Saturday, September 05, 2009

How the US Became a Vassal State of China

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

China owns the United States --or, at least, holds a 'mortgage'. China props up the dollar just enough to ensure that its excess production can be dumped here by way of its US retail outlet --Wal-Mart! The value of the US dollar is almost entirely dependent on China. When it ceases to be advantageous for China to prop up the dollar, the dollar will collapse.

The decline and fall of the American empire is a sorry, tragic saga. It is the story of betrayals of this nation by the likes of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan , Bush Sr., the Shrub, and many lesser known 'agents' of the increasingly tiny cadre of ruling elites. It is the story of how GOP administrations paid off its elite base with tax cuts which have had, in fact, the effects of impoverishing the poor, enriching the rich, exporting the US manufacturing base, and exporting the jobs that it had supported.

There are many versions of the 'supply side' story, but the most famous one involved a napkin and a Pizza Hut. While Ronald Reagan still occupied the White House, an alleged "economist" is said to have drawn a fictitious curve on a napkin. [More about this 'curve' to come.] As a result, millions lost their jobs, tent cities sprang up across the country, the nation plunged into a great recession --the deepest, most severe, the longest since Herbert Hoover's "Great Depression! I saw some of those 'tent cities' in 'boomtown' Houston. I was inspired to publish an essay in a local magazine. My essay was entitled: "What happened?" In a word, the bulls had gone bear if not 'bare'; the captains of capital cashed out at the top and left many another holding real estate that was declining rapidly in values. The least fortunate were those whose interest in Real Estate was simply that of keeping a roof over the heads of family members. Many of these folk lost their homes and moved into the 'tent city'.

Under the occupancy of George W. Bush, the folly was repeated and the harmful effects left to Barack Obama whom it is hoped will take the rap.

Called "preppies", they consulted Republican political campaigns and were in a position to spread economic dogma like 'supply-side' or 'trickle down theory'. Economists Arthur Laffer and Milton Friedman lent an imprimatur of respectability. Laffer, for example, drew a "curve" on a napkin which some believed proved the preposterous idea that reducing taxes for the elite classes would reduce debt and deficit. In fact, when Reagan put the theory to work with his infamous tax cut of 1982, the opposite occurred. Both debt and deficit increased. Supply side, i.e, 'trickle down' theory was proved wrong. Sadly, the GOP has not gotten the memo.
  • Wealth might have 'trickled down' IF the wealthy had invested tax cuts domestically!

    But they don't and probably never have! They squirrel away their windfalls in offshore banks, havens, shady investments or other ways which do not create new jobs, do not raise wages or stimulate capital investments or growth! The opposite has always occurred, i.e, the economy, rather, has always contracted with each GOP tax cut! If the government wishes to stimulate an economy by stimulating spending, it should just cut out the 'middle man' or, as John Maynard Keynes suggested, it should put bucks in mason jars, bury them in a landfill and let 'labor' dig them up! There is no point in letting the very, very, very rich SKIM OFF the top with idiotic schemes like 'trickle down theory'.
  • Lower income citizens do not bear smaller tax loads as claimed.
  • In fact, their taxes are always higher as a percentage of income because the working classes do not have access to most forms of depreciation, offshore tax havens, capital gains, tax credits, etc. Because they have dodges which salaried people don't, elites pay much less tax as a percentage of total gross income.
Unfair tax cuts always make the rich richer. Reagan's tax cut, for example, benefited only the upper quintile. [See the GINI Indices at the Bureau of Labor Stats later published by Brookings ] Bush Jr's cuts benefited an elite of just one percent which, as a result of his policy, owned more than 90 percent of the US population. By the end of his reign of terror, this elite of just one percent had increased its share of total wealth, owning more than 95 percent of the rest of the population combined.

I told ya so!

During the 1920s, the wealthy accumulated such exorbitant stocks of cash, they couldn’t spend it all. Instead, they played the stock market, fueling a rapid run-up in stock prices. Lower and middle income households, on the other hand, lacked wealth enough to meet their daily needs and were forced to borrow heavily. Today --the elites have squirreled their tax cut windfalls offshore, effectively removing wealth from the US economy. That is called a 'contraction' and it is the source of many recessions or, more properly, depressions.

