Jeremy Horne, Ph.D.
Alamogordo, NM
There are several factors we must bear in mind.
First, no one should be surprised about what is happening to jobs and the hoarding of cash, with CEOs ripping off even more wealth. How many bankster bailouts do we need? The ultimate aim of corporatism is maximum profits with least expense. Workers, along with land, labor, and capital, are simply part of the equation. There is no humanity in corporatism.
Two, poster no. 1, Karen Garcia, while well meaning, is barking up the wrong tree by saying, "The President must ... [to get] ... the progressive agenda ... We need to call the politicians ... ". The president doesn't have to do anything of the kind. He is corporate property, and the people have no say. He was bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and BP, among others. This is part of what corporatism means - control of political and economic decision making. Look at 1922-1943 as an example. Second, calling the politicians is a waste of time, as the word was sent to them in the last election as to what people generally wanted. In essence, we have a failed state when it comes to doing the peoples' will.
Three, one of the fundamental fatalities of modern industrial political economies is that their viability depends upon production and growth. This is not sustainable environmentally or structurally. The new meaning of "progressivism" will have to incorporate this new direction.
Third, the economy will have to shift from being based in a velocity of capital being the sign of economic health to wealth being based upon labor hours spent. This means dispensing with parasitic income, such as that derived from speculation. Remember, this was one of the fundamental reasons for the current mini-depression.
Fourth, the policy makers for a humane political economy will have to recognize that the foundation of that economy - workers- must have meaningfully and economically available to them excellent health (including mental and dental) - not the pro insurance/big pharma scam that was recently enacted by Congress - care, education, housing, nutrition, and wages. Given the short sightedness of most corporations, one should not expect these things under the present system At least Henry Ford seemed to have a basic understanding in this area.
Fifth, to have any meaningful participatory society, the participants must be educated This presupposes s suitable school/educational system, and an ethos that values education. It must ranscend the current one of business, consumerism, sports, "entertainment", and greed.
Sixth, the political process needs a complete restructuring, from campaign financing, reversal of the SCOTUS decision on corporations, equal access by opposition political parties, term limits, and a requirement that anyone running for high public office be educated and minimally experienced in political/social/economic affairs. Plato and Aristotle would have had it so well.
The problem we face now is one of ethos and structure, and little patches like make work will not be long range enough to do anything in the room. The elephants in the room are corporatism, the present regime's obeisance to it, and the lack of the basic guts and brains of any group to do anything about it.
Mr. Herbert, you are a fantastic columnist, and perhaps socially/economically way ahead of your time, but I am asking you why you don't pick up the cudgel? I know that newspaper staffers have to be wary about becoming activists, but at least subtlety report on what others might be doing around this country that is effective, so we might take these as paradigms on how to organize in our own communities. We may be coming to a point of no return (from a final economic crash), and people will be asking what there is to lose, if the only way is up. I suggest starting with discussing some real humane and viable political economies, such a cooperatives and non growth and sustainable forms of participatory systems based after democratic socialism, where the means of production and distribution in in the participants' hands. Along with the systems, we might see discussions on the nature of participation, what sustainability means, and other alternative concepts. There is no better time than now to start. Obama and the other politicians surely aren't going to be leaders; they already have had their day in what sun there is left. It is up to us.
31.7.10
how to break the vicious econmic cycle
pdxtran
Minneapolis
I'm convinced that low corporate tax rates are ultimately responsible for this wholesale disregard for the welfare of workers.
The Republicans like to blame current unemployment problems on "high taxes." In their utopia, there would be no corporate taxes at all, and everyone would have a job. Or so they claim.
This line of propaganda works because most Americans do not realize that hiring people actually REDUCES a company's taxes. Unlike individuals, who are taxed on all their income minus a couple of minor exclusions and deductions, businesses are taxed ONLY on what is left over after they have met all their expenses, including employee wages and benefits. No profit, no taxes.
In the days of high corporate taxes, there was a financial incentive to hire people, upgrade facilities, buy equipment, develop new products, contribute to charity, and do other things that benefited the economy and society as a whole, because the money spent on these was not taxable.
When Reagan lowered corporate tax rates and the top rates on personal income and capital gains, shareholders received a sudden windfall. Understandably, they liked this. They began pressuring managers to increase profits from quarter to quarter, no matter what.
This was the era in which the business press glorified the "lean and mean" companies and the corporate raiders who bought other companies and gutted them.
Most companies had only a limited amount of "dead wood," so the next step in increasing profits was to outsource as much blue collar work as possible, first to non-union, cheap labor states, and then to cheap labor countries.
But how do you keep raising profits quarter to quarter when all your production is outsourced? Easy! You start outsourcing the white collar and technical jobs to India and China. Then you go around writing opinion pieces in business journals and newspapers about how you're forced to do it because American workers are lazy and have a sense of entitlement. (Talk about projection!)
Those workers who remain are told that they must accept longer hours, no raises, and reduced benefits, "because of the poor economy." Who is going to protest when there are so many unemployed out there?
Having attended two Ivy League schools for graduate school, I know that there is a certain type of wealthy person who does not see the rest of us as real human beings worthy of respect. Some are that way due to having led a sheltered life. Others are just plain cutthroat greedy and dismissive of anyone who can't make piles of money.
Meanwhile, retail and service businesses, the ones that can't be outsourced to China or Mexico, suffer because their former customers, ordinary middle class people, are afraid to spend money.
If I were in charge of this country's economy, I'd raise taxes on individuals and corporations to pre-Reagan era levels. That would make ditching workers a less attractive proposition. It would also take the trust fund parasites down a much needed peg or two.
Minneapolis
I'm convinced that low corporate tax rates are ultimately responsible for this wholesale disregard for the welfare of workers.
The Republicans like to blame current unemployment problems on "high taxes." In their utopia, there would be no corporate taxes at all, and everyone would have a job. Or so they claim.
This line of propaganda works because most Americans do not realize that hiring people actually REDUCES a company's taxes. Unlike individuals, who are taxed on all their income minus a couple of minor exclusions and deductions, businesses are taxed ONLY on what is left over after they have met all their expenses, including employee wages and benefits. No profit, no taxes.
