joe
NY
A good headline could have be "Market makers are now worried that they may have stolen too much money."
There are no parallels between the response to this financial crisis and Roosevelt's in the 30's. The responses are diametrically opposed. In 2008, governments did not flood the world with cheap money. They did not protect your grandmother's savings account. They flooded wealthy, cynical CDS counterparties with money, people who had bet against the system, against the ability of American homeowners to pay off their loans. They flooded private investment banks that functioned like massive, predatory hedge funds, making markets for highly leveraged, reckless risk management and tax evasion instruments with cheap money! 2008 was capture at it's most egregious and the greatest heist in the history of the world.
In 2008, wealthy market participants were bailed out and the average worker, savings account holder and homeowner was abandoned. And that grossly unjust approach still drives governmental economic policy. There is a choice right now between austerity measures and haircuts for bondholders. Look what's happening.
When the housing bubble burst, the government could have rescued every single underwater homeowner in the U.S. and it would have cost far less than what has been spent and the effects of that spending would have directly benefited the real economy instead of only offering an insultingly false hope of trickle down. But doing so, really preventing foreclosures, would have spread losses to wealthy bankers, hedge funds and other speculative owners of fraudulently rated mortgage backed securities, CDO's and their spawn. Governments chose to protect hedge funds instead of homeowners. It's as simple and as outrageous as that. They protected AIG and Goldman instead of spending money to implement a jobs program like Roosevelt did. Bernanke, by keeping interest rates low for the banks, recently admitted he was throwing the unemployed under the bus.
The hypocrisy and irony of a Goldman Sachs economist saying that not extending unemployment benefits was "an increasingly important risk to growth" is stunning.
Rance Spergl
Chicago
I don't care what the Austrian School of Economic Thought says. I may be hearing the death-rattle of capitalism but I just can't say for sure.
What I do know is that MY RENT IS DUE TOMORROW AND THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO EXTEND MY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. Obama knew we'd need it so he put it his plan. Out-of-work Americans are at record highs. WHAT DOES THE CONGRESS FIND SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND? WE NEED TO EAT.
Even if the gods of capitalism created jobs tomorrow, the payroll wouldn't be met for weeks. And I still don't have health care.
BUY A CLUE PEOPLE!
ed g
Warwick, NY
Class warfare wasn't created by Marx. All he did was analyze class structure and its conflicts and contradictions.
He said many complicated things but a few were simple enough:
1) The rich have no bounds in their greed.
2) Surplus labor means people will fight for terribly paying jobs, without security or rights to maintain a livable wage.
3) The rich will work the workers to the bone and then discard them for fatter sheep.
4) When people are not organized to identify and fight for their economic, social and political rights, they will eventually lose them and lose them to a point where they have nothing to lose but those chains.
5) As its conclusion, the people will need to rise in revolt to get their human right back and to have peace, food and land; all stolen from them by capitalists under the guise of economic freedom associated with capitalism.
The first step required by the capitalists was to discredit Marx and the analysis and then proceed to Step 1) above while avoiding as long as possible Step 5).
Any thoughts about which Step we are at now?
Incredulous
West of the Mississippi
What no one wants to mention is that most of our national wealth is going into wars. We've spent about $150 billion a year for about ten years, and what has it gotten us? Nothing but death, debt, and more enemies. If we put that money in to schools, education, infrastructure and other valuable expenditures (ones that pay back--you know, "investments") where would we be now? We have the slowest and least extensive broadband network in the world--Korea is the fastest at-- (we're behind such world powers as Latvia, Lithuania, Andorra, Aland Islands, Romania, Bulgaria ...), our bridges are falling down, our schools are falling apart. If we invested in our own country--education, healthcare (and real healthcare, not what we have now), infrastructure, all the important things, we'd be so prosperous that we could help everyone else, and they would want our help, rather than seeing it as an intrusion (we do intrude on most everyone whether they want it or not).
Stimulus spending is not the same as credit card debt. That's what people have been doing. Borrowing money to buy garbage, like televisions and cars and junk that has no long-term value. Stimulus spending, properly targeted, is investment money. Our country is like a business that has never reinvested its profits. Instead of taking monies that we make and improving the physical plant, we just try to squeeze more and more life out of crumbling infrastructure, to the point that it's now so far gone that it's not in need of repair or maintenance (the time for that has long passed), but we're talking about major rebuilding, which is much more expensive than maintenance. If you don't take care of your car on a regular basis, it will eventually require very expensive repairs. If you don't upgrade your business, stay current on equipment and technology, retrain your workforce, you fall behind and eventually someone else who's smarter will run you out of business. You have to take care of the thing you've built. In this country, we try to do everything on the cheap, so that someone can fatten his wallet at everyone else's expense. Take BP for example ... they drilled that rig on the cheap, and now look who is paying for it. Their example is a reflection of how we run this country. Do everything as cheaply as you can get away with ... you can bet that BP isn't hurting that much ... even the loss of a few dozen billions to government to take care of the damage to the gulf and its residence is a drop in the bucket of their profits over the long-term.
Face it ... we live in a socialist society ... that's what SOCIETY is ... it has to be, otherwise, we're all living in caves and hauling our own water from the local river, and polluting it with our waste. In a complex society, it takes big government to take care of big needs ... it's not so simple as the Republicans would have it ... they have only one idea for running anything ... cut taxes. But what happens when all the services that are fueled by those tax dollars go away? Read Jose Saramago's novel "Blindness" ... you'll find out.
Garrett Clay
San Francisco Bay
No mention of the two biggest elephants in our room- defense spending and the trade policies that have driven wealth creation (jobs) out of the country.
"Hello McFly!" Until we solve those problems, and even our "best and brightest" don't see them yet, we'll remain in a depression.
And one other hot tip- never expect any entity to provide an honest measure of their performance- anyone who believes government statistics on unemployment please get in touch with me, I've got a bridge you might want to buy.
Sideline
Hong Kong
Many people complain about jobs being stolen by China, but that is a misconception. China did not force corporations to shift their productions to its land, although they do give initial tax incentives to foreign corporations to set up factories as well as low cost land. But this is common also in SE Asia as well as S. America. The government only uses the media to create a China syndrome making them look as if they are the victim.
China did not provide cheap labor, the wages were set by foreign investors, not China. As a matter of fact, China have implemented laws to protect local workers from being abused by foreign corporations.
China also has very straightforward business taxes. Any money changing hands between two companies, a business tax is levied regardless of whether profit is made. The argument behind it is that there are many accounting methods to show low or no profits, so there is a business tax which is built into every transaction, and every corporation has to pay. So if one company receives a million yuan, its bank will automatically debit 5.5% from the receiving entity's account. Taxes on profits are charges as much as 30％+. The Chinese government is quite pragmatic: if you don't make money, don't do the business. Many foreign corporations cannot escape from this tax.
Why can the U.S. learn from others, instead of discrediting them?
Perhaps the immediate solution for the U.S. is to do the same: build in a business tax as a cost, better yet, global transactions are subject to such taxes, just like an expats living and working abroad having tax liability with the IRS.
The fact is: it is not only jobs are leaving the U.S., but also corporate taxes as well as profits that is held overseas. There are billions of dollars being re-invested overseas because the multi-nationals do not repatriate the profits back to the U.S., creating a monetary liquidity crunch at home. These profits can be re-invested in the U.S. whereby jobs will be naturally created. Corporate foreign holdings should be encouraged, if not enforced, to be repatriated to ease the illiquid monetary system.
The U.S. is entering a turning point, as most working Americans have been led to commit their forward income against current assets like mortgages and credit card debts. But Accounting 101 tells us that every asset entry is offset by a liability. The middle class work force is shrinking from aging and so will be the federal tax income that backs its treasury products.
Who is going to say Moody or Standard & Poor is not going to downgrade the 30-year notes? They did with Greece and a couple other European countries already.
Gloomy, yes indeed!
29.6.10
young addressing baby-boomers
nasav
Philadelphia, PA
I am a member of the younger generation in their 20's, and I have to hand it to the baby-boomers. You guys ruined it for us.
You allowed manufacturing to ship over to Mexico through NAFTA, killing hundreds of valuable manufacturing jobs in states like Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.
You pushed for free trade agreements that created a country of importers. We all buy Chinese-manufactured goods at Walmart rather than goods created by Americans in our own cities.
You want to ship high-paying IT, call center, and paralegal jobs to cheaper labor in India. You also refuse to push for legislation that penalizes companies that ship jobs overseas.
You form unions and sign deals that give yourselves expensive and bloated pension programs that are unsustainable.
You went on long, costly wars costing a couple trillion dollars, thereby leading to massive budget shortfalls in all levels of government .
During townhall meetings, you ask elected officials about taxes, gay marriage, and socialized medicine rather than important questions such as job growth and unemployment for future generations.
Your short term method of getting money for various programs is using the Federal Reserve printing press or borrowing, thereby leading to the devaluation of the once powerful dollar.
You guys jacked up our college tuitions past the rate of inflation, thereby putting thousands of us in lifelong debt.
If you don't create a future for the up-and-coming generation of workers, who will support your social security checks? How will you receive your pensions? How will the government get the money to sustain Medicare and other expensive programs?
Philadelphia, PA
I am a member of the younger generation in their 20's, and I have to hand it to the baby-boomers. You guys ruined it for us.
You allowed manufacturing to ship over to Mexico through NAFTA, killing hundreds of valuable manufacturing jobs in states like Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.
You pushed for free trade agreements that created a country of importers. We all buy Chinese-manufactured goods at Walmart rather than goods created by Americans in our own cities.
You want to ship high-paying IT, call center, and paralegal jobs to cheaper labor in India. You also refuse to push for legislation that penalizes companies that ship jobs overseas.
You form unions and sign deals that give yourselves expensive and bloated pension programs that are unsustainable.
