Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts

Saturday, December 20, 2008

How the GOP, Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr Betrayed, Pillaged, then Sold the U.S.

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

George W. Bush's war of naked aggression against Iraq --a war crime --has not only bankrupted the US, it has brought the entire world to the brink of economic ruin. It is also an ignominious defeat and may one day be compared to Valens' loss to barbarians at Adrianople. One wonders: what sound is made by collapsing empires? Do they go boom or 'suck'?
As the most dominant empire since Roman times, America has helped to bring great wealth and prosperity to the world..

--Pat Robertson
Amid Robertson's 'celebration' of American empire, his death threats against Hugo Chavez or Americans daring to oppose his idiocy, Robertson forgot the rest of the story: Rome fell.
The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.

--Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 2

Rome fell for the same reasons the US will have lost empire and world influence. Like Rome, the US has despoiled the land, waged war upon both the small farmer and the laborer, outsourced it's industry, devalued the dollar and subverted the products of labor --the sole source of 'value' in any economy. That the US 'current account balance' --as officially recorded by the CIA --is the highest in the world proves that US is bankrupt and has been for years. It also proves that GOP economics have made the US less productive vis a vis the rest of the world.

Indeed, it is the rest of the world which keeps the US afloat. As long as the rest of the world can extend us credit, it can continue to sell to the US consumer. When the plug is pulled, China and Japan will vie for second place down the chute. Like short sellers on Wall Street, 'last man out' loses!

As Gibbon reminds us, Rome --like the United States of late --was full of 'Pat Robertson' types eager to invoke the power of 'God' on their side, eager to bring down God's wrath on those daring to dissent.
It was the fashion of the times to attribute every remarkable event to the particular will of the Deity; the alterations of nature were connected, by an invisible chain, with the moral and metaphysical opinions of the human mind; and the most sagacious divines could distinguish, according to the colour of their respective prejudices, that the establishment of heresy tended to produce an earthquake, or that a deluge was the inevitable consequence of the progress of sin and error.

--Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 26
Gibbon is famous for attributing Rome's fall to a 'loss of civil virtue' and, elsewhere states that, under the Empire of Rome, the 'labour of an industrious and ingenious people was variously, but incessantly employed in the service of the rich'. Gibbon correctly states that agriculture was for Rome, as it is for every culture today, the foundation of manufacturing.

Elsewhere, Gibbon described what we would call 'supply side economics' but fails to hold it responsible for Rome's fall.
But in the present imperfect condition of society, luxury, though it may proceed from vice or folly, seems to be the only means that can correct the unequal distribution of property. The diligent mechanic, and the skilful artist, who have obtained no share in the division of the earth, receive a voluntary tax from the possessors of land; and the latter are prompted, by a sense of interest, to improve those estates, with whose produce they may purchase additional pleasures. This operation, the particular effects of which are felt in every society, acted with much more diffusive energy in the Roman world.

Gibbon, op cit
Thus, Gibbon avoids the issue of how the wealthy obtained wealth initially that they might employ the 'diligent mechanic and the skilful artist'. In other passages, however, Gibbon clearly traces the origins of all wealth to 'land' and the human 'labor' expended making it fruitful. This is consistent with the 'Labor Theory of Value', espoused by almost every major economist from the conservative Adam Smith to the 'left leaning' Karl Marx. Rome's fall, therefore, may be traced to the rise of 'supply-side economics' or, as it is often called, 'trickle down theory'.

Rome fell because it became economically impossible. Wars of conquest ravaged the class of 'freeborn farmers' whose lands were seized whilst they were away at war. Slaves brought back to Rome permanently depressed, perhaps destroyed, the job market.

Eventually, the free-born farmer was forced by policy and circumstance to compete with slaves for jobs. Rome had forgotten or never knew the source of wealth itself: labor! It is among the many 'evils' of slavery that in addition to being cruel, it subverts the very value of labor and deprives society of it.

A slave was but a machine in which the 'elite' had made an investment. The elite landowners literally worked their slaves to death and replaced them with 'new models'. A 'slave', however, is an economic dead end.

Many free-born farmers tried to compete in the contracting market --sowing, planting, harvesting, taking crops to market. Because the large landowners (what we might call the corporate farmer today) worked their lands with slaves, they were able to underbid the free-born farmer. Many abandoned their farms when they became unprofitable. They swelled the ranks of the permanently unemployed in Rome. Slaves, arguably, were better off. There were, at least, employed.
That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature; honour and religion.

--Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 1
It is fashionable but flat wrong to say that Democrats are equally guilty. Trouble was in evidence even before World War I, the era of robber barons. The Great Depression resulted from a 'fever' --the idea that speculative riches were easy. It was thought that the bubble would last forever. The 'bubble' burst and a great depression ensued.

World War II put people back to work but it was also --as a result of fair, progressive taxation --the most egalitarian period in American history. As GOP policies eventually dominated following WWII, the rich were taxed less and less, and as a result, productivity fell.

Income disparities increased exponentially. In other words, the rich got rich and the poor, much, much poorer. Until Bush Jr, the most dramatic demonstration of those facts had been the administration of Ronald Reagan which doubled the Federal Bureaucracy and tripled the national deficit. Federal spending under Reagan was completely out of control; the budget ballooned. If any net wealth had been created, none of it trickled down: productivity declined, unemployment rose, job growth declined well below the Carter levels. [See: Bureau of Labor Statistics]

As recently as 2006, many blogs, newspapers and electronic media were reporting a 'global economic boom'. Bands might well have played 'The Charleston' or 'Varsity Drag', the newsreel soundtrack to heady days of fast bucks and faster women, rowdy days in which the belief that anyone could get rich was encouraged by the GOP. What was in it for them? Votes! The GOP was living in a past best remembered for the Stutz Bearcat and Racoon Coats soon to be followed by "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?". [See video below]

A scheme in which the rest of the world would keep the US afloat so that it might buy their products might have worked, for a while, but for the ruinous, the disastrous effects of the US war of aggression against Iraq. America's 'unquenchable materialistic appetite' drove the world economy. The economies of several nations, including Japan, possibly China, will collapse when the US consumer is not employed sufficiently to buy their product. When the US consumer goes belly up, so too will the nations that depend upon those billions of US dollars.

The parallels with the crash of 1929 are as valid as are analogies to Rome. US debt now tops the total debts of all the nations of the world at about 4.3 trillion dollars. Another nation might be bailed out by a bigger, richer nation. In this case, however, the entire world is not rich enough to bail out America. In 1929, the debt ratio in relation to the Gross National Product stood at a healthy 16%. In 1990, at the end of the ruinous and disastrous Reagan administration, the national debt had increased to 60% of the GDP. Insatiable America ran up a tab that is now due but there is no nation on earth capable or willing to pick up the tab. Wherever and whenever Rome 'pulled out' its legions because it could no longer support them in situ the Dark Age would begin.
The Republican Great Depression began in 1929, not 1932, and it was the direct result of 9 years of unrelenting trickle-down economics delivered under three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge and Hoover) and their treasury Secretary, the anti-tax, anti-regulation corporate titan, Andrew Mellon.

As I write in the introduction of my new book, Yeah, Right: "This Economy Is Strong and Other Tall Tales:
Hoover came to the presidency in March 1929 after a campaign in which he insisted that a "continuation of the policies of the Republican party is fundamentally necessary to the future advancement of this progress and to the further building up of this prosperity."

When the market crashed in October 1929, the true cost of the Republicans' get-rich-today-and-don't-worry-about-tomorrow policies became all too apparent. Years of corporate deregulation, Wall Street manipulation, rampant speculation, cuts in taxation for the wealthy, and easy-credit expansion for consumers had fueled an unsustainable bubble of artificial wealth that popped with devastating effect.

But Hoover refused to acknowledge the collapse. The "fundamental business of the country," he insisted, was "on a sound and prosperous basis."
Compare those pre- and post- crash Hoover statements to these pre- and post-crash McCain statements:

He should be judged very, very well as far as the economy is concerned. We're in a long sustained period of economic growth.

- John McCain on George W. Bush, March 5, 2007

I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong.

- August 2008

Based on that record, there are few people in America who could more rightly claim to be the heir of Herbert Hoover than John McCain (if you're thinking Bush, you're close, but he's actually Calvin Coolidge's heir).

--Jim Oleske, Memo to McCain: Hoover was a REPUBLICAN, Daily Kos
I blame the GOP for this debacle, specifically the incompetent and venal administrations of Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr and, most recently, that of George W. Bush, the lesser idiot.