In the days of high corporate taxes, there was a financial incentive to hire people, upgrade facilities, buy equipment, develop new products, contribute to charity, and do other things that benefited the economy and society as a whole, because the money spent on these was not taxable.
When Reagan lowered corporate tax rates and the top rates on personal income and capital gains, shareholders received a sudden windfall. Understandably, they liked this. They began pressuring managers to increase profits from quarter to quarter, no matter what.
This was the era in which the business press glorified the "lean and mean" companies and the corporate raiders who bought other companies and gutted them.
Most companies had only a limited amount of "dead wood," so the next step in increasing profits was to outsource as much blue collar work as possible, first to non-union, cheap labor states, and then to cheap labor countries.
But how do you keep raising profits quarter to quarter when all your production is outsourced? Easy! You start outsourcing the white collar and technical jobs to India and China. Then you go around writing opinion pieces in business journals and newspapers about how you're forced to do it because American workers are lazy and have a sense of entitlement. (Talk about projection!)
Those workers who remain are told that they must accept longer hours, no raises, and reduced benefits, "because of the poor economy." Who is going to protest when there are so many unemployed out there?
Having attended two Ivy League schools for graduate school, I know that there is a certain type of wealthy person who does not see the rest of us as real human beings worthy of respect. Some are that way due to having led a sheltered life. Others are just plain cutthroat greedy and dismissive of anyone who can't make piles of money.
Meanwhile, retail and service businesses, the ones that can't be outsourced to China or Mexico, suffer because their former customers, ordinary middle class people, are afraid to spend money.
If I were in charge of this country's economy, I'd raise taxes on individuals and corporations to pre-Reagan era levels. That would make ditching workers a less attractive proposition. It would also take the trust fund parasites down a much needed peg or two.
26.7.10
Truth vs. "Home in Palo Alto with a swimming pool"
In a SPIEGEL interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 39, discusses his decision to publish the Afghanistan war logs, the difficult balance between the public interest and the need for state secrets and why he believes people who wage war are more dangerous than him.
SPIEGEL: You are about to publish a vast amount of classified data on the war in Afghanistan. What is your motivation?
Assange: These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war -- in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars.
SPIEGEL: Do you think that the publication of this data will influence political decision-makers?
Assange: Yes. This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.
SPIEGEL: Aren't you expecting a little too much?
Assange: There is a mood to end the war in Afghanistan. This information won't do it alone, but it will shift political will in a significant manner.
SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren't you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?
Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm-minimization process and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.
SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?
Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.
SPIEGEL: Is there anything that you consider to be a legitimate state secret?
Assange: There is a legitimate role for secrecy, and there is a legitimate role for openness. Unfortunately, those who commit abuses against humanity or against the law find abusing legitimate secrecy to conceal their abuse all too easy. People of good conscience have always revealed abuses by ignoring abusive strictures. It is not WikiLeaks that decides to reveal something. It is a whistleblower or a dissident who decides to reveal it. Our job is to make sure that these individuals are protected, the public is informed and the historical record is not denied.
SPIEGEL: But in the end somebody has to decide whether you publish or not. Who determines the criteria? WikiLeaks considers itself to be a trailblazer when it comes to freedom of information, but it lacks transparency in its own publishing decisions.
Assange: This is ridiculous. We are clear about what we will publish and what we will not. We do not have adhoc editorial decisions. We always release the full primary sources to our articles. What other press organization has such exacting standards? Everyone should try to follow our lead.
SPIEGEL: The problem is that it is difficult to hold WikiLeaks accountable. You operate your servers in countries that offer you broad protection. Does WikiLeaks consider itself to be above the law?
Assange: WikiLeaks does not exist in outer space. We are people who exist on Earth, in particular nations, each of which have a particular set of laws. We have been legally challenged in various countries. We have won every challenge. It is courts that decide the law, not corporations or generals. The law, as expressed by constitutions and courts, has been on our side.
SPIEGEL: You have said that there is a correlation between the transparency for which you are fighting and a just society. What do you mean by that?
Assange: Reform can only come about when injustice is exposed. To oppose an unjust plan before it reaches implementation is to stop injustice.
SPIEGEL: During the Vietnam War, US President Richard Nixon once called Daniel Elsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, the most dangerous man in America. Are you today's most dangerous man or the most endangered?
Assange: The most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped. If that makes me dangerous in their eyes, so be it.
SPIEGEL: You could have started a company in Silicon Valley and lived in a home in Palo Alto with a swimming pool. Why did you decide to do the WikiLeaks project instead?
Assange: We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.
Interview conducted by John Goetz and Marcel Rosenbach
SPIEGEL: You are about to publish a vast amount of classified data on the war in Afghanistan. What is your motivation?
Assange: These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war -- in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars.
SPIEGEL: Do you think that the publication of this data will influence political decision-makers?
Assange: Yes. This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.
SPIEGEL: Aren't you expecting a little too much?
Assange: There is a mood to end the war in Afghanistan. This information won't do it alone, but it will shift political will in a significant manner.
SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren't you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?
Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm-minimization process and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.
SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?
Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.
SPIEGEL: Is there anything that you consider to be a legitimate state secret?
Assange: There is a legitimate role for secrecy, and there is a legitimate role for openness. Unfortunately, those who commit abuses against humanity or against the law find abusing legitimate secrecy to conceal their abuse all too easy. People of good conscience have always revealed abuses by ignoring abusive strictures. It is not WikiLeaks that decides to reveal something. It is a whistleblower or a dissident who decides to reveal it. Our job is to make sure that these individuals are protected, the public is informed and the historical record is not denied.
SPIEGEL: But in the end somebody has to decide whether you publish or not. Who determines the criteria? WikiLeaks considers itself to be a trailblazer when it comes to freedom of information, but it lacks transparency in its own publishing decisions.