Many historians believe that a combination of growing personal debt and a widening wealth gap destabilized the economy and precipitated the Great Depression, characteristics that define the current collapse. Not so long ago, the media touted rising economic growth and a soaring Dow Jones. Those 'signs' of wealth likewise preceded Herbert Hoover's Great Depression. Certainly, the 20s are remembered for vast inequities of wealth financed by growing consumer debt. Neither 'elephant' has left the room.

Welfare for Wall Street

The lessons of Enron and WorldCom were not learned. The GOP still schemes to PIRATIZE your Social Security and are, perhaps, even more motivated to do so now than during the Bush years. PIRATIZING Social Security i.e, letting Wall Street speculators play with YOUR money is the ultimate 'bailout' of crooks who brought you the current 'financial crisis'. There is simply no rational justification for allowing Wall Street to 'speculate', play the markets with your money.

What are 'private accounts' but a government give away, welfare for Wall Street? You already have the right to open a private account of your own anytime you wish. Giving Wall St speculators carte blanche to play the markets with monies you earned by working is foolhardy, stupid at a time when taxpayers have already underwritten a national debt of several trillion bucks. Privatizing Social Security means that when the next collapse occurs, you will pay for it twice --once with an immediate bailout out of tax revenues and --again --with your hopes for a comfortable retirement, the Social Security which you may never see again!

How right wing policies have robbed the US population with "trickle down theory" and other nonsense utterly unsupported with fact or evidence:

  • In the late 1970s, the top one percent of the US population held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent. [Source: Source: Levy, Frank. The New Dollars and Dreams ].
  • The top ten percent of the US population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. [Source: Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5].
  • One percent of the US population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth. [Source: Hawken, Paul, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: Harper Business, 1993].
  • The top fifth of households saw their income rise 43 percent between 1977 and 1999, while the bottom fifth saw their income fall 9 percent....
  • Since 1973, every group in society except the top 20 percent has seen its share of the national income decline, with the bottom 20 percent losing the most. They have just 3.6 percent of national income, down from 4.4 percent a quarter century ago.
  • Indeed, the top fifth now makes more than the rest of the nation combined...
    Rebecca Blank, who recently left the President's Council of Economic Advisors, pointed out, ‘We've gone back to levels of income and wealth inequality that this country hasn't seen since the teens and 1920s.’" [Source: Merrill Goozner, Crash of '99?, Salon.com, Oct. 1, 1999; addendum: since 1999, the date the source was published, the situation is much, much worse. Today --just ONE PERCENT own more than 95 percent of the rest of us combined. GOP incompetence and criminality moves so fast these days, it's hard to keep up!].
  • The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent. [Source: Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 108].
  • Federal Reserve median family net worth by percentile for 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001 (Federal Reserve Bulletin January 2003, pp. 1-36). Note the small gains for the bottom 75% of the population and larger gains for the upper 25% and that the 1998 to 2001 gains were largest.

    --US Wealth Distributions 1989-2001

Republicans bought the scam because it made them feel good about being greedy, shallow bastards. The appeal is obvious: trickle down rationalized greed but only after the fact; it made one feel good about one's worst impulses, motives, and elitist bigotry.

To his credit, the Sr Bush called the Laffer Curve 'voodoo economics'. Two politicians, however, bit big. One of them was Ronald Reagan . The other was the Jr Bush, the Shrub, the idiot left behind!

It is a GOP promoted myth that the GOP does not pay attention to 'polls'. That they promote it, proves it's a myth and that 'trickle down' itself is a deliberate lie by which wealth is transferred upward. It the mechanism by which GOP pays off its base! Not surprisingly, trickle down tested well in focus groups. Everyone likes pie in the sky and greedy bastards will always support any measure that is sure to enrich themselves at the expense of those who must work hard for a living.

Republican campaigns are driven by polls, focus groups, and market research. They're rich; they can afford it. Modern sophistry --the teaching of politicians how to lie, how to con the media, how to couch a phrase or deflect a point --was and most surely remains a growth industry.

