the effective nationalisation of banks and other financial institutions took place in both the US and UK during 2008. But these were minimal interventions to prevent outright collapse, save the institutions (and the practices which brought them to the point of crisis in the first place) without using them for any coherent strategic end, let alone any broader social purpose; and of course on the basis that they would be re-privatised as soon as possible.

    Let me clear what I am not saying. I am not suggesting that it should be the work of socialists to propose solutions to the crisis of capitalism. It is always necessary to argue for reforms, of course, but the idea that the application of Keynesian solutions would restore the Golden Age of the post-war welfare state is simply illusionary and underestimates the extent to which those years were the result of a unique set of circumstances. Booms will continue to occur, as they did between 1982 and 2007, but the beneficiaries will become fewer and fewer. Consequently, I am not predicting that developments discussed here mean that capitalism will simply collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions either. Scenarios of this type, from those of Rosa Luxemburg onwards, have been proved false in the past and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any more accurate in the future. Indeed, a collapse not brought about by the conscious intervention of the oppressed and exploited would not be to their advantage in any case, but simply a step towards the barbarism to which Marxists from Engels onwards have seen as the consequence of failing to achieve a socialist society. And this is no mere slogan: the condition of central Africa and parts of the Middle East today indicates the presence of actually existing barbarism as the daily reality for millions. Events in the developed world are unlikely to take this form, at least until environmental catastrophe becomes irreversible, but rather involve a gradual and, for all but the very poorest, almost imperceptible worsening and coarsening on their conditions of life.

    What I am suggesting is that neoliberalism as a strategy has almost been too successful as a method of capitalist regulation. It has finally brought about the situation that Schumpeter feared, where creative destruction has no limits or boundaries. Both Engels and Benjamin envisaged capitalism as a runaway train heading for destruction. It appeared, within less than a decade of the latter's suicide in 1940, that forces within capitalism itself were capable of 'pulling the hand break'; it now appears that his initial intuition was right and that revolution is all stands in the way of the disaster that otherwise awaits.

    Neil Davidson lectures in Sociology with the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of The Origins of Scottish Nationhood (2000), the Deutscher-Prize winning Discovering the Scottish Revolution (2003), How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions? and Holding Fast to an Image of the Past (2014). His latest book, We Cannot Escape History, will be published in July. Davidson has co-edited and contributed to Alasdair MacIntyre's Engagement with Marxism (2008), Neoliberal Scotland (2010) and The Longue Durée of the Far Right (2014). He is in the editorial board of rs21. Davidson is a member of International Socialists Scotland and a supporter of the Scottish Left Project.

    [Apr 23, 2016] Neoliberal Globalization Is There an Alternative to Plundering the Earth Global Research - Centre for Research on Globaliza

    Notable quotes:
    "... The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009) ..."
    "... To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends -- ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca

    Excerpt from "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century"

    By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof Global Research, May 25, 2015 Global Research 19 April 2011 Theme: Global Economy , Poverty & Social Inequality

    Neoliberal Globalization: Is There an Alternative to Plundering the Earth?

    The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009)

    To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends --

    Is there an alternative to plundering the earth?

    Is there an alternative to making war?

    Is there an alternative to destroying the planet?

    No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of so-called "neoliberalism" was TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"

    No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?

    No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?

    What Is "Neoliberal Globalization"?

    Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not – be able to live with the consequences they cause.

    This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that, in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have been confronted with the TINA-concept: "There Is No Alternative!" The "iron lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without end.

    The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand. Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!

    Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly reflected by the character of the system's economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone's benefit.

    The question remains: why has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" become a "visible fist"? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today's neoliberalism (none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth's population suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage done seems irreversible.

    All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The true reason is, of course, the media's corporate control.

    What Is Neoliberalism?

    Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973. Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal model of the so-called "Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman – a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.

    The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade". Goethe's assessment at the time was: "Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!"[2]

    At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:

    Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic affairs, in other words: a process of 'de-bedding' economy from society; economic rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade ('comparative cost advantage'); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market forces.[3]

    Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim. Today's economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence, the once "de-bedded" economy now claims to "im-bed" everything, including political power. Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics" (and with it a certain idea of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]

    This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy – which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.

    The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value". It must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A "level playing field" is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions. This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national "barriers".[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The corporations' interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being of small enterprises and workshops as well.

    The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series of ruptures and challenges – caused by the "competing economic system", the crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare state tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized". The main reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and the "golden West" over "dark socialism" is only one possible interpretation. Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the "modern world system" (which contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]

    The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a democratic "complete competition" between many small enterprises enjoying the freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world's population fall into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]

    Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations set the norms. It is the corporations – not "the market" as an anonymous mechanism or "invisible hand" – that determine today's rules of trade, for example prices and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who become "unprofitable".[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable, long-term projects,

    or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead "travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold, money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production".[11] Moreover, these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]

    Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market, forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins. The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit economy and administration, is "slimmed" and its "profitable" parts ("gems") handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses – which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false. When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]

    If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women – a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs, "world market factories" or "maquiladoras"), where most of the world's computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]

    It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of "high tech" and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts) guarantees a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to "Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European, Chinese or Indian.

    The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through the "clearance" of public property and the transformation of formerly public and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector. This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal. New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today's total commercialization of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the "commons", and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]

    All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally, in accordance with to the motto: "Growth through expropriation!"[21]

    Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private, i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the South. We are witnessing the latest form of "development", namely, a world system of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23] This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.

    It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result, the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24] Yet, commercialization does not stop in front of the home's doors either. Even housework becomes commercially co-opted ("new maid question"), with hardly any financial benefits for the women who do the work.[25]

    Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution, one of today's biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a) how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to "equal terms" with men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply increased "freedom" in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.

    Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist in the "world system."[28] The authoritarian model of the "Export Processing Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.

    It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but, to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of the world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world system" in the "long 16th century", when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and "development" of Europe.[30] The so-called "children's diseases" of modernity keep on haunting it, even in old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity's latest stage. They are expanding instead of disappearing.

    Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery, there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no "Western" – civilization.[31]

    Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]

    Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence. If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes, despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth's climate – not to mention the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants, human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource and that the entire earth's ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological trait, we would have never even reached this day.

    The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked that "the center of Africa was burning". She meant the Congo, in which the last great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo's natural resources that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.

    Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably "wageless" commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely total capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]

    We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe in the market as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A "free" world market for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.

    One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a "hole in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx's words, "evaporate". The fact that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created. In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority. Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive. And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production nor money?

    The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities, money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying all "economic development" is the assumption that "resources", the "sources of wealth",[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the "growth" they create.[39]

    The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]

    The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata, or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin meaning, privare means "to deprive"). Only those in power still have rights. They give themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to the "license to kill".[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their "rights" are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as "terrorists" or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" – a label that usually implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future. U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of "preemptive" nuclear strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42] The European Union did not object.[43]

    Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy and war are still "an inseparable three" – today maybe more so than ever. War is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving force and can be understood as the "continuation of economy with other means".[45] War and economy have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples. Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital accumulation" – potentially everywhere and enduringly.[48]

    Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people, communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into "periphery states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it "hinders business".[52]

    The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South. An according International Law is established which effectively functions from top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and regional communal rights. And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively and for the future.[53]

    The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production, all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong to the corporations only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: "Everything to the Corporations!"[54] One might add: "Now!"

    The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get. Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and persecuted as such.[56]

    IMF Economic Medicine

    Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which are cynically labeled as "IMF uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business of reconstruction.[57]

    In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was formulated. It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through "deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has become the credo and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true for the corporations only – not for anybody else.

    In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the permanent U.S. presence in the world's most contested oil region.

    In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60] The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.

    All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world. Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.

    NOTES

    [1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.

    [2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.

    [3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.

    [4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit, München, 1997, dtv.

    [5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München, DVA.

    [6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.

    [7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp; Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/ London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.

    [8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.

    [9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.

    [10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 1996.

    [11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy, Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.

    [12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft, Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.

    [13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.

    [14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft, München, Kunstmann, 2001.

    [15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.

    [16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women, The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.

    [17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September 11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.

    [18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.

    [19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.

    [20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen, übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4, 2005.

    [21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.

    [22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a., Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.

    [23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women, the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.

    [25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004, Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.

    [26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.

    [27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.

    [28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.

    [29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979; Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books, 1986.

    [31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.), Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha, 2007, p. 214-268

    [32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter Lang Verlag, 2006.

    [33] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html.

    [34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.

    [35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.

    [36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.

    [37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia, 1993.

    [38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.

    [39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative, 2001, p. 15-40.

    [40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.