Assange: This is ridiculous. We are clear about what we will publish and what we will not. We do not have adhoc editorial decisions. We always release the full primary sources to our articles. What other press organization has such exacting standards? Everyone should try to follow our lead.
SPIEGEL: The problem is that it is difficult to hold WikiLeaks accountable. You operate your servers in countries that offer you broad protection. Does WikiLeaks consider itself to be above the law?
Assange: WikiLeaks does not exist in outer space. We are people who exist on Earth, in particular nations, each of which have a particular set of laws. We have been legally challenged in various countries. We have won every challenge. It is courts that decide the law, not corporations or generals. The law, as expressed by constitutions and courts, has been on our side.
SPIEGEL: You have said that there is a correlation between the transparency for which you are fighting and a just society. What do you mean by that?
Assange: Reform can only come about when injustice is exposed. To oppose an unjust plan before it reaches implementation is to stop injustice.
SPIEGEL: During the Vietnam War, US President Richard Nixon once called Daniel Elsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, the most dangerous man in America. Are you today's most dangerous man or the most endangered?
Assange: The most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped. If that makes me dangerous in their eyes, so be it.
SPIEGEL: You could have started a company in Silicon Valley and lived in a home in Palo Alto with a swimming pool. Why did you decide to do the WikiLeaks project instead?
Assange: We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.
Interview conducted by John Goetz and Marcel Rosenbach
19.7.10
french letter(s)
Jeancocteau
San Francisco
Les nouveaux pauvre, Americain! Welcome to the third world, you have officially arrived. Your Bourgeois delusional dreams of grandeur are finally over, you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams. This is what happens when you outsource your industries to third world countries, you eventually become a third world country. If Americans were not so brain washed by the Chamber of Commerce that what is good for business is good for America..etc...you have to produce things, all wealth comes from labor, this is basic economic theory. If you can reduce the labor costs by paying someone 50cents an hour then you can reap so much more profit. Short term profits have killed America, and the American middle class. When there is no more middle class, who do you think are going to buy all these products? I don't think China or America has ever really thought about this..thats what is so scary, these people are evil. They don't care about America or our future. This is treason really. They are traitors, these corporate Chamber of Commerce interests sold out America, will Americans ever fight back?
Concerned Citizen
Anywheresville, USA
Over the past 40 years or so technological change, population increases, efficiency increases and the ability to "off shore" many jobs (from manufacturing to white collar) means that there is NOW and for the foreseeable future, FAR MORE PEOPLE who need and want jobs than there are jobs. Period. Education, as we are seeing very bluntly and painfully, is not the solution. We have too many EVERYTHING -- too many stockbrokers and too many ad execs and too many parking lot attendants and too many web designers....EVERYTHING.
We are looking at a future where probably 2 in 10 people will not be able to find any sort of full-time work (with benefits) of ANY kind, never mind if it is Wall Street or the Family Dollar store in Dayton, Ohio. They will be stuck doing the most menial jobs, part-time and temporary, and completely unemployed for much of the year.
We need to start thinking about ways to increase the number of jobs,and to encourage whatever people we can to get out of the work force. This means EARLIER retirement -- not working til 70! -- it means making stay-at-home moms and dads an economically viable proposition, perhaps with extended family leave or tax breaks. It means a shorter work day, such as in France (35 hours a week) and longer European style vacations (mandatory six weeks).
It means limiting overtime harshly -- perhaps with double time pay, and not just time-and-a-half -- as today, one way employers limit the number of people they hire is by forcing overtime (often unpaid) and calling nearly everyone a manager or exempt to enable this.
Some people work almost solely to get affordable group health care, so NATIONAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE (which we have stupidly avoided once again) would mean that a fair chunk of current workers could either stay home or be self-employed -- work as artists, writers or musicians -- or live off their trust funds -- and not take a job from another person who possibly needs it far worse.
I'm sure creative and smart folks have even MORE ideas than this. But this is a starting point -- and we need to put our thinking caps on about this. THE JOBS ARE NOT COMING BACK. The jobs have been disappearing for thirty some years now. The handwriting has been on the wall. Telling people pretty lies -- promising things that don't exist -- training people and worse, taking their money for bogus pointless "re-training programs" is inexcusable.
We need to be honest with them and ourselves. If you are out of work today -- if you have been unemployed for over a year, and are not getting interviews -- even worse, if you are over 45 -- it is very likely you will never work again in (fulltime, with benefits) in your life.
San Francisco
Les nouveaux pauvre, Americain! Welcome to the third world, you have officially arrived. Your Bourgeois delusional dreams of grandeur are finally over, you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams. This is what happens when you outsource your industries to third world countries, you eventually become a third world country. If Americans were not so brain washed by the Chamber of Commerce that what is good for business is good for America..etc...you have to produce things, all wealth comes from labor, this is basic economic theory. If you can reduce the labor costs by paying someone 50cents an hour then you can reap so much more profit. Short term profits have killed America, and the American middle class. When there is no more middle class, who do you think are going to buy all these products? I don't think China or America has ever really thought about this..thats what is so scary, these people are evil. They don't care about America or our future. This is treason really. They are traitors, these corporate Chamber of Commerce interests sold out America, will Americans ever fight back?
Concerned Citizen
Anywheresville, USA
Over the past 40 years or so technological change, population increases, efficiency increases and the ability to "off shore" many jobs (from manufacturing to white collar) means that there is NOW and for the foreseeable future, FAR MORE PEOPLE who need and want jobs than there are jobs. Period. Education, as we are seeing very bluntly and painfully, is not the solution. We have too many EVERYTHING -- too many stockbrokers and too many ad execs and too many parking lot attendants and too many web designers....EVERYTHING.
We are looking at a future where probably 2 in 10 people will not be able to find any sort of full-time work (with benefits) of ANY kind, never mind if it is Wall Street or the Family Dollar store in Dayton, Ohio. They will be stuck doing the most menial jobs, part-time and temporary, and completely unemployed for much of the year.