The Laffer 'curve' was worse than fiction, it was a fraud. But the 16 month long depression which resulted is a disastrous effect that is still with us.
  • New job creation under Reagan was 2.1% per year compared with Bill Clinton's 2.4% job creation rate.
  • Reagan's showing, however, may be misleading; almost half of those jobs were in the public sector. In other words, Reagan , though he had promised the opposite, added nearly 2 million jobs to the Federal Bureaucracy. Reagan GREW the government --but NOT the economy.(Incidentally, job growth under Bush Sr, was a mere 0.6% --the worst performance since World War II. ) Reagan tripled the national debt and left huge deficits to his successor --Bush Sr whom Reagan blamed for what can only be called the Bush/Reagan recession.
  • The disparity between rich and poor grew during the Reagan regime, narrowed somewhat during Clinton but exploded nova-style under Bush Jr.
  • Almost one half of all American taxpayers were victimized by Reagan 's so-called tax reform; in other words, over 40 percent of those workers had a bigger chunk taken out of their check at the end of Reagan 's misrule than was taken out at the beginning of his regime.
  • And what about "real wages", i.e, income adjusted for inflation? That declined as well.
The Presidency of Jimmy Carter is often tarred with a made-up, focus group word that has a GOP stench about it: 'stagflation'. Diplomatically, 'stagflation' is a myth and will remain one until I find the memo that proves that it was all just made up, validated, perhaps,by a focus group. In any case, it is a GOP fabrication with which the GOP would forever tar the Carter legacy. In fact Carter is among the best US Presidents in economic terms. Here are the FACTS that the paid liars of the GOP will not tell you:
Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents8
Johnson   3.8%
Carter 3.1
Clinton 2.4
Kennedy 2.3
Nixon 2.3
Reagan 2.1
Bush 0.6

--
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey
Stagflation, my ass!

How the GOP Exported Your Job


But, it is objected, the 80s were a period of great prosperity and, surely, Reagan 's tax cut must be credited! The quick response: the 80s, adjusted for inflation, were, in fact, a period of stagnation, increased poverty, and lost job opportunities defined by the export of US jobs, primarily Japan and China.

This was a point about which Milton Friedman reacted very testily, defensively when pressed about it in the grand ballroom of one of the luxury hotels in Houston's famous Galleria. I know. I was there! Friedman said that US jobs are not exported. He was either wrong or excessively pedantic! It was not --after all --a meeting confined to professional economists. For those who must work for a living, Reaganomics represented in a very real and practical sense the export of his/her job! For the real story about the phony 'prosperity' in the 80s, check out: Playing with the Numbers, How So-called Experts Mislead Us about the Economy, Richard A. Stimson

Reagan 's legacy lives:
  • US manufacturing is all but non-existent as the shelves of Wal-Mart remind every shopper!
  • Labor never regained a pre-Reagan living standard
  • wages never kept pace with inflation
  • 'good paying' and/or skilled jobs never rebounded.
The US had only begun to recover in Clinton's second term. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, BEA; summarized by Kangas, Economic Performance] It was left to Bush Jr, then, to finish the job that had begun with the administration of Ronald Reagan, that is, the collapse of the US economy.

The US boasts the world's largest NEGATIVE current account balance while China boast the world's largest POSITIVE current account balance. [CIA, World Fact Book, Current Account Balance] China owns us! China props up the buck because it is still in their interests to do so. China will pull the plug on the buck when it is in their interests to do so! As a result of the GOP policies of Ronald Reagan , Bush Sr and Bush Jr, the US has become a vassal state even as it indulges the delusion of empire! Pathetic!

Supply side --though discredited --reared its stupid head again some twelve years after Bush Sr. failed to grasp the simple maxim:

It's the Economy, Stupid!
For measuring the economic welfare of individuals rather than the strength of the nation, it is necessary to convert the national measure to the amount per individual, family or household. Otherwise, a nation could double its GDP and its population without anyone benefiting. Such an individual measure is real per capita GDP, obtained by dividing real GDP by the population, and this can be very useful for comparisons over time, although it contains the same weaknesses as GDP itself.

Another such measure is per capita personal income, which is the share each individual receives, on average, of total personal income. The latter parallels GNP and GDP, differing only moderately because of adjustments explained in first-year college economics courses (for example, corporate retained earnings and some taxes are deducted, while Social Security benefits, private pensions, and welfare are added).

A paradox almost always arises during recessions. Wages are stagnant, unemployment grows, and yet the media broadcast and print government reports of increasing per capita personal income.