    [41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [42] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global Research, 2005.

    [43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.

    [44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung, Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.

    [45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.

    [46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.

    [47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.

    [48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.

    [49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.

    [50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München, DVA, 2000.

    [51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.

    [52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292

    [53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.

    [54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen," 21.11.2005: Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.

    [55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.

    [56] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global Research, 2005.

    [57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof 2001.

    [58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.

    [59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000.

    [60] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview with Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html .

    The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Prof. Claudia von Werlhof , Global Research, 2015

    [Apr 22, 2016] Does alternative to neoliberalism exists?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Monbiot and the quick crossword. ..."
    "... Monbiot is the best journalist the Guardian has, he can actually make a logical fact based argument unlike the majority of Guardian journalist. ..."
    "... Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation needs to be developed but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to what it might look like except, of course, that it must have some type of environmental context. ..."
    "... A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century ..."
    "... The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions, as opposed to the right wing media agenda ..."
    "... Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible. ..."
    "... Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    amberjack Osager , 2016-04-15 14:56:41

    this is why I read the guardian

    This is pretty much the only reason why I still read the Guardian.

    Monbiot and the quick crossword.

    Shanajackson Osager , 2016-04-15 15:07:42
    Monbiot is the best journalist the Guardian has, he can actually make a logical fact based argument unlike the majority of Guardian journalist.
    TOOmanyWilsons Shanajackson , 2016-04-15 16:36:01
    John Harris is wonderful too. The only guy on the staff who can write about the working class with clarity, respect and understanding. But Monbiot is also the biscuit.
    qzpmwxonecib , 2016-04-15 14:40:53
    Any ideology will cause problems. Right wing and left wing. Pragmatism and compassion are required.
    Tad Blarney qzpmwxonecib , 2016-04-15 15:17:22
    'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants, their suppliers, customers etc..

    The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix' the price, which abnegates the collective intelligence of the market participants, and causes severe problems.

    Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.

    brovis Tad Blarney , 2016-04-15 18:38:35

    'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants

    You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias. Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.

    Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using his name).

    'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.

    You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):

    Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.

    Ricochet , 2016-04-15 14:41:16
    This is an interesting academic piece but the reality is that we don't have anything like neo-liberalism in this country as defined by Hayek and it has become a term of abuse by people who really ought to know better. The strongest abuse of course is linked to the Blair Government, a period, of course, when, with substantial success, the size and reach of the state increased quite substantially, ie the complete opposite of neo-liberalism.

    In fact, suggesting that the UK is neo liberal is not that much different for suggesting that Russia had communism as defined by Marx.

    Whether it is a good or bad thing that we don't have neo-liberalism is open to academic debate but is not of much use in real life.

    Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation needs to be developed but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to what it might look like except, of course, that it must have some type of environmental context.

    Aleocrat Ricochet , 2016-04-15 23:36:22
    Maybe it takes more than one man to map out a path to the future.
    unheilig , 2016-04-15 14:41:23

    A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century

    All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders started threatening Hillary, or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
    Greg_Samsa , 2016-04-15 14:42:35
    "Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?"

    Yes it is what the G has been purveying wholesale for the last few years.

    Luminaire Greg_Samsa , 2016-04-15 14:57:34
    Wow, you read the WHOLE title. Well done.
    zolotoy Luminaire , 2016-04-15 15:03:52
    And yet Greg_Samsa's comment is entirely correct, and yours entirely worthless.
    Luminaire zolotoy , 2016-04-15 15:26:59

    And yet Greg_Samsa's comment is entirely correct, and yours entirely worthless.

    So smug and yet so wrong. Infinite Wisdom is exactly already IN the article. He's not added anything. Which is what I was pointing out.

    EricBallinger , 2016-04-15 14:42:51
    There is no alternative on offer by the left.

    The socialist/trade union package is outmoded.

    The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary people experience has driven off much support and reduced credibility.

    There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.

    The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not move has given UK leftism a middle-class snobby air to it.

    Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience. The opposition to rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.

    There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic oligarchy which runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.

    There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and ideology.

    oreilly62 -> EricBallinger , 2016-04-15 14:52:26
    The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions, as opposed to the right wing media agenda, that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison on the unions, pour poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for workers, and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it. You can curse the middle class socialists all you like, but without their support the labour movement would never have got off the ground.
    Paidenoughalready -> oreilly62 , 2016-04-15 14:59:02
    Okay, so you've described the 1950's through to the 1980's. So what have the unions done for us isn the last two decades ? Why is it all the successful, profitable and productive industries in the Uk have little or no union involvement ?

    Why is it that the least effective, highest costs and poorest performing structures are in the public sector and held back by the unions ?

    Here's a clue - the unions are operating in the 21st century with a 1950's mentality.

    oreilly62 -> Paidenoughalready, 2016-04-15 15:18:26
    During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off the scale because the workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated the idea that without the workforce, your entrepreneurs can't do anything on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire without the help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some of us are human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling and dollars, cause they're not the most important things in life.
    countyboy , 2016-04-15 14:43:30
    It's the only way. It's not perfect but it achieves the best ( not ideal ) possible result. What if in the end there's no where left to go ? What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment still equals deficits and increasing national debt ?

    What then ?

    fumbduck -> countyboy, 2016-04-15 14:54:56

    What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment still equals deficits and increasing national debt ?

    The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where the UK was pretty much in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite, the more people in gainful employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down while simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic failure.

    This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people have cash to spare they spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the hands of a minority and starve the masses of cash, economy dies. It really is that simple.

    makirby -> countyboy, 2016-04-15 15:23:23
    Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching themselves. To get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the private wealth of the rich through financial repression and taxation
    Aleocrat countyboy, 2016-04-15 23:41:11
    Then you're spending it wrong and should be replaced.
    CoobyTavern , 2016-04-15 14:43:38
    I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters, you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it will work perfectly.
    I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe it does.
    dreamer06 -> CoobyTavern , 2016-04-15 15:20:42
    Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
    tonyeff , 2016-04-15 14:43:45
    Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding pitfalls. Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
    Let's make a start by staying in the EU.

    [Mar 10, 2016] Dear Ms. Merkel, Be Careful What You Wish For Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp. ..."
    "... Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale. ..."
    "... In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game. ..."
    "... All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I have others."

    – Groucho Marx

    What is perhaps most remarkable about the deal the EU is trying to seal with Turkey to push back ALL refugees who come to Greece is that the driving force behind it turns out to be Angela Merkel. Reports say that she and temp EU chairman Dutch PM Mark Rutte 'pushed back' the entire EU delegation that had been working on the case, including Juncker and Tusk, and came with proposals that go much further than even Brussels had in mind.

    Why? Angela has elections this weekend she's afraid to lose.

    It's also remarkable that the deal with the devil they came up with is fraught with so many legal uncertainties -it not outright impossibilities- that it's highly unlikely the deal will ever be closed, let alone implemented. One thing they will have achieved is that refugees will arrive in much larger numbers over the next ten days, before a sequel meeting will be held, afraid as they will be to be pushed back after that date.

    They may not have to be so scared of that, because anything remotely like what was agreed on will face so many legal challenges it may be DOA. Moreover, in the one-for-one format that is on the table, Europe would be forced to accept as many refugees from Turkey as it pushes back to that country. Have Merkel and Rutte realized this? Or do they think they can refuse that later, or slow it down?

    Under the deal, Turkey seems to have little incentive to prevent refugees from sailing to Greece. Because for every one who sails and returns, Turkey can send one to Europe. What if that comes to a million, or two, three? The numbers of refugees in Turkey will remain the same, while the number in Europe will keep growing ad infinitum.

    * * *

    Sweet Jesus, Angela, we understand you have problems with the refugee situation, and that you have elections coming up this weekend, but what made you think the answer can be found in playing fast and loose with the law? And what, for that matter, do you expect to gain from negotiating a Faustian deal with the devil? Surely you know that makes you lose your soul?

    You said yesterday that history won't look kindly on the EU if it fails on refugees, but how do you think history will look on you for trying to sign a deal that violates various international laws, including the Geneva Conventions? You have this aura of being kinder than most of Europe to the refugees, but then you go and sell them out to a guy who aids ISIS, massacres Kurds, shuts down all the media he doesn't like and makes a killing smuggling refugees to Greece?

    Or are we getting this backwards, and are you shrewdly aware that the elections come before the next meeting with Turkey, and are you already planning to ditch the entire deal once the elections are done, or have your legal team assured you that there's no way it will pass the court challenges it will inevitably provoke?