We need to start thinking about ways to increase the number of jobs,and to encourage whatever people we can to get out of the work force. This means EARLIER retirement -- not working til 70! -- it means making stay-at-home moms and dads an economically viable proposition, perhaps with extended family leave or tax breaks. It means a shorter work day, such as in France (35 hours a week) and longer European style vacations (mandatory six weeks).
It means limiting overtime harshly -- perhaps with double time pay, and not just time-and-a-half -- as today, one way employers limit the number of people they hire is by forcing overtime (often unpaid) and calling nearly everyone a manager or exempt to enable this.
Some people work almost solely to get affordable group health care, so NATIONAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE (which we have stupidly avoided once again) would mean that a fair chunk of current workers could either stay home or be self-employed -- work as artists, writers or musicians -- or live off their trust funds -- and not take a job from another person who possibly needs it far worse.
I'm sure creative and smart folks have even MORE ideas than this. But this is a starting point -- and we need to put our thinking caps on about this. THE JOBS ARE NOT COMING BACK. The jobs have been disappearing for thirty some years now. The handwriting has been on the wall. Telling people pretty lies -- promising things that don't exist -- training people and worse, taking their money for bogus pointless "re-training programs" is inexcusable.
We need to be honest with them and ourselves. If you are out of work today -- if you have been unemployed for over a year, and are not getting interviews -- even worse, if you are over 45 -- it is very likely you will never work again in (fulltime, with benefits) in your life.
15.7.10
a stroll on the bio-pharma lane
Dr. Cashrules
Kansas
The pharmaceutical industry is a huge mess, which has little, if anything, to do with making people healthy. The way the system is currently designed, if it's more profitable for a pharmaceutical company to put you at greater risk, it will do so. And sometimes the US gov't will help them brush it under the rug. Note a recent investigative report concerning the big, high-publicity lawsuit the US gov't filed against Pfizer, after the company blatantly went against FDA approvals and marketed a drug for all sorts of alternative uses, which the FDA had specifically noted could be dangerous and could put people at greater risk.
The FDA approved Bextra only for arthritis and menstrual cramps. It rejected the drug in higher doses for acute, surgical pain. Promoting drugs for unapproved uses can put patients at risk by circumventing the FDA's judgment over which products are safe and effective. For that reason, "off-label" promotion is against the law.
But with billions of dollars of profits at stake, marketing and sales managers across the country nonetheless targeted anesthesiologists, foot surgeons, orthopedic surgeons and oral surgeons. "Anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living," one district manager advised in a document prosecutors would later cite.
A manager in Florida e-mailed his sales reps a scripted sales pitch that claimed -- falsely -- that the FDA had given Bextra "a clean bill of health" all the way up to a 40 mg dose, which is twice what the FDA actually said was safe....
Internal company documents show that Pfizer and Pharmacia (which Pfizer later bought) used a multimillion-dollar medical education budget to pay hundreds of doctors as speakers and consultants to tout Bextra.
Pfizer said in court that "the company's intent was pure": to foster a legal exchange of scientific information among doctors.... But an internal marketing plan called for training physicians "to serve as public relations spokespeople."
Where the story gets scary is in what happened when all this came out. Federal officials announced a criminal case over this, but they didn't actually sue Pfizer directly. Instead, they sued a (not kidding) subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Pfizer, which was basically set up just take the brunt of this lawsuit:
According to court documents, Pfizer Inc. owns (a) Pharmacia Corp., which owns (b) Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns (c) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns (d) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc. It is the great-great-grandson of the parent company.
But it was only that last one, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., that was sued -- and the report also notes that this company just happened to be set up the same day that Pfizer and federal officials worked out a deal for it to plead guilty -- even though it, as an entity, hadn't done anything.
Why did they do this? Well, if Pfizer itself had been found guilty then it would be barred from Medicare and Medicaid, and prosecutors figured it would effectively close down Pfizer -- and Pfizer was deemed "too big to fail" like that. Why? I have no idea. If the company really did have to close down, it seems likely that others would have picked up the company's various products -- and perhaps done so without putting people's lives at risk.
Really, the problem here is the way the entire system is set up. The FDA requires expensive and involved clinical trials. This is very good, because we want to make sure that any drugs actually do what they're supposed to do, and don't have serious side effects or cause even worse problems. But, the system is currently set up so that the pharmaceutical company itself is in charge of paying for and running those clinical trials, which creates two very problematic situations. First, it gives the company all sorts of incentives to fudge the results or to pretend the results said something different than they really did (see the example above, or Merck with Vioxx) and second, it contributes to the "expense" that a drugmaker can claim comes from developing a new drug, which is part of why it demands patent rights. But if you break out the costs of the clinical trials, the marketing-hidden-ad-development-costs, and the amount of research that's actually funded by gov't grants -- you find that pharmaceutical firms really aren't spending nearly as much as they claim. A big part of the issue is the clinical trials, and that's leading to all sorts of questionable behavior. In the past, some have suggested that such trials should be conducted by the gov't, rather than by the pharma companies themselves. While I'm not sure that's the answer, it's pretty clear that the existing system is not working, if our end goal is to make people healthier.
Kansas
The pharmaceutical industry is a huge mess, which has little, if anything, to do with making people healthy. The way the system is currently designed, if it's more profitable for a pharmaceutical company to put you at greater risk, it will do so. And sometimes the US gov't will help them brush it under the rug. Note a recent investigative report concerning the big, high-publicity lawsuit the US gov't filed against Pfizer, after the company blatantly went against FDA approvals and marketed a drug for all sorts of alternative uses, which the FDA had specifically noted could be dangerous and could put people at greater risk.
The FDA approved Bextra only for arthritis and menstrual cramps. It rejected the drug in higher doses for acute, surgical pain. Promoting drugs for unapproved uses can put patients at risk by circumventing the FDA's judgment over which products are safe and effective. For that reason, "off-label" promotion is against the law.
But with billions of dollars of profits at stake, marketing and sales managers across the country nonetheless targeted anesthesiologists, foot surgeons, orthopedic surgeons and oral surgeons. "Anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living," one district manager advised in a document prosecutors would later cite.