This misleading result can be explained by considering the average income of a population of two: namely, billionaire Bill Gates and almost anyone of the rest of us. Take the total, divide by two, and you have an enormous amount. If Gates adds another billion it raises the average but does nothing for the other individual.

Rising per capita personal income during recessions reflects the gains being made by a small fraction of the population, which are enough to offset the losses of all the rest and thus bring up the average.

A per capita figure has the characteristics of a simple average (the arithmetic mean), but people’s economic well-being depends on how evenly or unevenly the fruits of production are shared in the population. For this reason, the median (that is, the value at the middle of the range, with as many lower instances below as there are higher instances above) is a better measure. It is available statistically in the form of median family income and median weekly wages and salaries.

Another complication is that when a household has more wage-earners and/or people work longer hours, often taking more than one job at a time to make ends meet (as has been happening to an increasing degree), a given amount of real income is not as beneficial as when it came from fewer hours.

--Playing with the Numbers, How So-called Experts Mislead Us about the Economy, Richard A. Stimson
Die hard, embittered supply-siders tried to effect a coup by impeaching a popular President who presided over the creation of some 35 times the number of jobs than were created under Bush Sr! The coup didn't work, of course, but the die-hards failed to get the message.

It's the Stupid Economy!

Following the closest election in the history of the nation, an election in which the winner was defined [by Scalia's 'majority opinion'] as the one getting the fewer number of votes, a mediocre, self-described 'retail politician' of few achievements and fewer ideas presumes to lead a nation while declaring:

"This would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship...and I was the dictator!"
Those are the words of a someone who places loyalty to his ideological party and his corporate constituents above his loyalty to his nation. This is the kind of man who subscribes to "supply side" economics because it justifies his largesse to his corporate sponsors --the Enrons who bought him a public office.

But --it is hard to comprehend the near mass hysteria that accompanies debate on this issue --exploited as it was by Bush Jr's hero, Reagan, who somehow managed to make people feel good about themselves, when, perhaps, they should not have.

Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr, indeed, the GOP, must take the responsibility for the US debt which was, last time I checked, some 7.4 trillion dollars, the highest in US history, perhaps World History. Since Ronald Reagan bankrupted the nation, the US has been a net debtor nation which survives, literally, at China's whim.

You can pay off your old credit cards with new ones for as long as you can find another card willing to extend you credit! Eventually, however, someone will refuse, and you will have to cough up the cash --and, if you can't cover what's due by selling off your assets, you must declare bankruptcy. The US is bankrupt!

Why was the US able to sustain the fraud for so long? Europe was willing to buy our T-Bills because the world's fuel --oil --was traded in dollars. Nations wanting to buy oil, had first to exchange their currency for dollars as oil producer nations demanded payment in US dollars. A crack in the dike was the creation of the Iranian 'oil bourse' where oil would be traded in currencies other than the dollar. That and other less publicized moves explains US antipathy toward Iran and US determination to seize the oil fields of Iraq, specifically, the Bush/Cheney/Carlyle/Halliburton attempted "oil grab" in the Middle East --the raison d'etre for war, the plan behind the convenient pretext called '911'. The history of the US since 1980 is the history of US attempts to seize and/or dominate the world's oil resources and markets.

This was all predictable! It was shortly after the US attack and invasion of Iraq that I posted the following comment on one of NPR's long defunct 'How's Bush Doing Board'.
The most absurd invention in the history of technology --the SUV --will go out of fashion overnight --and so will jobs!

It will make the Great Depression of Herbert Hoover --another GOP charlatan --look like a casual walk in the park.

Nixon Ends US Agreement with Bretton Woods

17 comments:

K-Nalu said...

Aloha Existential Cowboy,

Though you make some valid points in your article, I must politely disagree that your analogy of the problem is strictly due to Republican Presidents and leadership. There have been two Democrat Presidents in between the Republicans, since 1969 when Richard Nixon took office, that didn't do anything to change or stop the course of the US becoming a "Vassal State of China". Certainly not former Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, who had two terms in office.