You went on long, costly wars costing a couple trillion dollars, thereby leading to massive budget shortfalls in all levels of government .
During townhall meetings, you ask elected officials about taxes, gay marriage, and socialized medicine rather than important questions such as job growth and unemployment for future generations.
Your short term method of getting money for various programs is using the Federal Reserve printing press or borrowing, thereby leading to the devaluation of the once powerful dollar.
You guys jacked up our college tuitions past the rate of inflation, thereby putting thousands of us in lifelong debt.
If you don't create a future for the up-and-coming generation of workers, who will support your social security checks? How will you receive your pensions? How will the government get the money to sustain Medicare and other expensive programs?
28.6.10
on weed
Marc
Colorado
The "medical" marijuana industry is merely a political bridge to the day when this least harmful of intoxicants is finally de-stigmatized and legalized. All this regulation clap trap is so much distraction from the facts that folks like to smoke weed and it also helps many people with medical conditions.
The "prescription" process is un-constitutional. Why does one , (ahem) "medicine", require a state license for use while really, really dangerous substances such as tobacco, alcohol, narcotics, coca cola and fast food are passed out with little to no oversight? If you think the HPPA privacy laws are going to protect you from a future administration calling "do over" and persecuting us remember the Patriot Act.
We need only two regulations: One is the public health officer checking to be certain that what is sold is 100% natural and free of any additives, business licensing fees will easily cover this expense. The other is simply supply, demand and pricing which the market will settle on it's own just as with every other business on Earth. In short: BUTT OUT!!
I'm watching the dispensary business regulate itself in my little town. We now have 6 dispensaries and I expect that some will flourish and some will fail based on quality and price. It's called the free market, (and as long as no fool ever starts buying derivatives of it), it works just fine.
I'm 51 and have puffed since I was 14. In spite of, or perhaps because of this, I left NYC at 18, went to an excellent college, built a business and was successful enough to take a higher look at things. At 40 I realized that years of hard work had put me in a position where I could A)sit behind a desk and make more money than I'd ever need or B)quit and build a more rewarding life around doing things for others. I chose the latter. Perhaps therein lies the stigma of marijuana...that it might allow people to free themselves from excessive greed and consumerism and work on building a fair and sustainable world.
Colorado
The "medical" marijuana industry is merely a political bridge to the day when this least harmful of intoxicants is finally de-stigmatized and legalized. All this regulation clap trap is so much distraction from the facts that folks like to smoke weed and it also helps many people with medical conditions.
The "prescription" process is un-constitutional. Why does one , (ahem) "medicine", require a state license for use while really, really dangerous substances such as tobacco, alcohol, narcotics, coca cola and fast food are passed out with little to no oversight? If you think the HPPA privacy laws are going to protect you from a future administration calling "do over" and persecuting us remember the Patriot Act.
We need only two regulations: One is the public health officer checking to be certain that what is sold is 100% natural and free of any additives, business licensing fees will easily cover this expense. The other is simply supply, demand and pricing which the market will settle on it's own just as with every other business on Earth. In short: BUTT OUT!!
I'm watching the dispensary business regulate itself in my little town. We now have 6 dispensaries and I expect that some will flourish and some will fail based on quality and price. It's called the free market, (and as long as no fool ever starts buying derivatives of it), it works just fine.
I'm 51 and have puffed since I was 14. In spite of, or perhaps because of this, I left NYC at 18, went to an excellent college, built a business and was successful enough to take a higher look at things. At 40 I realized that years of hard work had put me in a position where I could A)sit behind a desk and make more money than I'd ever need or B)quit and build a more rewarding life around doing things for others. I chose the latter. Perhaps therein lies the stigma of marijuana...that it might allow people to free themselves from excessive greed and consumerism and work on building a fair and sustainable world.
25.6.10
Obama & BP
UCSBcpa
San Francisco
For those of you who want the Federal government to do more with the Gulf Disaster, really need to read about our recent oil disasters, namely the Exxon Valdez.
Few Facts -
1. 1989 is when the DRUNK, yes he the Captain of the Valdez was DRUNK. - A Recovering alcoholic was allowed to drive this giant vessel with more than 10,000,000 gallons of oil into one of America's most pristine channels. Note the year was June 1989
2. Over 500,000 birds, and nearly an entire eco-system was destroyed
3. 1994 - The REPUBLICAN Judge awarded 20 Billion to be paid by Exxon
4. 2008 - Exxon fought this all the verdict for 15 years where they agreed to pay $510 million, or if you like math, 1 / 1000th of the original amount, or if you like more math the amount that Exxon made in LESS than 2 days in 2008.
5 The most important fact is about Exxon Valdez is this: Their entire defense was essentially that the Coast Guard and Locals told them to do one thing, even though they wanted to handle the spill differently.
Obama and his team understands history, which is why he had to let BP take control of the spill...that is because BP is done.
Obama had already obtained $20 Billion from BP, and from what insiders are saying they are agreeing to $50 Billion. Lets compare that number to what the G Bush the first got....
Do you really think Obama is handling this bad now?
HARDLY.
San Francisco
For those of you who want the Federal government to do more with the Gulf Disaster, really need to read about our recent oil disasters, namely the Exxon Valdez.
Few Facts -
1. 1989 is when the DRUNK, yes he the Captain of the Valdez was DRUNK. - A Recovering alcoholic was allowed to drive this giant vessel with more than 10,000,000 gallons of oil into one of America's most pristine channels. Note the year was June 1989
2. Over 500,000 birds, and nearly an entire eco-system was destroyed
3. 1994 - The REPUBLICAN Judge awarded 20 Billion to be paid by Exxon
4. 2008 - Exxon fought this all the verdict for 15 years where they agreed to pay $510 million, or if you like math, 1 / 1000th of the original amount, or if you like more math the amount that Exxon made in LESS than 2 days in 2008.
5 The most important fact is about Exxon Valdez is this: Their entire defense was essentially that the Coast Guard and Locals told them to do one thing, even though they wanted to handle the spill differently.
Obama and his team understands history, which is why he had to let BP take control of the spill...that is because BP is done.
Obama had already obtained $20 Billion from BP, and from what insiders are saying they are agreeing to $50 Billion. Lets compare that number to what the G Bush the first got....
Do you really think Obama is handling this bad now?
HARDLY.
on stimulus
Tim Kane
Mesa, Az
I wish that these people would take a look at South Korea NOW. The recession is covered in the press like it is ancient history here.
Korea GREW at .02% by some measures in 2009. This year estimates are calling for 7% growth!
Keynesianism doesn't work? My foot, it doesn't work!
South Korea implemented a stimulus of about 12%. The also benefited from a 25% drop in their currency in a "flight to quality" that began around January 2008. (I'm not sure what a 25% drop in currency translates in effect to a stimulus, but it is, in effect the same thing - then again so is a tariff).
For the U.S. to do the same stimulus would have been in excess of $1.5 trillion. Any stimulus south of $1 trillion just wasn't serious. My guess has always been $2.1 trillion was the appropriate stimulus response.
Korea's policy choice is almost exactly the same as Japan's in 1932. By 1933 they were out of the depression. By 1939 their industrial production was double what it had been in 1929.
Only in the 1940s did the U.S. bother implementing similar stimulus, and it had the same effect.
Japan implemented a form of Keynesian economics well before Keynes drafted his paper on it.
The American stimulus was only $700 billion - amazingly equal to the TARP bail out. Hmmm. Half of that was for tax cuts, aka anti-stimulus. The American response to the stimulus has been worse than no response, it has under-taken the appropriate medication, thereby discrediting the medication itself.
Basically, we are being ruled by plutocrats. They need $700 billion, they get it in three days time. The rest of America needs $2 trillion, and they get only what the plutocrats got, and only after three months of debate.
Now that the plutocrats feel they are safe, they want the stimulus drawn in and let the public suffer like the expendable cockroaches the greedy elite think that they are.
To that plutocracy I would say - there is still a communist party, it still rules China, who will protect your property rights after you have destroyed the middle class status of the masses? This country becomes less and less defensible as it loses its moral authority to those who would have to bear the burden to defend it. Wasted words: the plutocrats never think it through when they are feeding at the trough.
Deja vu all over
Madrid
In my view, the most relevant individual psychological mechanism for budget-tightening gaining track with public opinion is the same that is behind the thrift aggregation paradox. The common sense (for the individual) is "When you are short of money, you don't spend more but save more". So the Austerians have it so easy. It is so simple, so logical, it appears to make so much sense. No macro expert should buy that, but of course many do. If only the economic consensus line would be "When everybody stop spending, who's going to sell anything and what happens next to the economy?"... But that is not the case. And yes, "Keynesian" spending is counter-intuitive for most people. (That's precisely the reason why we talk about aggregation "paradoxes": a paradox by definition bears no straight, logical, intuitive common sense). So you have too much factors to fight against: Common Sense/Paradox of Thrift mechanism + guilt/penance-for-all-of-them-but-me-and-my-money + many people fed up with so much public money for banksters + the dubious case of Japan (but how many people read Posen, after all?) + the very real (un-keynesian) case of Greece and the like + ideology and vested interests + the opposite camp has a very easy and intuitive and single argument... You see, Keynes advised to run surpluses in good time, precisely to be able to be the "spender of last resort" in circumstances like these (but how many people read Keynes, after all?). And what you get is: nominally right governments end up running deficits in good times (very un-Keynesian but who cares?) and nominal "Keynesian" """leftist""" huge stimulus (1937, Japan, now) end up falling too short, are too brief, are quited too soon. And the operating mechanism behind public opinion endorsing cutting stimulus is that individuals (even if they are experts) tend to micro-think the macro picture. Many among the public buy it because it meets their micro-reasoning, and because not so many people really love taxes. Et voilá, paradox of thrift all over, again. Ok then. Let's be logical and hoard our money all at once. Let's sit on our hands and wait patiently watching each other to see who's the first to buy the stuff of someone else-who incidentally happens to be also hoarding money like you. And, after the brilliant outcome of this smart strategy manifest itself, let's blame Keynesians (the government, the Yankees, the Germans, the piigs, the Chinese etc) once more. Deja vu all over. Last century... But no, sorry, let's not speculate for the moment about the potential role of wars in reconciling huge public spending with tight savings, because it's different this time.