    It would be smart if that's the case, but it's also quite dark: we are still talking about human beings here, of which hundreds of thousands have already died in the countries the living are fleeing, or during their flight (and we don't mean by plane), and tens of thousands -and counting, fast- are already stuck in Greece, with one country after the other closing their borders after the -potential- deal became public knowledge.

    So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp.

    The circumstances under which these human beings have been forced to flee their homes, to travel thousands of miles, and now to try and stay alive in Greece, are already way below morally acceptable. Just look at Idomeni! You should do all you can to improve their conditions, not to risk making them worse. Where and how you do that is another matter, but the principle should stand.

    You should be in Greece right now, Angela, asking Tsipras how you can help him with this unfolding mayhem, how much money he needs and what other resources you can offer. Instead, Athens today hosts the Troika and Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland. That is so completely insane it can't escape the protagonists themselves either.

    * * *

    Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale.

    As is the emphasis on using the term 'migrant' versus 'refugee' that both European politicians and the international press are increasingly exhibiting, because it is nothing but a cheap attempt to influence public opinion while at the same time throwing desperate people's legal status into doubt.

    What their status is must be decided by appropriate legal entities, not by reporters or politicians seeking to use the confusion of the terms for their own personal benefit. And numbers show time and again that most of the people (93% in February GRAPH) arriving in Greece come from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, all war-torn, and must therefore be defined as 'refugees' under international law. It is really that simple. Anything else is hot air. Trying to redefine the terminology on the fly is immoral.

    In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game.

    All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power.

    * * *

    The funniest, though also potentially most disruptive, consequence of the proposed deal may well be that the visa requirements for the 75 million Turks to travel to Europe are to be abandoned in June, just 3 months away, giving them full Schengen privileges. Funny, because that raises the option of millions of Turkish people fleeing the Erdogan regime travelling to Europe as refugees, and doing it in a way that no-one can call illegal.

    There may be as many as 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, and Erdogan has for all intents and purposes declared war on all of them. How about if half of them decide to start a new life in Europe? Can't very well send them back to 'safe third country' Turkey.

    Be careful what you wish for, Angela.

    [Mar 03, 2016] Barriers to Productivity Growth

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris Dillow:
    Barriers to productivity growth : "The limits to productivity growth are set only by the limits to human inventiveness" says John Kay. This understates the problem. There are other limits. I'd mention two which I think are under-rated.
    One is competition. Of course, this tends to increase productivity in many ways. But it has a downside. The fear of competition from future new technologies can inhibit investment today: no firm will spend £10m on robots if they fear a rival will buy better ones for £5m soon afterwards. ...
    The second is that, as Brynjolfsson and MacAfee say , "significant organizational innovation is required to capture the full benefit of…technologies."
    For example, Paul David has described (pdf) how the introduction of electricity into American factories did not immediately raise productivity much, simply because it merely replaced steam engines. It was only when bosses realized that electric motors allowed factories to be reorganized – dispensing with the need for machines to be close to a central power source – that productivity soared, as workflow improved and new cheaper buildings could be used. This took many years.
    It's not just organizational change that's needed, though..., I suspect that if IT is to have (further?) productivity-enhancing effects, they require socio-organizational change. ...
    However, there are always obstacles to the social and organizational change necessary for technical change to lead to productivity gains. These might be cognitive – such as the Frankenstein syndrome or "not invented here " mentality. Or they can be material. Socio-technical change is a process of creative destruction, the losers from which kick up a stink; think of taxi-drivers protesting against Uber.
    Worse still, these losers aren't always politically weak Ludditites. They can be well-connected bosses of incumbent firms, or managers seeking to maintain their power base. ...
    The big question facing us is, therefore: do we have the right set of institutions to foster the socio-organizational change that beget productivity growth? These require a mix of healthy markets, to maximize ecological diversity; a financial system which backs risky new-comers; property rights which incentivise innovation; and state intervention that facilitates all these whilst not being captured by Luddites. If our politics weren't so imbecilic, this question would be getting a lot more attention than it is.

    Related: How concerned should we be about business investment and productivity growth? - Nick Bunker .

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:51 AM in Economics , Productivity | Permalink Comments (97)

    [Oct 09, 2015] Hillary Clintons Lame Wall Street Reform Plan by James Kwak

    Oct 09, 2015 | The Baseline Scenario
    Hillary Clinton is competing for the nomination of a party whose progressive base thinks, with considerable justification, that her husband is to blame for letting Wall Street run amok-and that Barack Obama, under whom she served, did too little to rein in the bankers who torpedoed the global economy. On top of that, she faces a competitor who says what the people actually think: that the system is rigged, that big banks should be restrained, and that people should go to jail.

    So she has no choice but to try to appear tough on Wall Street-but she has to do that without simply jettisoning twenty-five years of "New Democrat" friendliness to business and without alienating the financial industry donors she is counting on. So the "plan" she announced yesterday has two messages. On the one hand, she wants to show that she has the right approach to taming Wall Street. Unfortunately, it's just more of the same: another two dozen or so regulatory tweaks, mainly of the arcane variety, that will produce more of the massive, loophole-ridden rules that Dodd-Frank gave us.

    Or, that could be the point. Her second message is a promise to the financial industry that, instead of real structural reforms, she will continue the technocratic incrementalism of the Geithner era-which has left the megabanks more or less the way they were on the eve of the financial crisis. Maybe, for her base, that's a feature, not a bug.

    For more, see my latest column for The Atlantic.

    1. BRUCE E. WOYCH | October 9, 2015 at 10:00 pm

      http://michael-hudson.com/
      http://michael-hudson.com/2015/09/killing-the-host-the-book/
      The Table of Contents is as follows:

      Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy

      Introduction: The Twelve Themes of this Book

      The Parasite, the Host, and Control of the Economy's Brain

      I. From the Enlightenment to Neo-Rentier Economies

      1. The Financial Sector's Rise to Power
      2. The Long Fight to Free Economies from Feudalism's Rentier Legacy
      3. The Critique and Defense of Economic Rent, from Locke to Mill
      4. The All-Devouring "Miracle of Compound Interest"
      5. How the 1% holds the 99% in Exponentially Deepening Debt
      6. Rentiers Sponsor Rent-Free National Income Statistics
      7. The Failed Attempt to Industrialize Banking

      II. Wall Street as Central Planner

      1. The Stock Market as a Predatory Arena
      2. From the Stock Market's Origins to Junk Bonding
      3. Finance vs. Industry: Two Opposite Sides of the Balance Sheet
      4. The Bubble Sequence: From Asset-Price Inflation to Debt Deflation
      5. The Bankers Saw It Coming, but Economists averted their Eyes
      6. The Bailout Coup of 2008: Saving Wall Street instead of the Economy
      7. The Giveaways get More Deeply Politicized and Corrupt
      8. Wall Street Pretends to Insure against the Crash
      9. Bailing out of Goldman via AIG
      10. Wall Street Takes Control and Blocks Debt Writedowns
      11. From Democracy to Oligarchy

      III. Austerity as a Privatization Grab

      1. Europe's Self-imposed Austerity
      2. The Neoliberal Conquest of Post-Soviet Latvia
      3. Creation of the Troika and its pro-Rentier Agenda
      4. High Finance turns Greek Democracy to "Junk"
      5. Installing Technocrats as Proconsuls
      6. The Troika's Road to Debt Serfdom
      7. Creditor Colonialism: U.S. Courts Block Debt Writedowns
      8. Financial Austerity or a Clean Slate?
      9. Finance as War
      10. Is the Mode of Parasitism overshadowing the Mode of Production?