I’m a Realtor Broker in the state of Hawaii and politically a centrist that is registered as a Republican. But, always vote for who I feel would be the best candidate for the office and have often voted for Democrats, Libertarians and Green candidates in local, State and National politics. In the last election I voted for Obama after voting for G.W. Bush and do not want you to think that I vote in any kind of party line manner. My belief is to try and gather the facts and opinions of many and then sort through the info myself to make my own decision about the candidate or initiative. The far left scares me as much as the far right! Your article seems to be more opinion than fact, which is okay, but it did not convince me only past Republican Presidents and politicians in the US have contributed to the current economic crisis were experiencing and our financial dependence on China. My differing opinion is respectfully submitted.
Thank you,
Karen Gremp
Kona, Hawaii

Suzan said...

Excellent dissection of all that confuses non-historians/economists.

Kudos!

S

Len Hart said...

K-Nalu sez..

There have been two Democrat Presidents in between the Republicans, since 1969 when Richard Nixon took office, that didn't do anything to change or stop the course of the US becoming a "Vassal State of China".

Sins of omission. In many another article I have condemned the US system which I believe to be just TWO WINGS of a SINGLE 'right wing party'.

There is no LEFT in the US. Of the two, however, the GOP is most egregious.

As for sources, all my bullet points are supported by the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Dept of Commerce-BEA.

As my readership is familiar with most of my sources, I plead guilty to to having neglected them on this article which was INTENDED to be a mere summation of the thousands of pages I've already written and assiduously sourced.

My differing opinion is respectfully submitted.

Well, respectfully, just what --specifically --do you disagree with. The disparities in income are easily verified at the CB, Bureau of Labor Stats, CEA and numerous 'think tanks' --EVEN Brookings.

Secondly, I have cited the CIAs World Fact Book with regard to the US balance of trade deficit which is now called the CURRENT ACCT BALANCE. Google: CIA, world fact book.

My conclusion which is summed up in the first paragraph is --indeed --opinion but based entirely upon verifiable hard facts re: the value of the dollar, the source of that value due to Chinese support, and the total value of CHINESE product sold via Wal-Mart. Easy enough to verify and even PBS documentaries have dealt with it the Chinese/Wal-Mart relationship in considerable detail.

Suzan said...

Excellent dissection of all that confuses non-historians/economists.

That's understandable, Suzan as 'economics' and 'history' seem to have been left behind in US curricula. That is especially true in Texas which now TRAILS even Mississippi in the percentage of population graduating high school.

It is easy enough to correlate the DECLINE in education with INCREASES in crime. As educational standards have declined in Texas, rising crime rates have been cited to justify an alarming increase in the construction of CORPORATE OWNED AND OPERATED PRISONS in TX. As a result, many writers (including moi) have called Texas the GULAG STATE. As so it is.

I wish things were different and, admittedly, am old enough to remember a different America which was, even then, changing rapidly.

I hope it is not too late to save America...but our future is not ours. Our future, as Americans, is now in the hands of foriegn entities, primarily China.

Should China decide tomorrow to dump the buck, the economic crisis to date will look like a walk in the park.

GOP-types will counter that there is no danger of that happening. That, I think, misses the point and that point is this: WE ARE NO LONGER THE MASTERS OF OUR FATE. Our fate rests in the hands of our foreign masters.

Anonymous said...

Great article and great facts, Len. Keep up the very solid research and work. Thanks again!

Steve

Len Hart said...

Steve sez..

Keep up the very solid research and work

Thanks, Steve and you can count on that.

K-Nalu said...

My apologies Len for not being clear,

Had never read your blog before and this was my first comment/post to anyone's blog... guess I really wasn't expecting it to be posted. Also, wasn't familiar with your commendation of... "the US system which I believe to be just TWO WINGS of a SINGLE 'right wing party'.", but appreciate your clueing me in on your position that, "...there is no LEFT in the US." and completely disagree with.

The point I was trying to make is you didn't include any Democrat Presidents in an unfavorable light, nor include any facts about how they contributed to the "China, Vassal State.", which seemed a tad bit skewed.

Facts and numbers are a funny thing. They can be interpreted differently depending on what portion of the data one chooses to share or site. For example:

Len Hart said...
Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents8
Johnson 3.8%
Carter 3.1
Clinton 2.4
Kennedy 2.3
Nixon 2.3
Reagan 2.1
Bush 0.6

For this info to be relevant, (to me), I wanted to know what the unemployment & inflation rates were at the time each of these Presidents took office. Take Carter at 3.1 job growth; Unemployment & inflation were high when Carter took office and he nominated Paul Volcker for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. "Volcker was committed to eradicating stagflation and... (he) defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms." quote from Steve Kangas, editor www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm#Backcarterreagan

In other words, my take is it's easier for the job numbers to increase when so many were already out of work. Or when young men were recruited to fight (jobs created) in Vietnam war.