John
Lansing
Keynes advocated increasing demand by spending money. I have never seen a job created or someone get paid by saving (i.e. not spending) money.
Even if one saves money, it is with the eventual purpose of spending it, even if that is not until either retirement (or death). Saving money for a rainy day is important, but what if it is currently raining?
Money that is saved but not lent out does not earn interest and does not grow.
The Depression happened in the 1930's when banks STOPPED lending money, not during the Roaring '20's when banks (and people) LENT/SPENT money.
Economies are not very active when there is no money being circulated because it is sitting on the sidelines.
Today, like in the 1930's, companies and individuals who have money are not spending it or lending it. We are not experiencing inflation today, rather the exact opposite. Housing prices are declining NOT going up. This is a sign of deflation, not inflation.
Raging about government spending, taxes, or needing to save all sound virtuous, and ARE: when people are actually working and the economy is actually growing.
Somalia is a country with very LOW taxes, where people are forced to save (what they can). Sweden (or France) are countries with HIGH taxes and LOTS of government spending.
The question is where would one rather live, France/Sweden or Somalia?
Personally, even though the weather in Somalia is probably nicer, I'd prefer to live in France or Sweden with HIGH taxes and HIGH government spending, rather than Somalia where I would be forced to need to save because there are no government schools, no government hospitals, no government police/army, but LOTS of pirates.
When I have so much money that I don't need to participate in a society and can instead have my own private army, my own private roads, my own private hospitals, my own private schools, then I will be against the wastefulness of stimulus plans and government spending. Until then I will look at privatization much like a monarchy: when government is all private, and hence personal property, the country may as well belong to a single individual, say, a King (or perhaps a pirate).
Keynes' theories were the product of a democracy where all people can have a voice.
Advocating for austerity when there is unemployment will not create jobs. Advocating for the return to a gold standard or less government/societal spending will not create work or jobs.
Savings (not spending) only creates wealth and prosperity when it is put to work building something. This was the point Keynes was making on a macroeconomic level.
The difference between macroeconomics and personal economics is monetary policy. Printing money is an alternative to borrowing and debt that can stimulate demand.
To China it is preferable that the US borrow money rather than print it. Perhaps this is what Slobnob and Bob Roddis are referring to when they state what is rational.
Mesa, Az
I wish that these people would take a look at South Korea NOW. The recession is covered in the press like it is ancient history here.
Korea GREW at .02% by some measures in 2009. This year estimates are calling for 7% growth!
Keynesianism doesn't work? My foot, it doesn't work!
South Korea implemented a stimulus of about 12%. The also benefited from a 25% drop in their currency in a "flight to quality" that began around January 2008. (I'm not sure what a 25% drop in currency translates in effect to a stimulus, but it is, in effect the same thing - then again so is a tariff).
For the U.S. to do the same stimulus would have been in excess of $1.5 trillion. Any stimulus south of $1 trillion just wasn't serious. My guess has always been $2.1 trillion was the appropriate stimulus response.
Korea's policy choice is almost exactly the same as Japan's in 1932. By 1933 they were out of the depression. By 1939 their industrial production was double what it had been in 1929.
Only in the 1940s did the U.S. bother implementing similar stimulus, and it had the same effect.
Japan implemented a form of Keynesian economics well before Keynes drafted his paper on it.
The American stimulus was only $700 billion - amazingly equal to the TARP bail out. Hmmm. Half of that was for tax cuts, aka anti-stimulus. The American response to the stimulus has been worse than no response, it has under-taken the appropriate medication, thereby discrediting the medication itself.
Basically, we are being ruled by plutocrats. They need $700 billion, they get it in three days time. The rest of America needs $2 trillion, and they get only what the plutocrats got, and only after three months of debate.
Now that the plutocrats feel they are safe, they want the stimulus drawn in and let the public suffer like the expendable cockroaches the greedy elite think that they are.
To that plutocracy I would say - there is still a communist party, it still rules China, who will protect your property rights after you have destroyed the middle class status of the masses? This country becomes less and less defensible as it loses its moral authority to those who would have to bear the burden to defend it. Wasted words: the plutocrats never think it through when they are feeding at the trough.
Deja vu all over
Madrid
In my view, the most relevant individual psychological mechanism for budget-tightening gaining track with public opinion is the same that is behind the thrift aggregation paradox. The common sense (for the individual) is "When you are short of money, you don't spend more but save more". So the Austerians have it so easy. It is so simple, so logical, it appears to make so much sense. No macro expert should buy that, but of course many do. If only the economic consensus line would be "When everybody stop spending, who's going to sell anything and what happens next to the economy?"... But that is not the case. And yes, "Keynesian" spending is counter-intuitive for most people. (That's precisely the reason why we talk about aggregation "paradoxes": a paradox by definition bears no straight, logical, intuitive common sense). So you have too much factors to fight against: Common Sense/Paradox of Thrift mechanism + guilt/penance-for-all-of-them-but-me-and-my-money + many people fed up with so much public money for banksters + the dubious case of Japan (but how many people read Posen, after all?) + the very real (un-keynesian) case of Greece and the like + ideology and vested interests + the opposite camp has a very easy and intuitive and single argument... You see, Keynes advised to run surpluses in good time, precisely to be able to be the "spender of last resort" in circumstances like these (but how many people read Keynes, after all?). And what you get is: nominally right governments end up running deficits in good times (very un-Keynesian but who cares?) and nominal "Keynesian" """leftist""" huge stimulus (1937, Japan, now) end up falling too short, are too brief, are quited too soon. And the operating mechanism behind public opinion endorsing cutting stimulus is that individuals (even if they are experts) tend to micro-think the macro picture. Many among the public buy it because it meets their micro-reasoning, and because not so many people really love taxes. Et voilá, paradox of thrift all over, again. Ok then. Let's be logical and hoard our money all at once. Let's sit on our hands and wait patiently watching each other to see who's the first to buy the stuff of someone else-who incidentally happens to be also hoarding money like you. And, after the brilliant outcome of this smart strategy manifest itself, let's blame Keynesians (the government, the Yankees, the Germans, the piigs, the Chinese etc) once more. Deja vu all over. Last century... But no, sorry, let's not speculate for the moment about the potential role of wars in reconciling huge public spending with tight savings, because it's different this time.
John
Lansing
Keynes advocated increasing demand by spending money. I have never seen a job created or someone get paid by saving (i.e. not spending) money.
Even if one saves money, it is with the eventual purpose of spending it, even if that is not until either retirement (or death). Saving money for a rainy day is important, but what if it is currently raining?
Money that is saved but not lent out does not earn interest and does not grow.
The Depression happened in the 1930's when banks STOPPED lending money, not during the Roaring '20's when banks (and people) LENT/SPENT money.
Economies are not very active when there is no money being circulated because it is sitting on the sidelines.
Today, like in the 1930's, companies and individuals who have money are not spending it or lending it. We are not experiencing inflation today, rather the exact opposite. Housing prices are declining NOT going up. This is a sign of deflation, not inflation.
Raging about government spending, taxes, or needing to save all sound virtuous, and ARE: when people are actually working and the economy is actually growing.
Somalia is a country with very LOW taxes, where people are forced to save (what they can). Sweden (or France) are countries with HIGH taxes and LOTS of government spending.
The question is where would one rather live, France/Sweden or Somalia?
Personally, even though the weather in Somalia is probably nicer, I'd prefer to live in France or Sweden with HIGH taxes and HIGH government spending, rather than Somalia where I would be forced to need to save because there are no government schools, no government hospitals, no government police/army, but LOTS of pirates.
When I have so much money that I don't need to participate in a society and can instead have my own private army, my own private roads, my own private hospitals, my own private schools, then I will be against the wastefulness of stimulus plans and government spending. Until then I will look at privatization much like a monarchy: when government is all private, and hence personal property, the country may as well belong to a single individual, say, a King (or perhaps a pirate).
Keynes' theories were the product of a democracy where all people can have a voice.
Advocating for austerity when there is unemployment will not create jobs. Advocating for the return to a gold standard or less government/societal spending will not create work or jobs.
Savings (not spending) only creates wealth and prosperity when it is put to work building something. This was the point Keynes was making on a macroeconomic level.
The difference between macroeconomics and personal economics is monetary policy. Printing money is an alternative to borrowing and debt that can stimulate demand.
To China it is preferable that the US borrow money rather than print it. Perhaps this is what Slobnob and Bob Roddis are referring to when they state what is rational.
23.6.10
mc-crystal clear, not
Joseph Blady
Washington, DC
The Rolling Stone article presents a picture of a man who has pressed against the envelope of appropriate behavior his entire life. There are those who might find raucous behavior at a service academy laudable. There might be a certain bravado exuded by a staff that behaves like the spoiled entourage of a rock group. These are not the images that mesh appropriately with the faces of the men and women we look at in the news on a daily basis, people risking their lives to carry out the barren strategy of an arrogant war fighter who seems convinced that he immediately becomes the smartest man in any room into which he has entered. If, in fact, General McChrystal is the man he wants us to believe he is, he will present his letter of resignation upon arrival at the White House and insist it be accepted.