A manager in Florida e-mailed his sales reps a scripted sales pitch that claimed -- falsely -- that the FDA had given Bextra "a clean bill of health" all the way up to a 40 mg dose, which is twice what the FDA actually said was safe....
Internal company documents show that Pfizer and Pharmacia (which Pfizer later bought) used a multimillion-dollar medical education budget to pay hundreds of doctors as speakers and consultants to tout Bextra.
Pfizer said in court that "the company's intent was pure": to foster a legal exchange of scientific information among doctors.... But an internal marketing plan called for training physicians "to serve as public relations spokespeople."
Where the story gets scary is in what happened when all this came out. Federal officials announced a criminal case over this, but they didn't actually sue Pfizer directly. Instead, they sued a (not kidding) subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Pfizer, which was basically set up just take the brunt of this lawsuit:
According to court documents, Pfizer Inc. owns (a) Pharmacia Corp., which owns (b) Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns (c) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns (d) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc. It is the great-great-grandson of the parent company.
But it was only that last one, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., that was sued -- and the report also notes that this company just happened to be set up the same day that Pfizer and federal officials worked out a deal for it to plead guilty -- even though it, as an entity, hadn't done anything.
Why did they do this? Well, if Pfizer itself had been found guilty then it would be barred from Medicare and Medicaid, and prosecutors figured it would effectively close down Pfizer -- and Pfizer was deemed "too big to fail" like that. Why? I have no idea. If the company really did have to close down, it seems likely that others would have picked up the company's various products -- and perhaps done so without putting people's lives at risk.
Really, the problem here is the way the entire system is set up. The FDA requires expensive and involved clinical trials. This is very good, because we want to make sure that any drugs actually do what they're supposed to do, and don't have serious side effects or cause even worse problems. But, the system is currently set up so that the pharmaceutical company itself is in charge of paying for and running those clinical trials, which creates two very problematic situations. First, it gives the company all sorts of incentives to fudge the results or to pretend the results said something different than they really did (see the example above, or Merck with Vioxx) and second, it contributes to the "expense" that a drugmaker can claim comes from developing a new drug, which is part of why it demands patent rights. But if you break out the costs of the clinical trials, the marketing-hidden-ad-development-costs, and the amount of research that's actually funded by gov't grants -- you find that pharmaceutical firms really aren't spending nearly as much as they claim. A big part of the issue is the clinical trials, and that's leading to all sorts of questionable behavior. In the past, some have suggested that such trials should be conducted by the gov't, rather than by the pharma companies themselves. While I'm not sure that's the answer, it's pretty clear that the existing system is not working, if our end goal is to make people healthier.
14.7.10
the socioeconomics of the quiet
pdxtran
Minneapolis
There are more of us (ordinary people) than there are of them (banksters, currency manipulators, outsourcers of jobs, etc.) Yet the American people remain strangely passive, especially compared to workers in other countries. Why is that?
Part of the answer may lie in the way our communities have grown up since the end of World War II. With the majority of Americans living in suburbia, we no longer have natural gathering places, natural hangouts, natural venues where we can interact with our neighbors. Instead, we have strip malls, megamalls, big box stores, and chains of coffee shops and bars that are all owned by large corporations and look identical whether you're in Miami or Seattle. The main sources of community are high school sports (another mindless distraction) and megachurches (sources of distorted versions of Christianity and right-wing political propaganda). We spend hours a day in our cars, and some people travel from a garage at home to a garage at work, never interacting with another human being as they are subjected to radio-based indoctrination in trivia (the typical pop music station), right-wing politics (AM radio), or Beltway conventional wisdom (NPR). If this nation ever had a tradition of sitting around with one's neighbors and talking seriously and non-polemically about the state of the country, it is long lost.
So each discontented person thinks that he or she is alone. Back in 1991, I was on a plane to Hawaii when I overheard a flight attendant talking to the Middle Eastern couple in the row in front of me. "I wasn't for that Gulf War," she said, "but everyone else was, so I kept my mouth shut."
"I wasn't for that war," I said. Other people seated around us also spoke up and said that they had opposed the Gulf War. It was striking. About eight people, randomly seated in one section of a plane bound for Hawaii, were all saying that they had disagreed with what the media were telling us (the official story being that 90% of the public supported the Gulf War).
I can't help comparing my hometown of Minneapolis, a typically sprawling American city with suburbs proliferating dozens of miles out, with Portland, Oregon, where I lived for 10 years. Portland is rather left-leaning politically, and I participated in two different 30,000-person demonstrations while I lived there. Minneapolis is also left-leaning (Dennis Kucinich won 27% of the Democratic caucus vote in 2004), but it seems incapable of putting on an impressive demonstration. The best it can do are sad-looking gatherings of 500 people.
Upon reflection, I blame the layout of the cities for the difference. Portland has one central downtown with superb transit leading to it, lots of distinct neighborhoods, and lots of locally owned businesses. Minneapolis's downtown is fragmented, there's another complete city (St. Paul) across the river, public transit is mediocre, and neighborhoods seem more exclusively residential than they do in Portland. Information doesn't get out and apathy reigns.
Right now there are millions of unemployed Americans. Why aren't they marching on their own state capitals, if not on Washington? Why not? Because they're all suffering alone. Because the way our cities have grown in the past 60 years has destroyed much of our former social fabric. Because the right-wing and even the establishment press has made "union" a dirty word.
I'm reminded of a woman who was interviewed after the Ceausescu regime fell in Romania. (If you'll recall, the revolution began when people heckled one of the dictator's speeches.) "We could have done this at any time," she mused. "Why did we wait?"
Unemployed Americans could and should be in the streets, demanding to receive as much consideration as the banksters, the military-industrial complex, and the health insurance companies. I wonder how many of them have even considered the possibility or talked it over with other unemployed people.
Minneapolis
There are more of us (ordinary people) than there are of them (banksters, currency manipulators, outsourcers of jobs, etc.) Yet the American people remain strangely passive, especially compared to workers in other countries. Why is that?