None-the-less, there are two things I couldn't agree with you on more; "The least fortunate were those whose interest in Real Estate was simply that of keeping a roof over the heads of family members. Many of these folk lost their homes and moved into the 'tent city'." and... "Should China decide tomorrow to dump the buck, the economic crisis to date will look like a walk in the park."

No hidden meaning in my "respectfully submitted" either, other than my desire to be polite, (just the way I was raised and raised my daughters). Dislike all of the animosity on the web and do not want to contribute to it, that's all!

Aloha,
Karen Gremp
(K-Nalu = Hawaiian for wave, as in ocean.)

Len Hart said...

K-Nalu said...

The point I was trying to make is you didn't include any Democrat Presidents in an unfavorable light, nor include any facts about how they contributed to the "China, Vassal State.", which seemed a tad bit skewed.

When Democrats offend me, I write about it. However, the thesis of this article has to do with very specific failures that are associated with US regimes vis a vis 1) income disparities 2) economic oppt'y 3) the US relationship with China, specifically, the effect of that relationship upon the US populace and, possibly, the world.

I promise --when a GOPPER wins the Nobel Peace Prize, I will write an article about it.

Think of me as a prosecutor, prosecuting the case I believe must be made against the GOP. The burden of proof is always upon a prosecutor and at the expense of sounding immodest, I believe that I have made over the course of several years now, several cases AGAINST the GOP with evidence available to everyone in the public record.

Public opinion is the judge. It is my hope that public opinion will weigh in and TURN THE GOP out to pasture for 1) having BANKRUPTED THE US 2) having made of it China's vassal state 3) having trashed, ignored and subverted the US Constitution 4) having conspired with big oil to commit a war crime, the invasion of Iraq upon a Hitlerian pretext, 5) having waged economic war upon the US middle and poorer classes 6) having attacked free speech, undermined education and delivering what had been the publically owned airwaves into the hands of crooks and liars like Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

If the GOP wants equal time, I suggest that it RESTORE the Fairness Doctrine which the GOP trashed during the Reagan/Bush debacle.

Progressives, intellectuals, academics, liberals, and intelligent folk are not only demonized since the rise of Reagan, they are denied media access by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck et al.

Think of my blog as an ONGOING INDICTMENT of the GOP!

Think of this blog as the Resistance.

I have often stated and supported my assertion that the GOP is NOT a political party. It is a CRIME syndicate.

None-the-less, there are two things I couldn't agree with you on more; "The least fortunate were those whose interest in Real Estate was simply that of keeping a roof over the heads of family members. Many of these folk lost their homes and moved into the 'tent city'." and... "Should China decide tomorrow to dump the buck, the economic crisis to date will look like a walk in the park."

Indeed! These are concrete instances which demonstrate and prove the harmful effects that are KNOWN to be harmful by politicians of both parties who support them.

The democrats are simply the lesser of two evils.

But there are no new foundations to be built until the old corruptions are swept away in a people's revolution.

Anonymous said...

Fuzzflash sez...

Dear Mr. Cowboy,

"though you make some valid points in your article, I must politely disagree" with your assertion:

Len Hart said..."I promise --when a GOPPER wins the Nobel Peace Prize, I will write an article about it."

All I can say in response, Mister Existential Cowboy is:

I wish my brother, Henry, was here.
------------------

G'Day, Karen from Kona.
Many of us have struggled with civility issues on this site. One day every thing is peachy, the little humming birds singin' their sweet, sweet song, gentlemen tippin' their hats to passin' blogfolk.

And then.....CAZART!.... as if for no good reason something snaps and people start runnin' amok like total degenerates....like wild pigs longtime not come to water who roll on their backs thrusting their legs in the air, frenziedly sqealing with delight beside a desert font.

But hey, for the mostpart these people are the salt of the earth!

Thank You,
Harlequin Fuzzflash,
Bundanyabba, Australia.

Len Hart said...

Fuzzflash sez...

But hey, for the mostpart these people are the salt of the earth!