The bigger question remains. Counterinsurgency may suitable where there is a nation and government to be salvaged. Afghanistan has never been a nation, and its government is hardly worth saving. The value of the counterinsurgency strategy was supposedly proven in Iraq. Rather than deluding ourselves into thinking that Iraq was a rousing success, let us examine what was really accomplished. General Petraeus and General McChrystal proved only that which was already obvious, that we cannot be beaten militarily if we choose not to be. This is again being proved in Afghanistan, but, like Iraq, it has nothing to do with a successful outcome.
I have read General Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual. It is merely that, a primer on counterinsurgency. I'm sure that it is valuable reading for any young officer, but it is generic, and has nothing to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan, which, at their heart, are socio-political problems that happen to have a military component.
The irony is that General McChrystal, while wrong about the applicability of counterinsurgency doctrine in Afghanistan, is correct to point out that our national security team is broken. So is the ability of Congress to bring any cogent strategic thinking to bear on the problem. The State Department leadership seems to have failed to stand behind Ambassador Eikenberry's prescient analysis of our problems in Afghanistan. General Jones appears absent from public discussion of the way ahead. The political parties are interested only in making hay from each other's mistakes. But no one takes a moment to think about what we're doing in Afghanistan. There are men and women dying. Dying. To what end? Take a look at Somalia, Mali, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, and tell me that once we secure Afghanistan, our troubles are over.
Yes, General McChrystal deserves to be sacked. But there are a whole lot of people who ought to be going with him.
Don Williams
Philadelphia
1) Most of the derogatory comments were attributed to General McChrystal's aides. But even those comments are MINOR compared to
the continual leaks in Washington designed to undermine and sabotage
General McChrystal's mission.
2) The leaked memo by Karl Eikenberry last year was bad enough. But the recent leak re geological discoveries in Afghanistan was unforgivable. Does anyone think the Taliban are going to negotiate a surrender or compromise after being informed that they are sitting on a gold mine? That if they win, they will possess the "New Saudi Arabia"??
3) That information will motivate the Taliban to fight like furies. And thousands more American soldiers will die as a result.
4)General McChrystal has to write the letters to the families of soldiers killed by President Obama's inability to maintain responsible discipline within the White House.
5) General McChrystal should resign. Not because of the Rolling Stone article --but because obviously he and his mission has not had the support of the White House for some time. Soldiers are dying for a political Kabuki Dance --not to achieve a real and worthwhile objective.
If Obama was serious, these leaks would not be occurring.
Chuck Beria
New York
"Mr. Obama, who summoned General McChrystal to the White House on Wednesday, must either fire his top commander or send him immediately back into the field with a clear mandate to do his job," reads a NYT editorial.
A "clear mandate"? Oh, really? "Clear" by whose standards? And who is to define what such "mandate" is? The New York Times op-ed board?
What, really, would constitute one such "clear mandate" in Afghanistan? Nine years into the never-ending war, the Taliban is stronger than ever, Al-Qaeda is still very much alive, Osama Bin Ladin is nowhere to be found (and once he did get found, the Bush administration deliberately let him slip thru), the totally corrupt regime which does not enjoy even a modicum of legitimacy and popular support is still in power, and the cronyism, massive embezzlement and violent crime exceed anything seen on the face of the earth since the Man first walked out of the cave.
And how would the mandate become "clear". Would we have a public plebiscite? Would the President address the nation and seek its support for McChrystal's return to Afghanistan?
There is ONLY ONE AND ONE ONLY reason why Gen. McChrystal should be returned to Afghanistan in his current role: to prepare Afghanistan as a staging ground for our invasion of Iran. This, and this alone, is the reason why the Obama's administration has been foot-dragging and backpedaling for two years on its commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan. All this nonsense about nation- and democracy- building in Afghanistan, fighting terrorist and etcetera...is something not even the most naive believe anymore.
In short, the only reason why McChrystal should not be sacked is that we need him for the impending invasion on Iran.
Having said this, I comfortably predict that Obama will retain General McChrystal and have him "redeem" himself in the major global conflict to come. Of course, there will be harsh words, public chastisement, possibly even a slight demotion, but that's all Hollywood. The unwashed masses are not as dumb as our rulers would like to believe.
Neil D
Kalamazoo, MI
One wonders why the US military needs these wars so much. Is it because they have been exposed as ineffectual and incompetent by a bunch of low-tech militias over and over again? Lebanon (1982), Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have taught them they can't win fights in foreign territory against religious fanatics. And yet they try and try again.
When Americans suffered the trauma of 9/11 we looked to our military to avenge those deaths. We ignored the fact that the military allowed our largest city to be attacked from the air and decided to give them another chance. And now it's clear they've been screw ups for nearly 8 1/2 years.
Let's admit they haven't a clue how to win and bring them home. I've had enough revenge.
Robert
Brattleboro,Vt
Military Generals are some of the most competent people around. The vast majority are promoted due to their ability, not through political maneuvering. By all accounts these remarks were made informally and would not have been printed by a responsible journalist. But the remarks do give one an indication of how our military feels about the "clowns" in the White House. "Bite me", indeed.
Brian Moore
Germany
General McChrystal arguably has one of the most difficult jobs on the planet, leading an international coalition of so-called allies in Afghanistan. Our efforts there may not be successful. If there is failure, he will surely be one of the officers to take the blame.
During my time in Iraq, I have heard soldiers of all ranks from Private to Colonel make off key remarks at one time or another. As an officer, I dismissed most of these as necessary venting. So the General's human in a war zone. He made some remarks among his staff in country. To a General, his staff is like his family, and a good staff officer allows his commander to vent and doesn't go around telling people about it. If I where the war correspondent, I wouldn't have published those remarks. They have nothing to do with covering the war, unless you want to discredit the leadership. Sometimes venting is necessary, then we all get back to doing our jobs, however difficult, thankless and dangerous they may be. I think all veterans know this, but the general public may not.
Ralph Adam Fine
Wisconsin
We need generals who are not afraid to speak--sadly, the history of civilian no-dissent control over the military has been abysmal: viz. Truman and MacArthur (read Wm. Manchester's unbiased account in American Caesar); Johnson and McNamara lying to Congress and to the American people (read Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster, an active-duty army officer); and, of course, Bush2’s “yes men” who allowed him to get us into two horrific wars without end. Sadly, the media is largely complicit because they are so superficial (Martha Raddatz’s “report” on ABC’s Good Morning America this morning (6-22-10) was paradigm). Ugh! As Edward R. Murrow observed, “a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.” Unfortunately, the so-called “watch dogs” are asleep.
Rick
Louisville
As an old retired infantry officer and West Point grad, I learned long ago that there are "political" generals - those that know how to play the inside the beltway game (Wes Clark, Petreus) and there are "warrior" generals - those that know how to kill and win wars (Schwartzkopf, Franks). Both types are needed for an effective military. McChrystal is the latter when the former is needed. And for that reason he must be replaced. Thanks for your service, now move on to civilian life.
Keith Ensminger
Merced, CA
This is one case where we ought to shoot the messenger. These guys were unwinding in a bar, joking and talking shop in an informal setting where booze helps unwind sarcasm. Obama should call the reporter on the carpet and, like Joseph Welch said to Senator Cohn during the McCarthy witch hunts, tell the reporter, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
ERIK
Florida
The General just might want out of this half baked war effort enough that he made his comments knowing full well he would be fired.
Better to go with all the flags flying than as a lap dog.
David
Ohio
I must say that I am stunned at these remarks from General McChrystal and his staff. My previous impressions of the General have been favorable. I thought his strategy in Afghanistan was well-thought out, and he presents himself as very disciplined. In light of these impressions, it is absolutely confounding to read these remarks, and to know that he had an opportunity to challenge the content of the article before it went to press. Clearly, General McChrystal is a man who would understand the concept of chain of command, so it is particularly disturbing to hear of the General and his staff as reportedly seeing "the real enemy" as being "those wimps in the White House". One can only wonder what the General's response would be if his staff viewed him as "the real enemy"?
Secondly, given McChrystal's apparent intelligence and grasp of strategy, one can only wonder about the motives behind all of these comments, and his failure to challenge the content of the article prior to its release. Was this simply a colossal blunder in judgment, or is there some underlying strategy to what he MUST have known would create a firestorm of controversy back home. To blatantly stab the Commander-in-Chief in the back seems to force Mr. Obama to recall the General in order to disprove the McChrystal staff view of White House weakness. If this is the case, then one could reasonably ask what the point of such a challenge would be. If it is to be relieved of command because the General fears his strategy in Afghanistan is likely to fail, then one could reasonably ask who is REALLY the one who is covering his backside for face-saving or political purposes.
Washington, DC
The Rolling Stone article presents a picture of a man who has pressed against the envelope of appropriate behavior his entire life. There are those who might find raucous behavior at a service academy laudable. There might be a certain bravado exuded by a staff that behaves like the spoiled entourage of a rock group. These are not the images that mesh appropriately with the faces of the men and women we look at in the news on a daily basis, people risking their lives to carry out the barren strategy of an arrogant war fighter who seems convinced that he immediately becomes the smartest man in any room into which he has entered. If, in fact, General McChrystal is the man he wants us to believe he is, he will present his letter of resignation upon arrival at the White House and insist it be accepted.
The bigger question remains. Counterinsurgency may suitable where there is a nation and government to be salvaged. Afghanistan has never been a nation, and its government is hardly worth saving. The value of the counterinsurgency strategy was supposedly proven in Iraq. Rather than deluding ourselves into thinking that Iraq was a rousing success, let us examine what was really accomplished. General Petraeus and General McChrystal proved only that which was already obvious, that we cannot be beaten militarily if we choose not to be. This is again being proved in Afghanistan, but, like Iraq, it has nothing to do with a successful outcome.
I have read General Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual. It is merely that, a primer on counterinsurgency. I'm sure that it is valuable reading for any young officer, but it is generic, and has nothing to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan, which, at their heart, are socio-political problems that happen to have a military component.