      IV. There Is An Alternative

      1. The Fight for the 21st Century
    2. BRUCE E. WOYCH | October 9, 2015 at 10:19 pm

      William K. Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One,…http://billmoyers.com/guest/william-k-black/
      He developed the concept of "control fraud"-frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the entity as a "weapon,"

    [Sep 24, 2015] Don Quijones: Uruguay Does Unthinkable, Rejects TISA and Global Corporatocracy

    Notable quotes:
    "... 1.TiSA would "lock in" the privatization of services – even in cases where private service delivery has failed – meaning governments can never return water, energy, health, education or other services to public hands. ..."
    "... 2.TiSA would restrict signatory governments' right to regulate stronger standards in the public's interest. For example, it will affect environmental regulations, licensing of health facilities and laboratories, waste disposal centres, power plants, school and university accreditation and broadcast licenses. ..."
    "... 3.TiSA would limit the ability of governments to regulate the financial services industry, at a time when the global economy is still struggling to recover from a crisis caused primarily by financial deregulation. More specifically, if signed the trade agreement would: ..."
    "... 4. TiSA would ban any restrictions on cross-border information flows and localization requirements for ICT service providers. A provision proposed by US negotiators would rule out any conditions for the transfer of personal data to third countries that are currently in place in EU data protection law. In other words, multinational corporations will have carte blanche to pry into just about every facet of the working and personal lives of the inhabitants of roughly a quarter of the world's 200-or-so nations. ..."
    "... 5. Finally, TiSA, together with its sister treaties TPP and TTIP, would establish a new global enclosure system, one that seeks to impose on all 52 signatory governments a rigid framework of international corporate law designed to exclusively protect the interests of corporations, relieving them of financial risk and social and environmental responsibility. In short, it would hammer the final nail in the already bedraggled coffin of national sovereignty. ..."
    "... So, not to be snarky or anything but when does the invasion of Uruguay begin. ..."
    "... In the US, corporations largely have replaced government since WWII or so, or at least pretend to offer the services that a government might provide. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism that we have now as a dominant social system is a flavor of corporatism. If so, it is corporations which now represent the most politically powerful actors. They literally rule the country. And it is they who select the president, most congressmen and Senators. Try to ask yourself a question: to what political force Barak "change we can believe in" Obama serves. ..."
    "... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place" ..."
    "... This is such a huge, huge, vital issue. Privatisation of public assets has to rank as one of the highest crimes at the government level. It is treason, perhaps the only crime for which i wouldn't object capital punishment. ..."
    "... What's more, we now have some 40 years of data showing that privatisation doesn't work. surely, we can organise and successfully argue that privatisation has never worked for any country any time. There needs to be an intellectual assault on privatisation discrediting it forever. ..."
    Sep 24, 2015 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on September 23, 2015 by Lambert Strether

    Lambert here: A little good news on the trade front, and a victory for open discussion and critical thinking.

    By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at Wolf Street. Originally published at Wolf Street.

    Often referred to as the Switzerland of South America, Uruguay is long accustomed to doing things its own way. It was the first nation in Latin America to establish a welfare state. It also has an unusually large middle class for the region and unlike its giant neighbors to the north and west, Brazil and Argentina, is largely free of serious income inequality.

    Two years ago, during José Mujica's presidency, Uruguay became the first nation to legalize marijuana in Latin America, a continent that is being ripped apart by drug trafficking and its associated violence and corruption of state institutions.

    Now Uruguay has done something that no other semi-aligned nation on this planet has dared to do: it has rejected the advances of the global corporatocracy.

    The Treaty That Must Not Be Named

    Earlier this month Uruguay's government decided to end its participation in the secret negotiations of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). After months of intense pressure led by unions and other grassroots movements that culminated in a national general strike on the issue – the first of its kind around the globe – the Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez bowed to public opinion and left the US-led trade agreement.

    Despite – or more likely because of – its symbolic importance, Uruguay's historic decision has been met by a wall of silence. Beyond the country's borders, mainstream media has refused to cover the story.

    This is hardly a surprise given that the global public is not supposed to even know about TiSA's existence, despite – or again because of – the fact that it's arguably the most important of the new generation of global trade agreements. According to WikiLeaks, it "is the largest component of the United States' strategic 'trade' treaty triumvirate," which also includes the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP).

    TiSA involves more countries than TTIP and TPP combined: The United States and all 28 members of the European Union, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan and Turkey.

    Together, these 52 nations form the charmingly named "Really Good Friends of Services" group, which represents almost 70% of all trade in services worldwide. Until its government's recent u-turn Uruguay was supposed to be the 53rd Good Friend of Services.

    TiSA Trailer

    TiSA has spent the last two years taking shape behind the hermetically sealed doors of highly secure locations around the world. According to the agreement's provisional text, the document is supposed to remain confidential and concealed from public view for at least five years after being signed. Even the World Trade Organization has been sidelined from negotiations.

    But thanks to whistle blowing sites like WikiLeaks, the Associated Whistleblowing Press and Filtrala, crucial details have seeped to the surface. Here's a brief outline of what is known to date (for more specifics click here, here and here):

    1.TiSA would "lock in" the privatization of services – even in cases where private service delivery has failed – meaning governments can never return water, energy, health, education or other services to public hands.

    2.TiSA would restrict signatory governments' right to regulate stronger standards in the public's interest. For example, it will affect environmental regulations, licensing of health facilities and laboratories, waste disposal centres, power plants, school and university accreditation and broadcast licenses.

    3.TiSA would limit the ability of governments to regulate the financial services industry, at a time when the global economy is still struggling to recover from a crisis caused primarily by financial deregulation. More specifically, if signed the trade agreement would:

    4. TiSA would ban any restrictions on cross-border information flows and localization requirements for ICT service providers. A provision proposed by US negotiators would rule out any conditions for the transfer of personal data to third countries that are currently in place in EU data protection law. In other words, multinational corporations will have carte blanche to pry into just about every facet of the working and personal lives of the inhabitants of roughly a quarter of the world's 200-or-so nations.

    As I wrote in LEAKED: Secret Negotiations to Let Big Brother Go Global, if TiSA is signed in its current form – and we will not know exactly what that form is until at least five years down the line – our personal data will be freely bought and sold on the open market place without our knowledge; companies and governments will be able to store it for as long as they desire and use it for just about any purpose.

    5. Finally, TiSA, together with its sister treaties TPP and TTIP, would establish a new global enclosure system, one that seeks to impose on all 52 signatory governments a rigid framework of international corporate law designed to exclusively protect the interests of corporations, relieving them of financial risk and social and environmental responsibility. In short, it would hammer the final nail in the already bedraggled coffin of national sovereignty.

    A Dangerous Precedent

    Given its small size (population: 3.4 million) and limited geopolitical or geo-economic clout, Uruguay's withdrawal from TiSA is unlikely to upset the treaty's advancement. The governments of the major trading nations will continue their talks behind closed doors and away from the prying eyes of the people they are supposed to represent. The U.S. Congress has already agreed to grant the Obama administration fast-track approval on trade agreements like TiSA while the European Commission can be expected to do whatever the corporatocracy demands.

    However, as the technology writer Glyn Moody notes, Uruguay's defection – like the people of Iceland's refusal to assume all the debts of its rogue banks – possesses a tremendous symbolic importance:

    It says that, yes, it is possible to withdraw from global negotiations, and that the apparently irreversible trade deal ratchet can actually be turned back. It sets an important precedent that other nations with growing doubts about TISA – or perhaps TPP – can look to and maybe even follow.

    Naturally, the representatives of Uruguay's largest corporations would agree to disagree. The government's move was one of its biggest mistakes of recent years, according to Gabriel Oddone, an analyst with the financial consultancy firm CPA Ferrere. It was based on a "superficial discussion of the treaty's implications."

    What Oddone conveniently fails to mention is that Uruguay is the only nation on the planet that has had any kind of public discussion, superficial or not, about TiSA and its potentially game-changing implications. Perhaps it's time that changed.

    The timing could not have been worse.

    Read Is Brazil About to Drag Down Spain's Biggest Bank?

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    ella, September 23, 2015 at 9:28 am

    So, not to be snarky or anything but when does the invasion of Uruguay begin. Wondering: don't they want to pay $750.00 per pill for what cost $13.85 the day before? Aren't they interested in predatory capitalism? What is going on down there?

    Jim Haygood, September 23, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    Most symbolic is that the eighth round of multilateral trade negotiations under GATT (now WTO) kicked off in Punta del Este, Uruguay in Sep. 1986.

    It went into effect in 1995, and is still known as the Uruguay Round.

    susan the other, September 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    And will international corporations issue their own fiat; pass their own laws; and prosecute their own genocide? Contrary to their group hallucinations, corporations cannot replace government. And clearly, somebody forgot to tell them that capitalism, corporatism, cannot survive without growth. The only growth they will achieve is raiding other corporations. They are more powerless and vulnerable than they ever want to admit.

    hunkerdown, September 23, 2015 at 8:13 pm

    And will international corporations issue their own fiat; pass their own laws; and prosecute their own genocide?

    Sure. There's prior art. Company scrip, substance "abuse" policies, and Bhopal (for a bit different definition of "prosecute").

    In the US, corporations largely have replaced government since WWII or so, or at least pretend to offer the services that a government might provide.


    likbez, September 24, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    They are more powerless and vulnerable than they ever want to admit.

    You are dreaming. Neoliberalism that we have now as a dominant social system is a flavor of corporatism. If so, it is corporations which now represent the most politically powerful actors. They literally rule the country. And it is they who select the president, most congressmen and Senators. Try to ask yourself a question: to what political force Barak "change we can believe in" Obama serves.