'Cept for the GOP, of course! They are a plague Satan puked up from the bowels of hell on the Sunday morning following the Saturday night prior.

Megaan said...

Hello Sir,

I am very much impressed to your site . I have been maintaining this blog http://news-updations.blogspot.com/ to share the worldwide news information to everybody.

So If you could provide me a link to my blog, it will be much more useful for all user. It would be great pleasure if you can add this link http://news-updations.blogspot.com/ in your site so that it can benefit our visitors.

Our title is Current news updates

Your site contains so many other standard information which gives more knowledge. The presentation of the information is very nice and made the users to read it get the concepts in the right manner.

Hope you would add my blog.

Awaiting for your positive reply.


Thank you
With Regards,
Megaanaustin

Cliff said...

I see our present de-facto 2 party system as 2 ends of the same stick. As a Libertarian with an accent on Liber and someone who hails from Midland, Texas (back during the boom times of the 70's and 80's)

I am glad I stumbled on your blog. While we may not agree on some things, I find your takes to be fair and objective with good first source research. You're on my daily list of blogs.

Your take on our predicament with China is dead on and exactly as I see it. How can anyone say the USA is sovereign?

Anonymous said...

There will be a violent and deadly revolution among the masses of homeless and destitute. Capitalism will die screaming into history, millions will die. Diseases will kill millions more.
History repeats itself. In and out, left and right, sweet and sour, yin and yang. What a beautiful sunset!

Marc McDonald said...

China gets a lot of attention for its massive holdings of U.S. debt. But we shouldn't overlook Japan, which holds nearly as much U.S. debt as China does.

Indeed, China is simply following in the footsteps of Japan. Like Japan, China has a mercantilist policy that depends on massive trade surpluses with the U.S.

But make no mistake: Japan is the more powerful nation. China is decades behind Japan in technology.

China has made tremendous strides, following the Japan Inc. model.

But it still has a long ways to go before it can match Japan's ultra-high-tech manufacturing prowess (which is by far the most advanced in the world). This is evidenced by the fact that Japan actually runs a trade surplus with China. This, despite the fact that the gap in wages between Japan and China is as wide as the gap between the U.S. and Haiti.

Germany is the only nation that is remotely close to Japan in high-tech manufacturing capability. (Interestingly, the Germans also enjoy a trade surplus with China).

Not all manufacturing is necessarily desirable. But cutting-edge, high-tech manufacturing is extremely important. When Reagan and Thatcher praised service industries as more important than manufacturing, they were wrong.

The likes of Japan, Germany and China never bought into the Reagan idea that manufacturing (and trade deficits) don't matter.

Len Hart said...

Megaan sez...

Your site contains so many other standard information which gives more knowledge.

Thanks, Megaan! I am often accused of bias but facts are facts though, I am convinced, the GOP 'spins' them, bends them and mutilates them. Moreover, the GOP just lies. It's easier. The 'best' lies from the GOP point of view are meaningless SLOGANS like 'no child left behind'. They sound good but are neither true nor false. I can't believe any good person would want to leave a child behind either in the words to be threatened by big bad wolves or left to fend for themselves in a SHRINKING ECONOMY. Yet --it is the SHRINKING ECONOMY that is the much, much bigger threat, a clear and present danger in fact! And because this CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, this CONTRACTING ECONOMY can be proven to have resulted from GOP lies, crookery and incompetence, it is the GOP that is, in fact, a threat to EVERY CHILD and has, in fact, left every child behind!

Marc McDonald said...

China gets a lot of attention for its massive holdings of U.S. debt. But we shouldn't overlook Japan, which holds nearly as much U.S. debt as China does.

Thanks for pointing that out, Marc. Indeed, Japan benefited directly from the Reagan 'overtures' as did China from Nixon specifically.

China has made tremendous strides, following the Japan Inc. model.

China is, perhaps, the best specimen because they are on the very top and we are on the very, very bottom. It is a dramtic contrast. Japan is certainly among those nations owning a BIG PIECE of our collective asses. One does not want to know how the accounts will be settled --if you get my drift! And the accounts are ALWAYS settled one way or the other. American --BEND OVER!

When Reagan and Thatcher praised service industries as more important than manufacturing, they were wrong.