The irony is that General McChrystal, while wrong about the applicability of counterinsurgency doctrine in Afghanistan, is correct to point out that our national security team is broken. So is the ability of Congress to bring any cogent strategic thinking to bear on the problem. The State Department leadership seems to have failed to stand behind Ambassador Eikenberry's prescient analysis of our problems in Afghanistan. General Jones appears absent from public discussion of the way ahead. The political parties are interested only in making hay from each other's mistakes. But no one takes a moment to think about what we're doing in Afghanistan. There are men and women dying. Dying. To what end? Take a look at Somalia, Mali, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, and tell me that once we secure Afghanistan, our troubles are over.
Yes, General McChrystal deserves to be sacked. But there are a whole lot of people who ought to be going with him.
Don Williams
Philadelphia
1) Most of the derogatory comments were attributed to General McChrystal's aides. But even those comments are MINOR compared to
the continual leaks in Washington designed to undermine and sabotage
General McChrystal's mission.
2) The leaked memo by Karl Eikenberry last year was bad enough. But the recent leak re geological discoveries in Afghanistan was unforgivable. Does anyone think the Taliban are going to negotiate a surrender or compromise after being informed that they are sitting on a gold mine? That if they win, they will possess the "New Saudi Arabia"??
3) That information will motivate the Taliban to fight like furies. And thousands more American soldiers will die as a result.
4)General McChrystal has to write the letters to the families of soldiers killed by President Obama's inability to maintain responsible discipline within the White House.
5) General McChrystal should resign. Not because of the Rolling Stone article --but because obviously he and his mission has not had the support of the White House for some time. Soldiers are dying for a political Kabuki Dance --not to achieve a real and worthwhile objective.
If Obama was serious, these leaks would not be occurring.
Chuck Beria
New York
"Mr. Obama, who summoned General McChrystal to the White House on Wednesday, must either fire his top commander or send him immediately back into the field with a clear mandate to do his job," reads a NYT editorial.
A "clear mandate"? Oh, really? "Clear" by whose standards? And who is to define what such "mandate" is? The New York Times op-ed board?
What, really, would constitute one such "clear mandate" in Afghanistan? Nine years into the never-ending war, the Taliban is stronger than ever, Al-Qaeda is still very much alive, Osama Bin Ladin is nowhere to be found (and once he did get found, the Bush administration deliberately let him slip thru), the totally corrupt regime which does not enjoy even a modicum of legitimacy and popular support is still in power, and the cronyism, massive embezzlement and violent crime exceed anything seen on the face of the earth since the Man first walked out of the cave.
And how would the mandate become "clear". Would we have a public plebiscite? Would the President address the nation and seek its support for McChrystal's return to Afghanistan?
There is ONLY ONE AND ONE ONLY reason why Gen. McChrystal should be returned to Afghanistan in his current role: to prepare Afghanistan as a staging ground for our invasion of Iran. This, and this alone, is the reason why the Obama's administration has been foot-dragging and backpedaling for two years on its commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan. All this nonsense about nation- and democracy- building in Afghanistan, fighting terrorist and etcetera...is something not even the most naive believe anymore.
In short, the only reason why McChrystal should not be sacked is that we need him for the impending invasion on Iran.
Having said this, I comfortably predict that Obama will retain General McChrystal and have him "redeem" himself in the major global conflict to come. Of course, there will be harsh words, public chastisement, possibly even a slight demotion, but that's all Hollywood. The unwashed masses are not as dumb as our rulers would like to believe.
Neil D
Kalamazoo, MI
One wonders why the US military needs these wars so much. Is it because they have been exposed as ineffectual and incompetent by a bunch of low-tech militias over and over again? Lebanon (1982), Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have taught them they can't win fights in foreign territory against religious fanatics. And yet they try and try again.
When Americans suffered the trauma of 9/11 we looked to our military to avenge those deaths. We ignored the fact that the military allowed our largest city to be attacked from the air and decided to give them another chance. And now it's clear they've been screw ups for nearly 8 1/2 years.
Let's admit they haven't a clue how to win and bring them home. I've had enough revenge.
Robert
Brattleboro,Vt
Military Generals are some of the most competent people around. The vast majority are promoted due to their ability, not through political maneuvering. By all accounts these remarks were made informally and would not have been printed by a responsible journalist. But the remarks do give one an indication of how our military feels about the "clowns" in the White House. "Bite me", indeed.
Brian Moore
Germany
General McChrystal arguably has one of the most difficult jobs on the planet, leading an international coalition of so-called allies in Afghanistan. Our efforts there may not be successful. If there is failure, he will surely be one of the officers to take the blame.
During my time in Iraq, I have heard soldiers of all ranks from Private to Colonel make off key remarks at one time or another. As an officer, I dismissed most of these as necessary venting. So the General's human in a war zone. He made some remarks among his staff in country. To a General, his staff is like his family, and a good staff officer allows his commander to vent and doesn't go around telling people about it. If I where the war correspondent, I wouldn't have published those remarks. They have nothing to do with covering the war, unless you want to discredit the leadership. Sometimes venting is necessary, then we all get back to doing our jobs, however difficult, thankless and dangerous they may be. I think all veterans know this, but the general public may not.
Ralph Adam Fine
Wisconsin
We need generals who are not afraid to speak--sadly, the history of civilian no-dissent control over the military has been abysmal: viz. Truman and MacArthur (read Wm. Manchester's unbiased account in American Caesar); Johnson and McNamara lying to Congress and to the American people (read Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster, an active-duty army officer); and, of course, Bush2’s “yes men” who allowed him to get us into two horrific wars without end. Sadly, the media is largely complicit because they are so superficial (Martha Raddatz’s “report” on ABC’s Good Morning America this morning (6-22-10) was paradigm). Ugh! As Edward R. Murrow observed, “a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.” Unfortunately, the so-called “watch dogs” are asleep.
Rick
Louisville
As an old retired infantry officer and West Point grad, I learned long ago that there are "political" generals - those that know how to play the inside the beltway game (Wes Clark, Petreus) and there are "warrior" generals - those that know how to kill and win wars (Schwartzkopf, Franks). Both types are needed for an effective military. McChrystal is the latter when the former is needed. And for that reason he must be replaced. Thanks for your service, now move on to civilian life.
Keith Ensminger
Merced, CA
This is one case where we ought to shoot the messenger. These guys were unwinding in a bar, joking and talking shop in an informal setting where booze helps unwind sarcasm. Obama should call the reporter on the carpet and, like Joseph Welch said to Senator Cohn during the McCarthy witch hunts, tell the reporter, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
ERIK
Florida
The General just might want out of this half baked war effort enough that he made his comments knowing full well he would be fired.
Better to go with all the flags flying than as a lap dog.
David
Ohio
I must say that I am stunned at these remarks from General McChrystal and his staff. My previous impressions of the General have been favorable. I thought his strategy in Afghanistan was well-thought out, and he presents himself as very disciplined. In light of these impressions, it is absolutely confounding to read these remarks, and to know that he had an opportunity to challenge the content of the article before it went to press. Clearly, General McChrystal is a man who would understand the concept of chain of command, so it is particularly disturbing to hear of the General and his staff as reportedly seeing "the real enemy" as being "those wimps in the White House". One can only wonder what the General's response would be if his staff viewed him as "the real enemy"?
Secondly, given McChrystal's apparent intelligence and grasp of strategy, one can only wonder about the motives behind all of these comments, and his failure to challenge the content of the article prior to its release. Was this simply a colossal blunder in judgment, or is there some underlying strategy to what he MUST have known would create a firestorm of controversy back home. To blatantly stab the Commander-in-Chief in the back seems to force Mr. Obama to recall the General in order to disprove the McChrystal staff view of White House weakness. If this is the case, then one could reasonably ask what the point of such a challenge would be. If it is to be relieved of command because the General fears his strategy in Afghanistan is likely to fail, then one could reasonably ask who is REALLY the one who is covering his backside for face-saving or political purposes.
20.6.10
on the mechanics of failure
TJ in Boulder Utah
Boulder, UT
A major reason that The United States of America was catapulted to the top of the heap in terms of military and economic power was that profiteers of all kinds have historically, been given free rein to rape the natural resources of North America and then the World. This, along with overwhelming military and economic dominance over the shattered economies of Europe and Asia after WWII.
The rise of Corporate power is only another manifestation of the "ruling classes" asserting their will on a relatively ignorant and powerless populus. Just as the robber barons of the 1800s bought off government, corporations today buy our representatives with bribes that are thinly disguised as "campaign contributions". The media, for the most part is also controlled by these monied interests. And, now with a Supreme Court that is controlled by so called conservatives we have Corporations being given the right to funnel even more money to their favored Lobbists (oops! I mean elected representitives).
I like President Obama and wish we lived in the world that he envisioned, of "Hope & Change" though understanding and bipartisanship. But, unfortunately he has yet to really get his own message. Our only Hope is for him to take a radical approach to changing our current form of govenment and give up on the moderation of a fantastical bipartisanship. He should give up any plan for a second term and just start naming names and truely "kicking a$$" rather than using such statements as a rhetorical device. We also can't just count on the POTUS to do what has to be done. I understand the Tea Party movement functioning out of an overwheming sense that the People no longer control what happens in America. Unfortunately, this frustration has been coopted by the same forces that want to block meaningful reform and control of those that are creating our problems. We The People actually have to demand change; perhaps starting with real campaign finance reform. (Oh, where are you John McCain? - Oops! another political sell out.)
I am NOT hopeful. It seems we will only change in a crisis. And, since one seems to appear every 3 - 4 months, people seem to be exhausted and appathetic. If what has been happening during the last year can't spur us to action, what will?
We need leadership. That's why we voted for Obama. Time is short.
The hour is late.