Part of the answer may lie in the way our communities have grown up since the end of World War II. With the majority of Americans living in suburbia, we no longer have natural gathering places, natural hangouts, natural venues where we can interact with our neighbors. Instead, we have strip malls, megamalls, big box stores, and chains of coffee shops and bars that are all owned by large corporations and look identical whether you're in Miami or Seattle. The main sources of community are high school sports (another mindless distraction) and megachurches (sources of distorted versions of Christianity and right-wing political propaganda). We spend hours a day in our cars, and some people travel from a garage at home to a garage at work, never interacting with another human being as they are subjected to radio-based indoctrination in trivia (the typical pop music station), right-wing politics (AM radio), or Beltway conventional wisdom (NPR). If this nation ever had a tradition of sitting around with one's neighbors and talking seriously and non-polemically about the state of the country, it is long lost.
So each discontented person thinks that he or she is alone. Back in 1991, I was on a plane to Hawaii when I overheard a flight attendant talking to the Middle Eastern couple in the row in front of me. "I wasn't for that Gulf War," she said, "but everyone else was, so I kept my mouth shut."
"I wasn't for that war," I said. Other people seated around us also spoke up and said that they had opposed the Gulf War. It was striking. About eight people, randomly seated in one section of a plane bound for Hawaii, were all saying that they had disagreed with what the media were telling us (the official story being that 90% of the public supported the Gulf War).
I can't help comparing my hometown of Minneapolis, a typically sprawling American city with suburbs proliferating dozens of miles out, with Portland, Oregon, where I lived for 10 years. Portland is rather left-leaning politically, and I participated in two different 30,000-person demonstrations while I lived there. Minneapolis is also left-leaning (Dennis Kucinich won 27% of the Democratic caucus vote in 2004), but it seems incapable of putting on an impressive demonstration. The best it can do are sad-looking gatherings of 500 people.
Upon reflection, I blame the layout of the cities for the difference. Portland has one central downtown with superb transit leading to it, lots of distinct neighborhoods, and lots of locally owned businesses. Minneapolis's downtown is fragmented, there's another complete city (St. Paul) across the river, public transit is mediocre, and neighborhoods seem more exclusively residential than they do in Portland. Information doesn't get out and apathy reigns.
Right now there are millions of unemployed Americans. Why aren't they marching on their own state capitals, if not on Washington? Why not? Because they're all suffering alone. Because the way our cities have grown in the past 60 years has destroyed much of our former social fabric. Because the right-wing and even the establishment press has made "union" a dirty word.
I'm reminded of a woman who was interviewed after the Ceausescu regime fell in Romania. (If you'll recall, the revolution began when people heckled one of the dictator's speeches.) "We could have done this at any time," she mused. "Why did we wait?"
Unemployed Americans could and should be in the streets, demanding to receive as much consideration as the banksters, the military-industrial complex, and the health insurance companies. I wonder how many of them have even considered the possibility or talked it over with other unemployed people.
The political illusion machine that calls itself Western democracy...
http://www.spiegel.de/...
"Zizek loves to correct viewpoints when precisely the opposite is considered correct. He calls this counterintuitive observation. His favorite thought form is the paradox. Using his psychoanalytical skills, he attempts to demonstrate how liberal democracy manipulates people. One of his famous everyday observations on this subject relates to the buttons used to close the door in elevators. He has discovered that they are placebos. The doors don't close a second faster when one presses the button, but they don't have to. It's sufficient that the person pressing the button has the illusion that he is able to influence something. The political illusion machine that calls itself Western democracy functions in exactly the same way, says Zizek."
"I know that people often think I'm an idiot," he says that evening, "that nostalgic Leninist. But I'm not crazy. I'm much more modest and much more pessimistic."
Why pessimistic? In fact, it isn't absurd at all to assume that capitalism and democracy have reached a dead end. "That's true," says Zizek, "but I believe that the left is, tragically, bereft of any vision to be taken seriously. We all wish for a real, authentic revolution! But it has take place far away, preferably in Cuba, Vietnam, China or Nicaragua. The advantage of that is that it allows us to continue with our careers here."
"Zizek loves to correct viewpoints when precisely the opposite is considered correct. He calls this counterintuitive observation. His favorite thought form is the paradox. Using his psychoanalytical skills, he attempts to demonstrate how liberal democracy manipulates people. One of his famous everyday observations on this subject relates to the buttons used to close the door in elevators. He has discovered that they are placebos. The doors don't close a second faster when one presses the button, but they don't have to. It's sufficient that the person pressing the button has the illusion that he is able to influence something. The political illusion machine that calls itself Western democracy functions in exactly the same way, says Zizek."
"I know that people often think I'm an idiot," he says that evening, "that nostalgic Leninist. But I'm not crazy. I'm much more modest and much more pessimistic."
Why pessimistic? In fact, it isn't absurd at all to assume that capitalism and democracy have reached a dead end. "That's true," says Zizek, "but I believe that the left is, tragically, bereft of any vision to be taken seriously. We all wish for a real, authentic revolution! But it has take place far away, preferably in Cuba, Vietnam, China or Nicaragua. The advantage of that is that it allows us to continue with our careers here."
4.7.10
William Kunstler, The Terrible Myth
February, 1970
Transcript
And that is the terrible myth of organized society, that everything that's done through the established system is legal — and that word has a powerful psychological impact. It makes people believe that there is an order to life, and an order to a system, and that a person that goes through this order and is convicted, has gotten all that is due him. And therefore society can turn its conscience off, and look to other things and other times.
And that's the terrible thing about these past trials, is that they have this aura of legitimacy, this aura of legality. I suspect that better men than the world has known and more of them, have gone to their deaths through a legal system than through all the illegalities in the history of man.
Six million people in Europe during the Third Reich? Legal.
Sacco Vanzetti? Quite legal.
The Haymarket defendants? Legal.
The hundreds of rape trials throughout the South where black men were condemned to death? All legal.
Jesus? Legal.
Socrates? Legal.