Indeed, they were wrong! China and Japan obviously understand that a nation's economy cannot be built upon its citizens taking in each other's laundry. Hitler, as I recall, poked fun at England, a nation of shopkeepers, he called them.

The decline of the US, for example, was palpable as Reagan's regime continued. Labor was crushed and humiliated. REAL jobs were exported --to China and Japan.

Challenged by this fact even as it was occurring, Milton Friedman bristled. As he should have. His IDIOTIC policies and those of Arthur Laffer rationalized it all. 'Free to choose', my ass! NO ONE IS FREE TO CHOOSE WHO HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A VASSAL!

Cliff said...

As a Libertarian with an accent on Liber and someone who hails from Midland, Texas (back during the boom times of the 70's and 80's)

Ah Midland! I know it almost as well as Odessa, just down the road. As a little more than a 'kid' trying to stay in school, I worked at an FM station in Midland and commuted back to Odessa 'round midnite. That continued until, I migrated to University of Houston and, eventually, some of the top rated media outlets in what I then considered to be the 'big city' of Houston.

Your take on our predicament with China is dead on and exactly as I see it. How can anyone say the USA is sovereign?

Indeed! It is hard to be 'sovereign' when so-called 'leaders' have either sold us out or taken out a mortgage with all our futures as collateral.

Anonymous sez ...

Capitalism will die screaming into history, millions will die. Diseases will kill millions more.

I have won many a debate by demonstrating my opponents' reductio ad absurdums! Reaganomics, the Bush regime specifically, will be remembered as the proof of Karl Marx.

toeg said...

Um,

I like your blog and all, but you need to change one of your graphs. You show a graph from the Department of Commerce that shows the raise in wealth per quintile between 1978 and 1995 (or something along those lines). Your last quintile is positive, but the ones before are negative.

You need to read what the graph represents. It shows the TOP 20%, you know the richest of the rich, and how much their wealth grew AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE. It's written right on the front.

So your graph shows that "everyone else" was gaining and these guys were losing wealth UNTIL Clinton came to power. With Clinton in power, THE RICH GOT RICHER. I don't think that was the graph you wanted to show people.

pax,

el gringo

Len Hart said...

toeg said...

You need to read what the graph represents. It shows the TOP 20%, you know the richest of the rich, and how much their wealth grew AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE. It's written right on the front.

That the top quintile (the richest 20 pecent) got wealthy at everyone else's expense is PRECISELY the point.

However, I see no such graphs in THIS article.

For about about 20 years now I am have been making the point that since R.Reagan's tax cut of 1982, wealth has been trasnferred at alarming rates to the ruling elites --first to the upper quintile and now to just ONE PERCENT of the total population.

So your graph shows that "everyone else" was gaining and these guys were losing wealth UNTIL Clinton came to power. With Clinton in power, THE RICH GOT RICHER. I don't think that was the graph you wanted to show people.


I could find no such graph either on this article or among my 'library' of graphcis. Indeed, a thorough search of the internet confirm that the trend --in which the very rich got richer at everyone else's explense --REVERSED under Clinton.

But the flow of wealth UPWARD now to just ONE PERCENT resumed under Bush.

The chart showing this is JUST ONE of REAMS of official documentation that I have that PROVES beyond an partisan doubt that the GOP OWNS the transfer of wealth upward.

The only things wrong with the Clinton reversal is that it did not LAST NEARLY long enough, reversed rather quickly under Bush Jr the DUBIOUS WINNER of Bush v Gore --a crooked decision which proves that at least FIVE members of the Supreme Court were willing to prostitute themselves and sacrifice the very concept of FAIR elections. READ the dissenting opinion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Whether you agree with it or not is NOT the point. It is an HONEST decision. The work of Scalia --by contrast --is not merely a a lie, it is disingenuous bullshit for which there is no support whatever.

Len Hart said...

Let's clear up something RE:

With Clinton in power, THE RICH GOT RICHER. I don't think that was the graph you wanted to show people.

No the charts do not show that! And --not the rich did NOT get richer under Clinton. The raw stats AND the charts on which they are based show that those who had 'lost ground' under Reagan/Bush began to rebound.

The more recent gains, of course, were negated by Bush Jr. It will be interesting to see what happens under Obama. There will be NO CHANGE however unless OBAMA rescinds the preferential treatment given elites by Bush Jr.