Boulder, UT
A major reason that The United States of America was catapulted to the top of the heap in terms of military and economic power was that profiteers of all kinds have historically, been given free rein to rape the natural resources of North America and then the World. This, along with overwhelming military and economic dominance over the shattered economies of Europe and Asia after WWII.
The rise of Corporate power is only another manifestation of the "ruling classes" asserting their will on a relatively ignorant and powerless populus. Just as the robber barons of the 1800s bought off government, corporations today buy our representatives with bribes that are thinly disguised as "campaign contributions". The media, for the most part is also controlled by these monied interests. And, now with a Supreme Court that is controlled by so called conservatives we have Corporations being given the right to funnel even more money to their favored Lobbists (oops! I mean elected representitives).
I like President Obama and wish we lived in the world that he envisioned, of "Hope & Change" though understanding and bipartisanship. But, unfortunately he has yet to really get his own message. Our only Hope is for him to take a radical approach to changing our current form of govenment and give up on the moderation of a fantastical bipartisanship. He should give up any plan for a second term and just start naming names and truely "kicking a$$" rather than using such statements as a rhetorical device. We also can't just count on the POTUS to do what has to be done. I understand the Tea Party movement functioning out of an overwheming sense that the People no longer control what happens in America. Unfortunately, this frustration has been coopted by the same forces that want to block meaningful reform and control of those that are creating our problems. We The People actually have to demand change; perhaps starting with real campaign finance reform. (Oh, where are you John McCain? - Oops! another political sell out.)
I am NOT hopeful. It seems we will only change in a crisis. And, since one seems to appear every 3 - 4 months, people seem to be exhausted and appathetic. If what has been happening during the last year can't spur us to action, what will?
We need leadership. That's why we voted for Obama. Time is short.
The hour is late.
The enemy within viewed from aside
Paolo Martini
Milan, Italy
So I can feel the squirming discomfort from all the way over here in the Mediterranean: none of the convenient enemies (the commies, Colombian narcos, the Arabs) are available to take the fall for this one. It comes straight from the heart of the capitalist system, big oil. There's no conspiracy, no subtext except oops, we goofed! And there's no solution in sight except to hope it stops gushing on its own. At least it provides a graphic illustration of what happens when corporations are allowed to pursue profit without regulatory bodies protecting the public interest, though I doubt the Tea Partiers will change their tune. Small government means government by multinational corporations and groups like Goldman Sachs.
I feel terrible for the people of the Gulf Coast, who face a disgusting decade (at least) and perhaps the end of a way of life (bye-bye fishing, shrimping and oysters for the foreseeable future). And let's hope the rest of the Caribbean doesn't follow suit. Obama can't be blamed for this, any more than the Arabs or the commies. Twenty years after glasnost, the West is proving that it needed the Soviets to strike a balance. The unfettered global financial system and multinationals are wreaking more havoc than the Bolshies ever did.
Milan, Italy
So I can feel the squirming discomfort from all the way over here in the Mediterranean: none of the convenient enemies (the commies, Colombian narcos, the Arabs) are available to take the fall for this one. It comes straight from the heart of the capitalist system, big oil. There's no conspiracy, no subtext except oops, we goofed! And there's no solution in sight except to hope it stops gushing on its own. At least it provides a graphic illustration of what happens when corporations are allowed to pursue profit without regulatory bodies protecting the public interest, though I doubt the Tea Partiers will change their tune. Small government means government by multinational corporations and groups like Goldman Sachs.
I feel terrible for the people of the Gulf Coast, who face a disgusting decade (at least) and perhaps the end of a way of life (bye-bye fishing, shrimping and oysters for the foreseeable future). And let's hope the rest of the Caribbean doesn't follow suit. Obama can't be blamed for this, any more than the Arabs or the commies. Twenty years after glasnost, the West is proving that it needed the Soviets to strike a balance. The unfettered global financial system and multinationals are wreaking more havoc than the Bolshies ever did.
A little history can harm only the ignorant
Jumper
South Carolina
Perhaps because of the history we're taught, and because of the dire scenario created by the media, we expected President Obama's first term to be similar to that of FDR's first term. There was cooperation because that situation was so dire. FDR had promised that if various quarters resisted fixing the emergency, he'd use his powers of commander in chief to get the job done.
President Obama inherited an obstructionist Congress more like that of FDR's second term, a Congress that kept him from accomplishing much. The Republicans and conservative Democrats have plagiarized most of that playbook to block President Obama.
Al Smith loudly decried FDR's policies as those of Marx and Lenin. Most of the nation's wealthy industrialists, banks and food processing companies formed and supported the American Liberty League. The League's stated its purposes were to,"...defend and uphold the Constitution" and to "foster the right to work, earn, save and acquire property." (Anti-union language.)
When the Congress passed an agricultural administration the League didn't like, they called it, "a trend toward Fascist control of agriculture." During the development of Social Security, they said it was "...the end of democracy." Sound familiar?
The new wrinkle is that they have toadies such as Joe Wilson and Joe Barton, who have accomplished little but are willing to sacrifice themselves to distract the media talk from major Obama accomplishments.
The main reason FDR weathered the storm was that the Republicans and his other critics, by their own actions, tied themselves to the hated bankers. They overplayed their hands and self-destructed. We see that happening again - but shouldn't totally count on it.
A telling difference, however, between FDR and President Obama is that FDR was willing to use devastating metaphors such as, "I'd rather be an eagle flying high rather than a turtle or ostrich with its head in the ground," (referring to some early war time critics.) Nothing like some commonsense ridicule.
In that you're correct. However, Obama should do this sparingly and leave most of the work to those speaking for him. The President has better uses for his time than trading barbs with intellectual lightweights who've demonstrated they're only in it for their money, not the interests of the American people.
To some extent, President Obama has already fired the first shot of this round. Before the speech, pundits behaved as though they were the master of his comments. By post speech time, they'd sliced and diced him and high-fived each other. The next morning the President delivered the complete BP pledge for financial restitution. He showed the babbling heads of all political stripes, along with the print pundits, to be clueless.
Yes, they need some house cleaning. However, I've got a feeling his administration has a few more accomplishments to present before going into campaign mode and ripping the curtains back to reveal the anti-democracy corporatists and their toadies working to manipulate the American people out of their own best interests.
South Carolina
Perhaps because of the history we're taught, and because of the dire scenario created by the media, we expected President Obama's first term to be similar to that of FDR's first term. There was cooperation because that situation was so dire. FDR had promised that if various quarters resisted fixing the emergency, he'd use his powers of commander in chief to get the job done.
President Obama inherited an obstructionist Congress more like that of FDR's second term, a Congress that kept him from accomplishing much. The Republicans and conservative Democrats have plagiarized most of that playbook to block President Obama.
Al Smith loudly decried FDR's policies as those of Marx and Lenin. Most of the nation's wealthy industrialists, banks and food processing companies formed and supported the American Liberty League. The League's stated its purposes were to,"...defend and uphold the Constitution" and to "foster the right to work, earn, save and acquire property." (Anti-union language.)
When the Congress passed an agricultural administration the League didn't like, they called it, "a trend toward Fascist control of agriculture." During the development of Social Security, they said it was "...the end of democracy." Sound familiar?
The new wrinkle is that they have toadies such as Joe Wilson and Joe Barton, who have accomplished little but are willing to sacrifice themselves to distract the media talk from major Obama accomplishments.
The main reason FDR weathered the storm was that the Republicans and his other critics, by their own actions, tied themselves to the hated bankers. They overplayed their hands and self-destructed. We see that happening again - but shouldn't totally count on it.
A telling difference, however, between FDR and President Obama is that FDR was willing to use devastating metaphors such as, "I'd rather be an eagle flying high rather than a turtle or ostrich with its head in the ground," (referring to some early war time critics.) Nothing like some commonsense ridicule.
In that you're correct. However, Obama should do this sparingly and leave most of the work to those speaking for him. The President has better uses for his time than trading barbs with intellectual lightweights who've demonstrated they're only in it for their money, not the interests of the American people.
To some extent, President Obama has already fired the first shot of this round. Before the speech, pundits behaved as though they were the master of his comments. By post speech time, they'd sliced and diced him and high-fived each other. The next morning the President delivered the complete BP pledge for financial restitution. He showed the babbling heads of all political stripes, along with the print pundits, to be clueless.
Yes, they need some house cleaning. However, I've got a feeling his administration has a few more accomplishments to present before going into campaign mode and ripping the curtains back to reveal the anti-democracy corporatists and their toadies working to manipulate the American people out of their own best interests.
15.6.10
To Afghan Twist, The US Turn
NYTimes:
NY
What is this? Is the Times being played by the Pentagon? First, there is an article about a new Pentagon-supported survey which shows Afghanistan has up to a trillion dollars in mineral wealth, and that the Chinese are after it, or, even worse, that the Taliban might get it. By mid-day, everyone is pointing out that the presence of mineral wealth in that country is old news. So, why the breaking story?
By the end of the SAME DAY, here is an article in which military officials express serious doubts about the timetable for withdrawal. You think that's a coincidence? This is propaganda. The military-industrial complex does not want to leave that country until it has appropriated those resources. That's what this war has become about, just like the war in Iraq. It's not about democracy, human rights, women's rights or even national security. It's not even about defeating Islamic extremists. The military knows that force only creates more terrorists. It's not about 'victory'. They know there is no winning an all-out war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What they want is endless war. War that lasts long enough to allow them to strong-arm the future political leadership in Afghanistan, which may not include Karzai, into allowing U.S. companies to develop the country's resources. The same thing Russia wanted. The same thing Halliburton wanted in Iraq.
FromwhereIsit
Manhattan
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, by this discovery.