    As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) aptly noted:

    "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place"

    gordon, September 23, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    The TISA has a history. It's really just a continuation of the MAI treaty which the OECD failed to conclude back in the 1990s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Agreement_on_Investment

    Joe, September 24, 2015 at 2:38 am

    What I don't get is why all those countries want to sign up to these agreements. I can see what is in it for the US elites, but how does it help these smaller countries?

    likbez, September 24, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    Elites of those small countries are now transnational. So in a way they represent the fifth column of globalization. That explains their position: own profit stands before interests of the country.

    vidimi, September 24, 2015 at 4:19 am

    This is such a huge, huge, vital issue. Privatisation of public assets has to rank as one of the highest crimes at the government level. It is treason, perhaps the only crime for which i wouldn't object capital punishment.

    What's more, we now have some 40 years of data showing that privatisation doesn't work. surely, we can organise and successfully argue that privatisation has never worked for any country any time. There needs to be an intellectual assault on privatisation discrediting it forever.

    [Aug 22, 2015] Why Is Market Fundamentalism So Tenacious

    The analogy with Trotskyism, which is also a secular religion here are so evident, that they can't be missed. And that explains why it is so tenacious: all cults are extremely tenacious and very difficult to eradiate.
    Notable quotes:
    "... As the neoliberal revolution instigated by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980 has spread, however, Polanyi has been rediscovered. His great book – now republished with a foreword by Joseph Stiglitz – has attracted a new generation of readers. ..."
    "... The cult of free market fundamentalism has become so normative in our times, and economics as a discipline so hidebound and insular, that reading Polanyi today is akin to walking into a stiff gust of fresh air. We can suddenly see clear, sweeping vistas of social reality. Instead of the mandarin, quantitative and faux-scientific presumptions of standard economics – an orthodoxy of complex illusions about "autonomous" markets – Polanyi explains how markets are in fact embedded in a complex web of social, cultural and historical realities. ..."
    "... Markets can only work, for example, if political and legal institutions contrive to transform people, land and money into assets that can be bought and sold. Polanyi calls these "fictional commodities" because people, land and money are not in fact commodities. People and land have their own existence and purposes apart from the market – and money is a social institution, even if many pretend that gold is a self-evident medium of value. ..."
    "... Block and Somers point to a closed and coherent ideational scheme that knits together several key belief systems. The first is the idea that the laws of nature govern human society, and thus the workings of the economy are seen as a biological and evolutionary inevitability. A second theme is the idea of "theoretical realism," a belief that the theoretical schema is more true and enduring than any single piece of empirical evidence, and thus one can argue from the claims of theory and not from facts. ..."
    "... Finally, a "conversion narrative" enables free marketeers tell to neutralize and delegitimate any contrary arguments, and enabling them to introduce its alternative story. This approach is routinely used to re-cast the reasons (and blame) for poverty. ..."
    "... What makes The Power of Market Fundamentalism so illuminating is its patient, careful reconstruction of these recurring and deceptive polemical patterns. The wealthy invoke the same rhetorical strategies again and again over the course of hundreds of years in extremely different contexts. With their mastery of an enormous contemporary literature, Block and Somers document the remarkable parallels and show just how deep and durable Polanyi's analysis truly is ..."
    www.resilience.org

    One of the great economists of the twentieth century had the misfortune of publishing his magnum opus, The Great Transformation, in 1944, months before the inauguration of a new era of postwar economic growth and consumer culture. Few people in the 1940s or 1950s wanted to hear piercing criticisms of "free markets," let alone consider the devastating impacts that markets tend to have on social solidarity and the foundational institutions of civil society. And so for decades Polanyi remained something of a curiosity, not least because he was an unconventional academic with a keen interest in the historical and anthropological dimensions of economics.

    As the neoliberal revolution instigated by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980 has spread, however, Polanyi has been rediscovered. His great book – now republished with a foreword by Joseph Stiglitz – has attracted a new generation of readers.

    But how to make sense of Polanyi's work with all that has happened in the past 70 years? Why does he still speak so eloquently to our contemporary problems? For answers, we can be grateful that we have The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi's Critique, written by Fred Block and Margaret R. Somers, and published last year. The book is a first-rate reinterpretation of Polanyi's work, giving it a rich context and commentary. Polanyi focused on the deep fallacies of economistic thinking and its failures to understand society and people as they really are. What could be more timely?

    The cult of free market fundamentalism has become so normative in our times, and economics as a discipline so hidebound and insular, that reading Polanyi today is akin to walking into a stiff gust of fresh air. We can suddenly see clear, sweeping vistas of social reality. Instead of the mandarin, quantitative and faux-scientific presumptions of standard economics – an orthodoxy of complex illusions about "autonomous" markets – Polanyi explains how markets are in fact embedded in a complex web of social, cultural and historical realities.

    Markets can only work, for example, if political and legal institutions contrive to transform people, land and money into assets that can be bought and sold. Polanyi calls these "fictional commodities" because people, land and money are not in fact commodities. People and land have their own existence and purposes apart from the market – and money is a social institution, even if many pretend that gold is a self-evident medium of value.

    Notwithstanding these realities, capitalist societies ahve created these fictional commodities. People have in effect been transformed into units of "labor" that can be bought and sold in the market, and discarded when their value is depleted. Land, too, is treated as a market asset that has no connection to a larger, living ecosystem or human community. Inevitably, people and users of land (and ecosystems themselves) rebel against their treatment as raw commodities. The result is a permanent counter-movement against those who insist upon treating people and land as commodities.

    Unlike Keynes, who was willing to accept some of these economic illusions in order to have political impact, Polanyi rejected them as a recipe for a dangerous and unachievable utopianism. That is in fact what has emerged over the past several generations as business ideologues have advanced quasi-religious visions of free market fundamentalism. The planet's natural systems and our communities simply cannot fulfill these utopian dreams of endless economic growth, vast consumption of resources and the massive social engineering. And yet it continues.

    Polanyi was courageous enough to strip away the pretenses that the economy is a "force of nature" that cannot be stopped. The economy, he said, is an "instituted process," not a natural one, and it can only survive through massive governmental interventions and cultural regimentation. The free market system is hardly autonomous and self-executing. It requires enormous amounts of government purchasing, research subsidies, legal privileges, regulatory agencies to enhance fairness and public trust, military interventions to secure access to resources and markets, and the sabotage of democratic processes that might threaten investments and market growth. The 2008 financial crisis revealed in outrageous detail how financial markets are anything but autonomous.

    So what accounts for the insidious power of market fundamentalism and its illusions? Why do its premises remain intact and influential in the face of so much contrary evidence?

    Block and Somers point to a closed and coherent ideational scheme that knits together several key belief systems. The first is the idea that the laws of nature govern human society, and thus the workings of the economy are seen as a biological and evolutionary inevitability. A second theme is the idea of "theoretical realism," a belief that the theoretical schema is more true and enduring than any single piece of empirical evidence, and thus one can argue from the claims of theory and not from facts. Free market narratives assert their own self-validating claims to what is true; epistemological categories trump all empirical challenges.

    Finally, a "conversion narrative" enables free marketeers tell to neutralize and delegitimate any contrary arguments, and enabling them to introduce its alternative story. This approach is routinely used to re-cast the reasons (and blame) for poverty. Instead of acknowledging institutional or structural explanations for why many people are poor, the free market narrative boldly attacks government for making people poor through aid programs. Government programs supposedly have a perverse effect, aggravating, not aleviating poverty. The poor are cast as morally responsible – along with government – for their own sorry circumstances. Thus, a higher minimum wage is perverse, say free market champions, because it will hurt the poor rather than help them.

    What makes The Power of Market Fundamentalism so illuminating is its patient, careful reconstruction of these recurring and deceptive polemical patterns. The wealthy invoke the same rhetorical strategies again and again over the course of hundreds of years in extremely different contexts. With their mastery of an enormous contemporary literature, Block and Somers document the remarkable parallels and show just how deep and durable Polanyi's analysis truly is .