And that is the kaleidoscopic nature of what we live through here and in other places. Because all tyrants learn that it is far better to do this thing through some semblance of legality than to do it without that pretense.
1.7.10
30.6.10
letters from from the brink of depression
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!
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.
31.5.10
german key to our military engagements?
President Horst Köhler of Germany resigned on Monday for remarks he recently made during a visit to Afghanistan.
Köhler said:
Köhler said:
“A country of our size, with its focus on exports and thus reliance on foreign trade, must be aware that military deployments are necessary in an emergency to protect our interests, for example, when it comes to trade routes, for example, when it comes to preventing regional instabilities that could negatively influence our trade, jobs and incomes”
22.5.10
Goldman Sachs vs. Its clients
beaconps
PA
"It is all very well to say that the customers were foolish. But when a system prevails which caters to the folly of too large a proportion of a population, a proportion so large that the destruction of its purchasing power is of concern to every business in the land, then it deserves serious attention."
E. L. Smith 1930 "The Break in the Credit Chain"
This article written for The Atlantic discusses responsibility with respect to our money supply. It compares our formerly responsible bankers with our always irresponsible traders. There was no difference between 1929 and 2007, simply different assets. Goldman was not managing risk, they were managing fraud. They were well aware of the fraud that was behind the lending and they acted irresponsibly. They poisoned the well of all MBS when they created securities designed to fail, and fail they did. At the time, we were told it was a black swan liquidity crisis that needed helicopter money, TARP, to unfreeze. We now know it was not a black swan, it was a confidence game played by a privileged few, and so successful it ruined the economy.
It is impossible to regulate or legislate responsibility. We need to take away the tools, derivatives, that enable the confidence tricks and games, otherwise our money stability, our chain of credit, will always be in jeopardy of manipulation or collapse. This is especially unnerving for those working fools attempting to save over the long term, when money was not intended to be saved. The system for saving needs better a better model and safe guards to protect it from the parasites and confidence men of Wall Street. This is difficult to accomplish when half the population wants to become one minute millionaires by simply pushing a button or conning a client.
It is our inability to save or lend safely that is the root of our problems and opens all to become victims of confidence scams. Money has transient value and was designed to facilitate exchange of value; transactions that take place in the present. Lending and saving are eternal problems that rely on ethics and responsibility, neither of which can be found on the Wall Street.
Smith makes a point of noting that although bankers earn their money lending, they serve a higher purpose when they decline a loan. They are protecting the chain of credit within the community. The economic activity of the financial sector should be no more than 5% of GDP and probably much lower. The current abuse of the stock market can be cured by eliminating stocks as a form of capital generation, which is basically money printing by companies. Once sold, stocks become the chips of gamblers in a rigged casino.
Nelson Alexander
New York City
Goldman Sachs Traders Are True Americans!
The mistake for the public and its elected representatives is to focus on the wrong unit of analysis. This is not so much about greed and conflict of interests as about the aggregation of data. Given the scale of data and computing power, how could Goldman have done otherwise? It must continually identify and offload falling values in millions of exchanges. The more exchanges it aggregates the better it can estimate potential losses. Can it ignore such information?
We neglect the most fundamental fact of a capitalist system: someone must lose. Just don't tell us who. Keep it abstract. Show us in numbers not in faces. Indeed, in relative terms most people must lose. Somewhere, those losses must accumulate to a destabilizing level. At some fundamental level, exchanges remain a zero-sum game. It is only capitalist ideology that obscures this fact with idiotic tales of the rare win-win trades. Few exchanges are win-win. The vast majority are calculably win-lose, lose, lose, with the losses displaced, deferred, off-shored, abstracted, and disguised as they mount up. What else is Goldman supposed to do? Goldman and the hedge funds (the real problem, still to be addressed since LTC) are behaving rationally, but what is rational for Goldman is not rational for all of its customers and certainly not for the nation or humanity.
Who creates wealth? Real productivity grows at about 2 percent a year, so they say. Way lower than the expectations of the exchanges. Any returns of profit above that are someone else's loss. Goldman is no more greedy and internally conflicted than American itself, which is similarly using exchange rates to export the losses, struggling to lower wages offshore and elevate pension funds at home. We must rid ourselves of childish, magical stories about market productivity. Real productivity marches on slowly on the backs of everyone who works. The vast, global financial exchanges use rules of complexity and probability to transfer 90 percent of that growing wealth to the top 1 percent, while the risks and losses cascade downward.
David
Rhinebeck
The good news is that if Goldman Sachs is cut down to size due to client wariness, the market forces held in such high regard by free market capitalists, will have proven to work.
The bad news is that it took too long for the market to correct Goldman Sachs. In the meantime, too many good people who had nothing to do with the market and Goldman Sachs have lost jobs, houses and now live in broken families. So much for family values.
Read Kevin Phillips' "Wealth & Democracy". Corporations ("combinations" as Teddy Roosevelt called them) have been playing fast and loose with our democracy and national economy ever since they came into existence. Republicans ran Washington DC from presidents Lincoln to Herbert Hoover, 72 years through several serious recessions, leading to the Great Depression. Their fiscal management favored accumulation of wealth to a handful of wealthy who bought and paid for Washington, leaving most Americans economically backward. The American families who lost most during the Depression never owned a stock in their lives when the stock market crashed. The regulations, taxes, work programs, work hours and social security measures passed during Franklin Roosevelt's administration combined with WWII production and conservation did more to stabilize our economy and build wealth for American citizens than in any previous period of American history. In spite of Roosevelt's high taxes on the wealthy to pay for the war and the cost to corporations for higher wages and social programs, the wealthiest Americans still became more wealthy. Yet Republicans denigrate this period of profound upward mobility of Americans. And, too many Americans who benefitted from this period deny it, depriving their children and grandchildren a similarly good future.