Call me cynical, but I think few Americans believed the Bush Administration would launch a long-term campaign in the desert wasteland of Central Asia for purely altruistic reasons like liberating Afghan women.
art brennan
weare, nh
The term "halting progress" really doesn't fit. Where's the evidence of progress? Halting the war would be progress.
Paul Moore
Miami, FL
They don't call Afghanistan the burial ground of empires for nothing. McChrystal is the quintessential US military leader now, a Madison Avenue type who gets bunches of people killed including his own people. Lied in the Tillman case. Kept forward inadequately guarded bases open in Afghanistan against the advice of genuine leaders and got people killed when they were overrun. The man is a pathetic impotent symbol of the whole futile US effort in Afghanistan. He'll probably be President soon.
Marcel Duchamp
Maine
A trillion dollars worth of minerals will make this a war worth winning!
Our imperial net has settled around our throats.
Meyrav Levine
Boston
Hence the reason why we spend a trillion dollars a year on our military-industrial complex to steal resources from other people. Alan Greenspan, in a rare moment of honesty among the ruling elites, declared the following motive for our war of aggression in Iraq:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”...
Nick Lento
Cliffside Park, NJ
This is one more reason to radically change our foreign policy on a *global* scale so that human rights and real democracy is what we are about rather than just propping up monstrous undemocratic dictatorships masquerading as democracies so our "private enterprise" can hook up with artificially cheap natural resources.
We've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan killing people and engendering more hatred of the USA...and all that's done is make the Taliban (who were hated!) more attractive to many ordinary Afghans.
In our pursuit of "terrorists" we have created more terrorism....which in turn, is good for the commercial interests which enjoy the profits that accrue from our massive expenditures.
We should take a page out of Greg Mortenson's book (Three Cups of Tea) and learn how to spend lots less money more intelligently and in a humane and human manner. The ordinary working people at the bottom of the world's political food chain should be looking toward the USA with respect, love and admiration....and would be if our policies were to materially and unambiguously advance their interests.
If we stay on the utterly ineffective and wasteful course we are now on.....the Taliban will wind up in charge of Afghanistan and they will cut deals with the Chinese to rape their own countryside and exploit their own countrymen. We can/must do better.
Jacque Bauer
Los Angeles
Like the Iraqis, the Afghans will show their appreciation to America for its blood and treasure spent to free the Afghanis, to rebuild their country and in discovering these riches by giving the mineral licenses to these deposits to the Chinese. Don't doubt this for one second...
Michael R
Pittsford, New York
For all of the implications of such a discovery, let's not get carried away with this storyline just yet. It didn't take too much effort for me to notice that these unnamed U.S. Pentagon officials, and the New York Times, are peddling at least somewhat of a puff piece. At this stage, a phrase like "the Saudi Arabia of lithium"--uttered before the independent verification of these vast mineral deposits, and before mining operations and 'mining culture' have even sprouted in Afghanistan--strikes me more as campaign-style rhetoric, pushing a hawkish foreign policy goal, than an objective accounting of the potential of this find.
I am all for vast riches being discovered in Afghanistan--but vast questions remain. Again, no objective, on-the-record sources or independent scientists have verified the account. Assuming the truth of these vast riches (and what, exactly, is the basis for the $1 trillion estimate beyond the mere expectation and yes, Hope, of the Pentagon?), don't underestimate the acknowledged timeline for extracting most of these riches: long-term.
It's hard to escape the reality that the same Pentagon officials who are notifying the world of this seemingly hugely significant story also have a strong interest in staying put in Afghanistan. We ought to be on guard for stories like this, number one, but here demand more information and verification before we allow this information to affect our attitude towards Afghanistan.
dad
nj
I'm old-fashioned. I believe that when it's time to fight a war, you need to do it with a clear conscience, because you're going to expose yourself to some regrettable things--things that will haunt you for the rest of your days. The use of military force needs to be just, because you're asking sons and daughters of loving mothers, who raised them until they were old enough to kill in the name of country, to do just that, or be killed. Sending them off to do that in the name of a fabrication is to commit them to hell. Good luck welcoming them back.
War is best expressed as a total commitment, punctuated by the clear achievement of negotiated terms, which the victors find acceptable. This means a broad-based conscription (in the event you have a popularity issue), and an appropriate and properly targeted raising of taxes to cover the "unusual" expense of armed conflict. No credit cards accepted. No shadow mercenary contractors that you can pay off the books and use to keep your "volunteer army" troop numbers artificially low.
Anything less than this is a police action and has no rightful purpose going on for five or ten years.
The Bush-launched incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan are unjust wars. They are corporate-political incursions of opportunity and they have debased the United Sates of America and its proud military.
The US Government, one might dream, needs to "straighten up and fly right," so that we can breath honor into our national endeavors. What we are doing in the meantime is unleashing a global security force on a less than thankful planet to provide cover to the designs of a small group of planners--take your pick if you think you know who they are. But they do not represent the will of the nation, nor do they portray their mission in a manner or language that can stand the light of day.
They dishonor our citizenry, our flag, and fighting forces. They will, if their modus operandi is allowed to continue, hand the motivational advantage to our adversaries. A strong Nation can handle the truth. Why then, must we be so deceived?
Some people regard war as a sacred duty. Others, an opportunity for plunder. I hope to god that war can retain its nobler aims, because there's no truer aim for a citizen soldier than securing the peace. If global cops are what the world needs, then let the nations of the world pony up and go where they're required.
War is being redefined as an endless struggle against asymmetrical usurpers who can inspire fear out of all proportion to their actual capability. It is becoming enormously profitable for a segment of its supporters and providers. It requires unmerciful destruction and the relentless tearing of flesh. It will leave indelible marks on the ones who do not die. It may or may not encourage a peaceful society.
How is this a noble mission? Or was it always thus?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/is_afghanistan_really_the_next_el_dorado
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/getting_outside_the_box_on_national_defense
U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan&
By JAMES RISEN
The nearly $1 trillion in untapped deposits are enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, officials said.
Setbacks Cloud U.S. Plans to Get Out of Afghanistanjoe
By PETER BAKER and MARK LANDLER
Halting progress has crystallized tensions over President Obama’s plan to begin pulling out troops by July 2011.
NY
What is this? Is the Times being played by the Pentagon? First, there is an article about a new Pentagon-supported survey which shows Afghanistan has up to a trillion dollars in mineral wealth, and that the Chinese are after it, or, even worse, that the Taliban might get it. By mid-day, everyone is pointing out that the presence of mineral wealth in that country is old news. So, why the breaking story?
By the end of the SAME DAY, here is an article in which military officials express serious doubts about the timetable for withdrawal. You think that's a coincidence? This is propaganda. The military-industrial complex does not want to leave that country until it has appropriated those resources. That's what this war has become about, just like the war in Iraq. It's not about democracy, human rights, women's rights or even national security. It's not even about defeating Islamic extremists. The military knows that force only creates more terrorists. It's not about 'victory'. They know there is no winning an all-out war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What they want is endless war. War that lasts long enough to allow them to strong-arm the future political leadership in Afghanistan, which may not include Karzai, into allowing U.S. companies to develop the country's resources. The same thing Russia wanted. The same thing Halliburton wanted in Iraq.
FromwhereIsit
Manhattan
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, by this discovery.
Call me cynical, but I think few Americans believed the Bush Administration would launch a long-term campaign in the desert wasteland of Central Asia for purely altruistic reasons like liberating Afghan women.
art brennan
weare, nh
The term "halting progress" really doesn't fit. Where's the evidence of progress? Halting the war would be progress.
Paul Moore
Miami, FL
They don't call Afghanistan the burial ground of empires for nothing. McChrystal is the quintessential US military leader now, a Madison Avenue type who gets bunches of people killed including his own people. Lied in the Tillman case. Kept forward inadequately guarded bases open in Afghanistan against the advice of genuine leaders and got people killed when they were overrun. The man is a pathetic impotent symbol of the whole futile US effort in Afghanistan. He'll probably be President soon.
Marcel Duchamp
Maine
A trillion dollars worth of minerals will make this a war worth winning!
Our imperial net has settled around our throats.
Meyrav Levine
Boston
Hence the reason why we spend a trillion dollars a year on our military-industrial complex to steal resources from other people. Alan Greenspan, in a rare moment of honesty among the ruling elites, declared the following motive for our war of aggression in Iraq:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”...
Nick Lento
Cliffside Park, NJ
This is one more reason to radically change our foreign policy on a *global* scale so that human rights and real democracy is what we are about rather than just propping up monstrous undemocratic dictatorships masquerading as democracies so our "private enterprise" can hook up with artificially cheap natural resources.
We've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan killing people and engendering more hatred of the USA...and all that's done is make the Taliban (who were hated!) more attractive to many ordinary Afghans.
In our pursuit of "terrorists" we have created more terrorism....which in turn, is good for the commercial interests which enjoy the profits that accrue from our massive expenditures.
We should take a page out of Greg Mortenson's book (Three Cups of Tea) and learn how to spend lots less money more intelligently and in a humane and human manner. The ordinary working people at the bottom of the world's political food chain should be looking toward the USA with respect, love and admiration....and would be if our policies were to materially and unambiguously advance their interests.
If we stay on the utterly ineffective and wasteful course we are now on.....the Taliban will wind up in charge of Afghanistan and they will cut deals with the Chinese to rape their own countryside and exploit their own countrymen. We can/must do better.
Jacque Bauer
Los Angeles
Like the Iraqis, the Afghans will show their appreciation to America for its blood and treasure spent to free the Afghanis, to rebuild their country and in discovering these riches by giving the mineral licenses to these deposits to the Chinese. Don't doubt this for one second...