    [Dec 01, 2007] Crashing the Party of Davos: Globalization works for the bosses. Can we make it work for workers too? by Jeff Faux

    The contradictions of "national" and "international" now defines the "post neoliberalism" epoch that started in 2008.
    This article was written before the author understood the dangers' of neoliberalism. Has mostly historical interest.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Just as bringing stability to the American economy in the last century required stronger national institutions, bringing social balance to the global economy in this century will require stronger global political institutions to regulate global markets. Already, many such institutions exist–such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), and International Monetary Fund (IMF). But in make-up and in culture, they are dominated by those who own and manage large concentrations of internationally mobile capital, whose goal is to escape market regulation and break free of obligations to stakeholders other than the global corporate investor. In the politics of the global market, these institutions are dominated by a single party: Call it the Party of Davos, after the Swiss resort where several thousand global corporate CEOs, government leaders, and their assorted clientele of journalists, academics, and an occasional nongovernmental organization (NGO) or trade union head have the equivalent of their party convention every winter. ..."
    "... The politics of the New Deal and social democratic analogues across the world rested on a new understanding of how national economies worked. The British economist John Maynard Keynes and his American followers showed that in a modern economy the worker/consumer was as important an actor in the market drama as the investor/manager. The government therefore had an obligation to pump income into the economy during downturns to assure that workers continued to buy the products they had made. Although many of America's business elites resisted the egalitarian implications of the New Deal, the smartest of them understood that Franklin Roosevelt and Keynes had saved them from much worse, namely, Marx's prediction of inevitable class warfare. When Dwight Eisenhower's nominee for secretary of defense, Charlie Wilson, said, "What's good for General Motors is good for America," liberals snickered, but the country – and the United Auto Workers – thought he was right. By 1971, Richard Nixon could claim, with some justification, that "we are all Keynesians now." ..."
    "... Keynes – whose ideas inspired the IMF and what eventually became the WTO – was no protectionist. Yet he cautioned nations to limit their foreign trade, because he believed it weakened a democratic government's ability to maintain the economic growth needed to keep social peace. ..."
    "... if a large share of consumer demand went for imports, government deficit spending to overcome a recession would stimulate production in the exporting country rather than at home. And where growth depended heavily on exports, reducing wages to become more competitive would take priority over raising incomes to stimulate domestic consumption. ..."
    "... As Renato Ruggiero, the first director-general of the WTO, observed, "We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy." ..."
    "... A more accurate description of how the new world economy is governed comes from Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs, who in her book The New World Order describes informal networks of global bureaucrats and business-people that bypass traditional governments. ..."
    "... "We are all the same–people who come and go through the [World] Bank, the [International Monetary] Fund, and Finance Ministries and Central Banks of Latin American countries. We all studied at the same universities; we all attend the same seminars, conferences " we all know each other very well. We keep in touch with each other on a daily basis. There are some differences, such as between those who studied at Harvard and those who studied at the University of Chicago, but these are minor things." ..."
    "... The Party of Davos is no monolith. It has its factions, competing ambitions, and interests. And because the world's economies, while globalizing, are far from being completely globalized, important concentrations of economic power are still rooted in national economies. Corporations in China and Russia, for example, are constrained by a state apparatus that is decidedly nationalist. But it is only a matter of time before these national connections erode, too; meanwhile, the concentrations of private capital that have their roots in Europe, the Americas, and large parts of Asia have a shared agenda in weakening the power of national governments to restrict the freedom of capital in both rich and poor countries. As one prominent member of the Party of Davos blurted out at a conference at the Council of Foreign Relations, "When we negotiate economic agreements with these poorer countries, we are negotiating with people from the same class. That is, people whose interests are like ours. ..."
    "... The Servant Economy ..."
    "... The Global Class War ..."
    Dec 01, 2007 | democracyjournal.org

    All markets have a politics, reflecting conflict among economic interests over the rules and policies that determine–as the American political scientist Harold Lasswell once famously put it–"who gets what." And when markets expand, so do their politics. Thus, in the nineteenth century, driven by improvements in transportation and communication technologies, commerce spilled across state borders beyond the capacity of states to regulate them. The power of large corporations went unchecked, generating bitter and violent class conflict. Fortunately, the democratic framework of the U.S. Constitution permitted popular challenges to the excessive concentration of wealth and influence. Ultimately, through the Progressive and New Deal eras, the United States developed a national politics that imposed a social contract–a New Deal that provided workers, as well as business, with enforceable economic rights. Over time, the contract was extended to racial minorities, women, and others who had been previously excluded from expanding economic opportunities.

    Today, markets have expanded again, beyond national borders–and beyond the capacity of the world's nation-based political institutions to manage them. As a result, the global economy is sputtering. Witness the collapse of the Doha Round of trade negotiations, popular hostility to the "Washington Consensus" of development in Latin America and other underdeveloped regions, and the spread of social tensions over immigration and foreign-wage competition in both rich and poor countries. The current pattern of globalization is undercut- ting the social contract that national governments, in developed and in many less-developed countries, had imposed over the last century in order to stabilize their economies and protect their citizens from laissez-faire's brutal insecurities. Even as the world grows more tightly knit, it still lacks a common politics for managing its integration.

    Just as bringing stability to the American economy in the last century required stronger national institutions, bringing social balance to the global economy in this century will require stronger global political institutions to regulate global markets. Already, many such institutions exist–such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), and International Monetary Fund (IMF). But in make-up and in culture, they are dominated by those who own and manage large concentrations of internationally mobile capital, whose goal is to escape market regulation and break free of obligations to stakeholders other than the global corporate investor. In the politics of the global market, these institutions are dominated by a single party: Call it the Party of Davos, after the Swiss resort where several thousand global corporate CEOs, government leaders, and their assorted clientele of journalists, academics, and an occasional nongovernmental organization (NGO) or trade union head have the equivalent of their party convention every winter.

    We are therefore faced with a catch-22: a global economy that is both prosperous and fair requires strong global institutions, but given the lack of a constitutional framework for democracy on that scale, strengthening existing global institutions is unlikely to generate a better distribution of global income and wealth. Indeed, under the present structure, as the world's markets become more integrated, world inequality grows.

    This fundamental contradiction cannot be resolved by unruly demonstrators at the entrance to the World Bank or the IMF. Nor will it be resolved in polite public policy seminars with proposals for globalization's winners to share their gains with the losers; that is not what winners voluntarily do. Serious reform will only come from the development of a cross-border politics that challenges the cross-border power of the Party of Davos. Pulling together a worldwide movement is a utopian goal, but doing this in a region-by-region process is not. In fact, American progressives could begin the process right here in North America by transforming the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into an instrument for continent-wide social progress. A redesigned NAFTA, in turn, could serve as a critical building block in constructing a global economy that is more equitable, more stable, and more democratic.

    The Politics of Expanding Markets

    The politics of the New Deal and social democratic analogues across the world rested on a new understanding of how national economies worked. The British economist John Maynard Keynes and his American followers showed that in a modern economy the worker/consumer was as important an actor in the market drama as the investor/manager. The government therefore had an obligation to pump income into the economy during downturns to assure that workers continued to buy the products they had made. Although many of America's business elites resisted the egalitarian implications of the New Deal, the smartest of them understood that Franklin Roosevelt and Keynes had saved them from much worse, namely, Marx's prediction of inevitable class warfare. When Dwight Eisenhower's nominee for secretary of defense, Charlie Wilson, said, "What's good for General Motors is good for America," liberals snickered, but the country – and the United Auto Workers – thought he was right. By 1971, Richard Nixon could claim, with some justification, that "we are all Keynesians now."

    Shortly afterward, the slow fusion of the U.S. economy with the rest of the world accelerated. Between 1969 and 1979, the share of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) represented by foreign trade rose from 10 to almost 20 percent, and the trade balance shifted from a surplus to deficit. By 2005, trade was 26 percent of our economy, and the relentlessly rising trade deficit was at 6 per- cent of our GDP. Along the way, the American industrial base–from apparel to steel to high-technology products–has been dramatically eroded, wages have stagnated, and the economic security of the typical American worker has been systematically undercut. Economists will always debate the exact numbers, and globalization is not the only factor driving the erosion of American economic security, but by now few can doubt that it is a major cause.

    Keynes – whose ideas inspired the IMF and what eventually became the WTO – was no protectionist. Yet he cautioned nations to limit their foreign trade, because he believed it weakened a democratic government's ability to maintain the economic growth needed to keep social peace. For example, if a large share of consumer demand went for imports, government deficit spending to overcome a recession would stimulate production in the exporting country rather than at home. And where growth depended heavily on exports, reducing wages to become more competitive would take priority over raising incomes to stimulate domestic consumption.

    He was right to worry. Whatever else one might want to argue about the last 25 years of globalization, there is little question that it has undermined the New Deal–era social contract that rests on the mutual dependence of workers and employers. As companies become global, they increasingly find their workers and customers in other nations, loosening the economic bonds of shared self-interest that previously connected them with their fellow citizens. Indeed, for the last two decades, CEOs of major "American" multinationals have openly acknowledged that their future no longer depends on the prosperity of their fellow nationals. In the 1980s, Carl Gerstacker, chairman of Dow Chemical, said that he yearned to put his headquarters on an island where it would be "beholden to no nation or society " rather than being governed in prime by the laws of the United States." A decade later, Alex Trotman, chairman of Ford Motor Company, observed bluntly: "Ford isn't even an American company, strictly speaking. We're global. We're investing all over the world " Our managers are multinational. We teach them to think and act globally."