The Goldman Sachs' story is a clear example of how Republicans and Conservatives took our nation back to the pre-Depression Corporate largess days of greed and predatory practices. As conservatives convinced voters of their false promises, Democrats jumped on board to play in the game. Let's hope Americans who are trying to dump incumbents get smart and realize that the Goldman Sachs corporations of the US have been behind most of our national political and economic crises as “they” buy, sell and tramp on our democracy for their obscenely excessive pay, bonuses and profits. We need more than a market revolution to cut Goldman Sachs down to size. We need a populist revolution that recognizes better government is what we need, not turning government over to the corporations as Republicans have been doing.
PA
"It is all very well to say that the customers were foolish. But when a system prevails which caters to the folly of too large a proportion of a population, a proportion so large that the destruction of its purchasing power is of concern to every business in the land, then it deserves serious attention."
E. L. Smith 1930 "The Break in the Credit Chain"
This article written for The Atlantic discusses responsibility with respect to our money supply. It compares our formerly responsible bankers with our always irresponsible traders. There was no difference between 1929 and 2007, simply different assets. Goldman was not managing risk, they were managing fraud. They were well aware of the fraud that was behind the lending and they acted irresponsibly. They poisoned the well of all MBS when they created securities designed to fail, and fail they did. At the time, we were told it was a black swan liquidity crisis that needed helicopter money, TARP, to unfreeze. We now know it was not a black swan, it was a confidence game played by a privileged few, and so successful it ruined the economy.
It is impossible to regulate or legislate responsibility. We need to take away the tools, derivatives, that enable the confidence tricks and games, otherwise our money stability, our chain of credit, will always be in jeopardy of manipulation or collapse. This is especially unnerving for those working fools attempting to save over the long term, when money was not intended to be saved. The system for saving needs better a better model and safe guards to protect it from the parasites and confidence men of Wall Street. This is difficult to accomplish when half the population wants to become one minute millionaires by simply pushing a button or conning a client.
It is our inability to save or lend safely that is the root of our problems and opens all to become victims of confidence scams. Money has transient value and was designed to facilitate exchange of value; transactions that take place in the present. Lending and saving are eternal problems that rely on ethics and responsibility, neither of which can be found on the Wall Street.
Smith makes a point of noting that although bankers earn their money lending, they serve a higher purpose when they decline a loan. They are protecting the chain of credit within the community. The economic activity of the financial sector should be no more than 5% of GDP and probably much lower. The current abuse of the stock market can be cured by eliminating stocks as a form of capital generation, which is basically money printing by companies. Once sold, stocks become the chips of gamblers in a rigged casino.
Nelson Alexander
New York City
Goldman Sachs Traders Are True Americans!
The mistake for the public and its elected representatives is to focus on the wrong unit of analysis. This is not so much about greed and conflict of interests as about the aggregation of data. Given the scale of data and computing power, how could Goldman have done otherwise? It must continually identify and offload falling values in millions of exchanges. The more exchanges it aggregates the better it can estimate potential losses. Can it ignore such information?
We neglect the most fundamental fact of a capitalist system: someone must lose. Just don't tell us who. Keep it abstract. Show us in numbers not in faces. Indeed, in relative terms most people must lose. Somewhere, those losses must accumulate to a destabilizing level. At some fundamental level, exchanges remain a zero-sum game. It is only capitalist ideology that obscures this fact with idiotic tales of the rare win-win trades. Few exchanges are win-win. The vast majority are calculably win-lose, lose, lose, with the losses displaced, deferred, off-shored, abstracted, and disguised as they mount up. What else is Goldman supposed to do? Goldman and the hedge funds (the real problem, still to be addressed since LTC) are behaving rationally, but what is rational for Goldman is not rational for all of its customers and certainly not for the nation or humanity.
Who creates wealth? Real productivity grows at about 2 percent a year, so they say. Way lower than the expectations of the exchanges. Any returns of profit above that are someone else's loss. Goldman is no more greedy and internally conflicted than American itself, which is similarly using exchange rates to export the losses, struggling to lower wages offshore and elevate pension funds at home. We must rid ourselves of childish, magical stories about market productivity. Real productivity marches on slowly on the backs of everyone who works. The vast, global financial exchanges use rules of complexity and probability to transfer 90 percent of that growing wealth to the top 1 percent, while the risks and losses cascade downward.
David
Rhinebeck
The good news is that if Goldman Sachs is cut down to size due to client wariness, the market forces held in such high regard by free market capitalists, will have proven to work.
The bad news is that it took too long for the market to correct Goldman Sachs. In the meantime, too many good people who had nothing to do with the market and Goldman Sachs have lost jobs, houses and now live in broken families. So much for family values.
Read Kevin Phillips' "Wealth & Democracy". Corporations ("combinations" as Teddy Roosevelt called them) have been playing fast and loose with our democracy and national economy ever since they came into existence. Republicans ran Washington DC from presidents Lincoln to Herbert Hoover, 72 years through several serious recessions, leading to the Great Depression. Their fiscal management favored accumulation of wealth to a handful of wealthy who bought and paid for Washington, leaving most Americans economically backward. The American families who lost most during the Depression never owned a stock in their lives when the stock market crashed. The regulations, taxes, work programs, work hours and social security measures passed during Franklin Roosevelt's administration combined with WWII production and conservation did more to stabilize our economy and build wealth for American citizens than in any previous period of American history. In spite of Roosevelt's high taxes on the wealthy to pay for the war and the cost to corporations for higher wages and social programs, the wealthiest Americans still became more wealthy. Yet Republicans denigrate this period of profound upward mobility of Americans. And, too many Americans who benefitted from this period deny it, depriving their children and grandchildren a similarly good future.
The Goldman Sachs' story is a clear example of how Republicans and Conservatives took our nation back to the pre-Depression Corporate largess days of greed and predatory practices. As conservatives convinced voters of their false promises, Democrats jumped on board to play in the game. Let's hope Americans who are trying to dump incumbents get smart and realize that the Goldman Sachs corporations of the US have been behind most of our national political and economic crises as “they” buy, sell and tramp on our democracy for their obscenely excessive pay, bonuses and profits. We need more than a market revolution to cut Goldman Sachs down to size. We need a populist revolution that recognizes better government is what we need, not turning government over to the corporations as Republicans have been doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