Michael R
Pittsford, New York
For all of the implications of such a discovery, let's not get carried away with this storyline just yet. It didn't take too much effort for me to notice that these unnamed U.S. Pentagon officials, and the New York Times, are peddling at least somewhat of a puff piece. At this stage, a phrase like "the Saudi Arabia of lithium"--uttered before the independent verification of these vast mineral deposits, and before mining operations and 'mining culture' have even sprouted in Afghanistan--strikes me more as campaign-style rhetoric, pushing a hawkish foreign policy goal, than an objective accounting of the potential of this find.
I am all for vast riches being discovered in Afghanistan--but vast questions remain. Again, no objective, on-the-record sources or independent scientists have verified the account. Assuming the truth of these vast riches (and what, exactly, is the basis for the $1 trillion estimate beyond the mere expectation and yes, Hope, of the Pentagon?), don't underestimate the acknowledged timeline for extracting most of these riches: long-term.
It's hard to escape the reality that the same Pentagon officials who are notifying the world of this seemingly hugely significant story also have a strong interest in staying put in Afghanistan. We ought to be on guard for stories like this, number one, but here demand more information and verification before we allow this information to affect our attitude towards Afghanistan.
dad
nj
I'm old-fashioned. I believe that when it's time to fight a war, you need to do it with a clear conscience, because you're going to expose yourself to some regrettable things--things that will haunt you for the rest of your days. The use of military force needs to be just, because you're asking sons and daughters of loving mothers, who raised them until they were old enough to kill in the name of country, to do just that, or be killed. Sending them off to do that in the name of a fabrication is to commit them to hell. Good luck welcoming them back.
War is best expressed as a total commitment, punctuated by the clear achievement of negotiated terms, which the victors find acceptable. This means a broad-based conscription (in the event you have a popularity issue), and an appropriate and properly targeted raising of taxes to cover the "unusual" expense of armed conflict. No credit cards accepted. No shadow mercenary contractors that you can pay off the books and use to keep your "volunteer army" troop numbers artificially low.
Anything less than this is a police action and has no rightful purpose going on for five or ten years.
The Bush-launched incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan are unjust wars. They are corporate-political incursions of opportunity and they have debased the United Sates of America and its proud military.
The US Government, one might dream, needs to "straighten up and fly right," so that we can breath honor into our national endeavors. What we are doing in the meantime is unleashing a global security force on a less than thankful planet to provide cover to the designs of a small group of planners--take your pick if you think you know who they are. But they do not represent the will of the nation, nor do they portray their mission in a manner or language that can stand the light of day.
They dishonor our citizenry, our flag, and fighting forces. They will, if their modus operandi is allowed to continue, hand the motivational advantage to our adversaries. A strong Nation can handle the truth. Why then, must we be so deceived?
Some people regard war as a sacred duty. Others, an opportunity for plunder. I hope to god that war can retain its nobler aims, because there's no truer aim for a citizen soldier than securing the peace. If global cops are what the world needs, then let the nations of the world pony up and go where they're required.
War is being redefined as an endless struggle against asymmetrical usurpers who can inspire fear out of all proportion to their actual capability. It is becoming enormously profitable for a segment of its supporters and providers. It requires unmerciful destruction and the relentless tearing of flesh. It will leave indelible marks on the ones who do not die. It may or may not encourage a peaceful society.
How is this a noble mission? Or was it always thus?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/is_afghanistan_really_the_next_el_dorado
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/getting_outside_the_box_on_national_defense
1.6.10
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it
pdxtran
Minneapolis
As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it."
About thirty years ago, I witnessed the transition from an academic system in which most students majored in liberal arts, with the expectation that their eventual employers would train them in the job skills they needed, to a system in major companies literally stopped hiring liberal arts majors for anything but commissioned sales jobs. Within a couple of years, anyone who didn't major in business or computer science (or pre-med or pre-law) was considered a sentimental fool. Meanwhile, all forms of financial aid except loans and ROTC scholarships failed to keep up with rising tuition costs (caused largely by administrative bloat--but that's another story).
The result was a generation of college graduates who knew how to manipulate numbers and were indoctrinated into Milton Friedman's version of economics and possibly, if they were ROTC cadets, into the most paranoid versions of Cold War foreign policy.
They firmly believed that making money for the shareholders was the ONLY purpose of a company, and they acted accordingly, blithely laying off workers to make their companies "lean and mean," telling themselves that hiring slave labor in the Third World was "raising living standards in impoverished countries," cutting back on the quality of their products and services, eliminating corporate charitable contributions, and then telling federal and local legislators that they could add Stateside jobs, produce better products, and contribute to charity only if they received tax cuts.
Never mind that employee wages and benefits, investment in facilities, R&D expenses, and charitable contributions were already tax deductible. Business lobbyists played on the typical American's ignorance of how companies are taxed (if you ask, you'll find that they imagine that companies are taxed on their gross receipts, not on their profits) and cynically asked for tax cuts, citing altruistic reasons but actually aiming to improve returns for the shareholders.
Unfortunately, the federal government, the states, and municipalities were stupid enough to grant these tax cuts, only to see their own budgets suffer.
The Left (the real Left, not the former liberal Republicans who now control the Democratic Party) called the corporate world on its greed and cynicism and single-minded pursuit of returns for the shareholders. It decried foreign outsourcing as destructive to America's middle class. It pointed out the sheer waste of spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on the military when our civilian infrastructure was falling behind the rest of the Western world. It warned against so many articles of conventional faith that the mainstream media treated it as "fringe," a bunch of outdated cranks who couldn't get with the laissez-faire program.
The oil industry didn't want to hear about alternative energy. The finance industry didn't want to hear that it was pumping up a series of bubbles. The manufacturing industries kept sending production abroad in search of cheaper and cheaper labor, oblivious to the way they were destroying the purchasing power of their own customers. The military-industrial complex didn't want to hear about foreign policy scenarios in which the U.S. wasn't at war with anyone. The law enforcement-prison-industrial complex didn't want to hear that the drug war was criminalizing entire communities. The land developer-real estate-industrial complex didn't want to hear that their houses were bigger than what most people needed and too expensive for the average person to afford. The pundit-industrial complex made sure that no one deviated from the official line that America was the greatest country in the world and had nothing to learn from anyone else. Everyone was making too much money to stop bilking and exploiting fellow Americans, who, true to American culture, "didn't hold by book larnin" and just believed everything they heard on the radio and on TV.
Well, all these bubbles are bursting in quick succession. Online comments indicate that some people are waking up and realizing that they've been had. However, you still see the brazen apologists for the oil companies, the banks, the builders, the retailers of shoddy goods, the outsourcers, and everyone else who has helped destroy America's middle class, acting as if nothing bad has happened.
They epitomize Upton Sinclair's statement.
Minneapolis
As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it."
About thirty years ago, I witnessed the transition from an academic system in which most students majored in liberal arts, with the expectation that their eventual employers would train them in the job skills they needed, to a system in major companies literally stopped hiring liberal arts majors for anything but commissioned sales jobs. Within a couple of years, anyone who didn't major in business or computer science (or pre-med or pre-law) was considered a sentimental fool. Meanwhile, all forms of financial aid except loans and ROTC scholarships failed to keep up with rising tuition costs (caused largely by administrative bloat--but that's another story).
The result was a generation of college graduates who knew how to manipulate numbers and were indoctrinated into Milton Friedman's version of economics and possibly, if they were ROTC cadets, into the most paranoid versions of Cold War foreign policy.
They firmly believed that making money for the shareholders was the ONLY purpose of a company, and they acted accordingly, blithely laying off workers to make their companies "lean and mean," telling themselves that hiring slave labor in the Third World was "raising living standards in impoverished countries," cutting back on the quality of their products and services, eliminating corporate charitable contributions, and then telling federal and local legislators that they could add Stateside jobs, produce better products, and contribute to charity only if they received tax cuts.
Never mind that employee wages and benefits, investment in facilities, R&D expenses, and charitable contributions were already tax deductible. Business lobbyists played on the typical American's ignorance of how companies are taxed (if you ask, you'll find that they imagine that companies are taxed on their gross receipts, not on their profits) and cynically asked for tax cuts, citing altruistic reasons but actually aiming to improve returns for the shareholders.
Unfortunately, the federal government, the states, and municipalities were stupid enough to grant these tax cuts, only to see their own budgets suffer.
The Left (the real Left, not the former liberal Republicans who now control the Democratic Party) called the corporate world on its greed and cynicism and single-minded pursuit of returns for the shareholders. It decried foreign outsourcing as destructive to America's middle class. It pointed out the sheer waste of spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on the military when our civilian infrastructure was falling behind the rest of the Western world. It warned against so many articles of conventional faith that the mainstream media treated it as "fringe," a bunch of outdated cranks who couldn't get with the laissez-faire program.
The oil industry didn't want to hear about alternative energy. The finance industry didn't want to hear that it was pumping up a series of bubbles. The manufacturing industries kept sending production abroad in search of cheaper and cheaper labor, oblivious to the way they were destroying the purchasing power of their own customers. The military-industrial complex didn't want to hear about foreign policy scenarios in which the U.S. wasn't at war with anyone. The law enforcement-prison-industrial complex didn't want to hear that the drug war was criminalizing entire communities. The land developer-real estate-industrial complex didn't want to hear that their houses were bigger than what most people needed and too expensive for the average person to afford. The pundit-industrial complex made sure that no one deviated from the official line that America was the greatest country in the world and had nothing to learn from anyone else. Everyone was making too much money to stop bilking and exploiting fellow Americans, who, true to American culture, "didn't hold by book larnin" and just believed everything they heard on the radio and on TV.
Well, all these bubbles are bursting in quick succession. Online comments indicate that some people are waking up and realizing that they've been had. However, you still see the brazen apologists for the oil companies, the banks, the builders, the retailers of shoddy goods, the outsourcers, and everyone else who has helped destroy America's middle class, acting as if nothing bad has happened.
They epitomize Upton Sinclair's statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