    As American industry went global, the political lines over trade and globalization began to be redrawn. In the past, workers and employers in the same industry were, for example, on the same side on the question of raising or lowering tariffs, depending on the industry's competitiveness. After World War II, which had eliminated much of America's industrial competition, both capital and labor became champions of free trade. But as American companies began to transform themselves into global corporations, free trade agreements have become a way for them to shift production to places where labor was cheap. The 1993 debate over NAFTA, the first major political battle of the new global economy, reflected this new division: American workers on one side, investors and executives on the other.

    A similar division over NAFTA occurred in Mexico and Canada, whose working classes also anticipated the loss of bargaining power. Their fears were justified. A decade later, in all three nations, the gap between what workers produced and what they were paid grew dramatically. In the United States, labor productivity in manufacturing rose 80 percent, while real wages rose only 6 percent. In Mexico, productivity rose 68 percent, while real wages rose 2 percent. In Canada, the numbers are 34 and 3 percent, respectively. As Jorge Casta"eda, former foreign minister of Mexico, observed at the time, NAFTA was "an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies." It is not surprising that the rich and powerful in all three nations gained most of the benefits while the "ordinary people" paid most of the costs. The relentless tide of Mexicans desperately crossing the border for work–a dozen years after NAFTA's promoters predicted substantially reduced illegal immigration–is just one sign of the agreement's failure to deliver on its promises.

    The fallout from NAFTA echoes the current pattern of globalization generally. As capital becomes both more internationally mobile and more protected, its bargaining power over domestic labor is strengthened. Offshore outsourcing expands, and the threat to outsource becomes more credible, forcing workers to agree to work for less and local governments to weaken regulation. The result is rising global inequality of income and wealth–and the inequality in political power that follows.

    The Garbled Language of Globalization

    As globalization relentlessly reorders American economic and political life, the policy debate remains mired in an obsolete paradigm that clouds our under - standing of what is happening. On the one hand, pundits like the New York Times' Thomas Friedman tell us that the global economy has obliterated borders, making government irrelevant. On the other hand, the discussion of policy remains trapped in the language that defines globalization as competition among sovereign Westphalian nation-states, in which the conflicting interest of domestic politics stops at the water's edge. Thus, for example, politicians and journalists speak of economic competition between "China" and "America" as national rivalries. Yet the business news channels are replete with celebratory segments on the profitable integration of U.S. and Chinese firms. Indeed, the "China threat" is actually a business partnership between local commissars who provide the cheap labor and American and other transnational capitalists who provide the technology and financing. Similarly, while analysts frame the discussion of world poverty in terms of rich and poor countries, they ignore the reality that there are poor people in rich countries and rich people in poor countries, leading to foreign-aid programs that are merely an inefficient transfer of resources from the former to the latter.

    Most confusing and damaging to the debate is the wide use of "free trade" as a synonym for globalization. Leaving aside the theoretical issues, simple liberalized trade among sovereign nations does not describe how the world's economy is evolving. The process is rather global economic integration, which aims at imposing a universal set of rules and policies on all nations. As Renato Ruggiero, the first director-general of the WTO, observed, "We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy."

    That an integrated global economy should be regulated by universal rules is obvious. The problem is that the "constitution"–which includes the policies of the international financial agencies as well as so-called trade agreements–protects and supports just one category of citizen, the global corporate investor. The interests of other stakeholders–workers, communities, civil society, and others whose hard-fought rights were finally established in democratic national societies–have been excluded. Even among sophisticated policy intellectuals, the political implications of economic integration are ignored by stuffing them safely back into the nation-state, whose citizens are assumed to have suffered no loss of power. One of many examples is economist Jagdish Bhagwati, a prominent proponent of global laissez-faire economics, who writes that "moral suasion," "democratic politics," and "judicial activism" at the national level are sufficient safeguards for labor, human rights, and environmental protections. Although goods and capital are acknowledged to flow and commingle in borderless markets, the class conflicts that markets inevitably generate are not. Yet these are global political conflicts that befit a global economy. By confining them to the nation-state box, the popular cross-border politics needed to countervail the cross-border power of private wealth is suppressed.

    Thus a disconnect emerges between the theoretical notion of "national interest" and its actual promotion on the international stage. The conventional wisdom implicitly assumes that while tactics and style may differ according to which party is in power, a nation's representatives to the IMF or the WTO are assumed to be furthering the "national interest," a phrase frequently referenced but rarely specified. One of the few foreign policy commentators to address, even in passing, the question of how to define the national interest is Harvard's Joseph Nye, Jr. As he wrote in The Paradox of American Power, "In a democracy, the national interest is simply what citizens, after proper deliberation, say it is " If the American people think that our long-term shared interests include certain values and their promotion abroad, then they become part of the national interest. Leaders and experts may point out the costs of indulging certain values, but if an informed public disagrees, experts cannot deny the legitimacy of their opinion."

    The description of U.S. foreign policy being driven by the citizenry, with leaders and experts passively "pointing out the costs," would be suspect under any circumstance. The Iraq war, to cite one obvious example, was hardly initiated by a spontaneous grass-roots movement in America demanding Saddam Hussein's head. But in the context of the global economy, where cosmopolitan elites have more in common with peers in other countries than they do with people who simply share their nationality, it is stunningly na've.

    A more accurate description of how the new world economy is governed comes from Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs, who in her book The New World Order describes informal networks of global bureaucrats and business-people that bypass traditional governments. According to Slaughter, this "disaggregated" state has the speed and flexibility to "perform many of the functions of a world government -- legislation, administration, and adjudication -- without the form." The most advanced part of this virtual state is the networks of people who run, manage, and regulate international finance. Political scientist Judith Teichman, a less enthusiastic analyst of cross-border networks, quotes a senior IMF official who manages its Western Hemisphere portfolio: "We are all the same–people who come and go through the [World] Bank, the [International Monetary] Fund, and Finance Ministries and Central Banks of Latin American countries. We all studied at the same universities; we all attend the same seminars, conferences " we all know each other very well. We keep in touch with each other on a daily basis. There are some differences, such as between those who studied at Harvard and those who studied at the University of Chicago, but these are minor things."

    Slaughter, for her part, believes these networks bring accountability back to the people. "We need more [global] government," she writes, "but we don't want the centralization of decision-making and the coercive authority so far from the people actually to be governed." But, far from solving the globalization paradox, Slaughter's networks are likely to transfer more power from ordinary people to the hands of international technocrats whose career paths, like those of their domestic counterparts, depend on those with financial–and therefore political–influence. The WTO, one of its officials told the Financial Times in a moment of candor, "is the place where governments collude in private against their domestic pressure groups." The comment reveals both contempt for democracy and disingenuousness about political influence. In fact, the WTO's work is suffused with the interests of domestic pressure groups with global business interests. Corporate representatives dominate its many advisory committees and working groups; its dispute settlement panels are chosen from pools of experts who regularly work for transnational corporations; and business even directly pays for the organization's expenses. In the last WTO ministerial meeting held in America–scene of the famous "Battle of Seattle" in 1999–business corporations, for instance, paid $250,000 each for special access to the trade ministers. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is a well known revolving door of lawyers and trade specialists (such as former Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, now working at Goldman Sachs) whose next move is often to those transnational corporate sector, where success comes to those who "think and act globally"–and do so on behalf of those who are benefiting from this global system.

    The Party of Davos is no monolith. It has its factions, competing ambitions, and interests. And because the world's economies, while globalizing, are far from being completely globalized, important concentrations of economic power are still rooted in national economies. Corporations in China and Russia, for example, are constrained by a state apparatus that is decidedly nationalist. But it is only a matter of time before these national connections erode, too; meanwhile, the concentrations of private capital that have their roots in Europe, the Americas, and large parts of Asia have a shared agenda in weakening the power of national governments to restrict the freedom of capital in both rich and poor countries. As one prominent member of the Party of Davos blurted out at a conference at the Council of Foreign Relations, "When we negotiate economic agreements with these poorer countries, we are negotiating with people from the same class. That is, people whose interests are like ours."

    There is no countervailing force at the level of global governance to balance the Party of Davos's power. The International Labor Organization (ILO), which is often erroneously thought of as the worker's equivalent of the WTO or the IMF, is really a tripartite structure in which labor, government, and business have equal voting strength. More importantly, unlike the IMF, which has money, and the WTO, which has trade sanctions, the ILO has no leverage over any nation or company. A global capitalist class, of course, implies a global working class. In response to the Party of Davos, international cooperation among trade unionists on issues of collective bargaining and organizing in specific industries is growing. But, by and large, unions are too involved in fighting for survival in their national economies to mount a global challenge to corporate power. And what might be called (after the Brazilian city where it holds a counter-Davos summit) the "Party of Porto Alegre"–the loose network of dissenters and protestors that the media calls the "anti-globalization forces," seen protesting at IMF meetings–is much more bark than bite. It is too diverse, disorganized, and disdainful of power to get much beyond demonstrations that make the nightly news but little else.

    Next Steps for NAFTA

    How then to reshape the politics–and power relationships–of the global economy? A social contract did not come to an expanded American economy until American workers became conscious of their common interests. Similarly, one will come to the global economy only when working families see that in a global labor market, they have more in common with working families in other countries than they do with those on the other side of the bargaining table. Yet in a world of 6.5 billion people in almost 200 separate countries–representing wide differences in culture, living standards, and political consciousness–the prospect of seeing, to use an old phrase, "workers of the world unite" enough to humanize the relentlessly interconnecting markets seems hopelessly utopian. But if we begin to think of establishing a global social contract as a step-by-step process, in which political solidarity is built first among neighboring societies, region by region, rather than some grand, all-embracing design, there may yet be light at the end of this dark global tunnel.

    Unlike global elites, who have easy access to global culture but little connection to their hometowns, ordinary citizens in countries in the same region tend to have more in common with one another than they do with people half a world away. Culture and language are closer, and trading relations are usually the strongest and most sustainable. True, wars historically have been fought mostly among neighbors, but the European Union (EU) demonstrates that at least among the more advanced societies, the future need not necessarily be prisoner of such a past. Moreover, regional integration would seem to be a much more promising path toward the inevitable trial-and-error involved in building competent and accountable institutions to manage cross-border economic integration. American states were, and to some extent still are, "laboratories of democracy" for the national government. In the same way, the process of creating regional institutions that match expanding regional markets might well produce "laboratories" for the construction of a social contract that might eventually stretch to the range of the global economy.

    For all its slowness and the pain of its "two steps forward, one step backward" process, the effort to build a "Social Europe" to match the expanded European market offers the best real-world example of the development of a politics around a cross-border social contract among historically splintered neighbors. The future shape of Europe is contested political terrain, and the conflicts between workers and bosses, regulators and deregulators, and Europeanists and nationalists reflect the inevitably messy way in which democracy is addressing this historic experiment. The fragile democracies of the Mercosur countries in the southern cone of South America are beginning a similar project of economic integration that, if it continues, will inevitably involve some political integration as well. A germ of the same idea also lies in the economic collaboration among Southeast Asian nations.

    This brings us back to the question of North America. Although NAFTA failed to deliver on its promises, it succeeded in integrating the three economies to the point of no return. Too many economic channels have been redirected north-south to reverse the course of economic integration. Every day, along with commingling labor markets, intracontinental connections in finance, marketing, and production are being hardwired for a seamless North American economy. We may not like NAFTA, but there is no reversing its course.

    But that does not mean that it's sacrosanct. Even those who designed NAFTA to accommodate their own interests understand that it is an inadequate instrument with which to govern this new political economy. Revising NAFTA is already a topic of conversation among North American business and political elites: The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, the Mexican Council on Foreign Affairs, and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives have set up an ongoing "Task Force" to map out the next steps. Their 2005 report called for a commonly administered military security perimeter, common energy policies, and a modest investment fund for Mexico. And Mack McLarty, former Clinton chief of staff and now partner with Henry Kissinger in a consulting firm, has called for planning an oil-for-infrastructure deal with Mexico to be ready for the next U.S. president. But, while these and similar proposals contain some sensible ideas, the framework is the familiar one–an expanded market to feed global corporate ambitions–and gets us no closer to solving the catch-22 of unaccountable governance.

    Instead, we need to transform NAFTA into a set of rules that recognizes the common economic future that now connects all of the people of the three nations. It would need to include, at a minimum, a "bill of rights" for citizens of North America, enforceable in all countries, that would reestablish rights for people at least as strong as the extraordinary privileges NAFTA gives to corporate investors. They would include guarantees of freedom of association and collective bargaining across borders, as well as an independent judiciary and public transparency in government dealings with the private sector. A new NAFTA would have to be a continental grand bargain in which Canada and the United States commit substantial long-term aid to Mexico in order to nurture higher and sustainable economic growth, while Mexico commits to policies (independent trade unions, minimum wages, equitable taxes, assistance to its depressed farm sector) that assure wages in all three nations rise with their productivity. To that end, it would require a North American customs union in which foreign trade would be managed in the service of the needs of all three countries for greater industrial self-sufficiency, resource conservation, and increased investment in health and education. Such a new vision for NAFTA would more strongly unite the three nations in a single competitive bloc that provides all of the citizens of North America, not just its corporate interests, an investment in its success.

    North America is, of course, not Europe. It is easy to make the case that the political and economic conditions that motivated and nurtured the EU are quite unique. But at its conception, it was also easy to argue that the EU would be still born. Indeed, in at least some dimensions, a unified North American economy is a more credible idea. There are only three languages (counting Quebecois French) to deal with. All are relatively new countries. For at least two centuries people have been moving, marrying, and interconnecting culturally. The one time the United States and Canada fought was in the War of 1812, while the Mexican-American War ended in 1848.

    When the twenty-first century began, polls showed Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans possessed highly favorable opinions of one another. Asked in a 2000 World Values Survey poll if they would be willing to form a new single country if it meant having a higher quality of life, majorities in each country said yes. In the aftermath of September 11, Canadians and Mexicans expressed massive solidarity with Americans (although the invasion of Iraq, which they overwhelmingly opposed, has rekindled some latent anti-Americanism). Many on the U.S. side, when they still supported the war, resented that Mexico and Canada refused to send troops. Still, the sense that–like it or not–the three societies share a common future comes through in a report of polls taken between 2003 and 2005, which shows support for North American economic integration in all three nations, even though people in each thought that NAFTA had been a "loser" for their country.

    Moreover, gathering economic forces might actually force an acceleration toward integration. At some point, the unsustainable rise in the U.S. trade deficit will have to be reversed, threatening the economies of Canada and Mexico, whose growth since NAFTA has depended on the U.S. market. In order to avoid the political consequences (e.g., more illegal immigration from Mexico, less cooperation on national security from Canada), the United States may well be forced to establish a North American trading bloc anyway that protects its neighbors' access to a U.S. economy that will be forced to reduce its overall imports.

    One thing is certain. The global economy will continue to undermine both democracy and economic security until we develop the institutions to support a social contract across borders. To do that, what better place to start than in our own continental backyard?

    Jeff Faux is the Founder and now Distinguished Fellow at the Economic Policy Institute. His most recent books are The Servant Economy and The Global Class War.

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Dec 15, 2017] Rise and Decline of the Welfare State, by James Petras

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

    [Oct 25, 2017] Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy by C.J. Hopkins

    [Oct 01, 2017] Neoliberal economic policies in the United States The impact of globalisation on a `Northern country by Kim Scipes

    [Sep 18, 2017] Looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence: non-interventionism, no to neoliberal globalization, no to outsourcing of jobs, and no to multiculturism. All were betrayed very soon

    [May 01, 2017] Trump: A Resisters Guide by Wesley Yang

    [Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China

    [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne

    [Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.

    [Jun 17, 2018] The Necessity of a Trump-Putin Summit by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Mar 30, 2018] The Death Of The Liberal World Order by Leonid Savin

    [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney

    [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi

    [Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism

    [Sep 10, 2019] Neoliberal Capitalism at a Dead End by Utsa Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik

    [Jul 29, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson

    [Jul 12, 2019] Nine Consequences of the Upcoming US-China Trade War by Renaud Anjoran

    [Jul 05, 2019] Globalisation- the rise and fall of an idea that swept the world - World news by Nikil Saval

    [Jul 05, 2019] The UK public finally realized that the Globalist/Open Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends

    [Jun 09, 2019] The looming 100-year US-China conflict by Martin Wolf

    [May 14, 2019] Trump desperately needs a trade deal with China as he gears up for his re-election bid in 2020.

    [Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US politician ever had to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump

    [Mar 15, 2019] Patriots Turning To #YangGang In Response To Trump, Conservatism Inc. Failure by James Kirkpatrick

    [Mar 02, 2019] The Trump presidency From the Manhattan underworld to the White House by Patrick Martin

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating Fox News

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics by Jane Coaston

    [Jan 11, 2019] Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming

    [Feb 07, 2020] The Consequence Of Globalism Is World Instability by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 18, 2020] The US China Phase 1 Deal Interpeted: Break Thing, Claim to Fix Thing, Repeat

    Sites



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least 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. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This 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.

    Last modified: March, 01, 2020