Let's take a look at the history before it gets re-written:
  • Any Democratic President has presided over greater economic growth and job creation than any Republican President since World War II.
  • When Bush Jr took office, job creation was worst under a Republican, Bush Sr, at 0.6% per year and best under a Democrat, Johnson, at 3.8% per year.
  • Economic growth under President Carter was far greater than under Reagan or Bush Sr. In fact, economic growth in general was greater under Johnson, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton than under Reagan or Bush. Democrats always outperform a failed party: the GOP!
  • The job creation rate under Clinton was 2.4% significantly higher than Ronald Reagan's 2.1% per year.
  • The "top performing Presidents" by this standard, in order from best down, were Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Kennedy. The "worst" (in descending order) were Nixon, Reagan, Bush.
  • Half of jobs created under Reagan were in the public sector--some 2 million jobs added to the Federal Bureaucracy. Hadn't he promised to reduce that bureaucracy?
  • Reagan, though promising to reduce government and spending, tripled the national debt and left huge deficits to his successor. Bush Jr's record will be even worse.
  • By contrast, most of the jobs created on Clinton's watch were in the private sector.
  • Put another way: any Democratic President beats any Republican President since World War II.
Everything posted above is based upon official, government stats from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CBO, and BEA among others. They are 'official' and irrefutable unless someone wants to make the outlandish case that the Federal Bureaucracy, the numerous agencies which keep these stats, is somehow biased. That argument is absurd in light of the fact that of those 20 years from the election of Ronald Reagan to the stolen election of 2000, Democrats had the Presidency in only eight of them.

Following are just some of the 'accomplishments' of the GOP as they come to me. With any effort at all, you will find hundreds more. The following I dashed 'off the top of my head".
  1. Total and humiliating defeat for the US in Iraq
  2. The utter collapse of the US economy
  3. The export of American jobs to China and anywhere BUT the US.
  4. Selling out the American consumer to Wal- Mart; most Americans no longer earn enough to shop anywhere else. Wal-Mart depresses local economies, has forced employees to work 'off the clock', in other words, 'work for free'. Wal-Mart has destroyed the 'downtown' areas of small towns. You can still see them. But only in Norman Rockwell prints.
  5. Dividing the US into those who have and those who have not where those who have not make up over 90 percent of the population and those have are but a about one percent and own MORE than 90 percent combined.
  6. The dumbing down of America with 'faith-based' initiatives'; what had been needed was fact-based initiatives that encouraged intelligence --rather than gullibility and the belief in economic voodoo. Like 'trickle down theory' and other GOP 'economic voodoo', 'faith-based inititives' was a callous fraud exemplified by the "Houston Miracle" often attributed to Bush protoge Rod Paige. It was a fraud. The test scores were phony baloney. Like Enron, they cooked the books.
  7. The destruction of New Orleans because black folk dared to live there. Recently it has been learned that residents of the white suburb of Algiers Point murdered black residents trying to escape rising flood waters in New Orleans. As New Orleans tried to recover, Bush infamously said: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"
  8. The subversion of American jurisprudence by packing SCOTUS with ideologues and idiots who clearly thought that it was their job to re-write the Constitution --not apply it. Clue: Antonin Scallia cannot carry James Madison's shit! Scalia had all but admitted his bias even before the debacle in Florida was taken to the high court. Scalia himself admitted that his aim was to prevent Bush from falling behind in the recount. He would try to undo the laws of common-sense and logic to do it: "Count first and rule upon the legality afterward is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance that democratic stability requires!" Excuse me, Antonin! The guy getting the fewer number of votes is SUPPOSED to lose, you idiot! Fact is, Antonin never had a stupid idea that he could not intellectualize with big words and bullshit! But --as Scallia himself opined: "I'm too smart for this court!" Of late, that may be true. And that is enough to give one night terrors.
  9. The destruction of the US environment.
  10. Presiding over US descent into third world, possibly fourth world status.
  11. Turning American cities into sprawling out-of-control carbuncles the purpose of which was to inspire car sales and increased oil consumption. This is especially stupid as 'car making' was essemtially 'outsourced' to Japanese plants paying MUCH LOWER wages inside the US. Toyata was allowed to build cars in the US and pay much less than autoworkers would have made in Detroit. Workers who make less money, spend less mony --unless they are extended credit. Credit seems like FREE MONEY UNTIL THE BILL COMES DUE!
  12. Gerrymandering congressional districts such that the GOP might get majorities in both houses of Congress.
  13. Openly deriding the Constitution --as George W. Bush had done numerous times in various ways.
  14. Encouraging stupidity, rewarding incompetence, elevating ideology above intelligence.
  15. Turning American cities into ugly carbuncles in which robber baron corporations brainwash a captive audience in Potemkin villages called 'suburbs' or --worse --'planned communities' which come with an implicit guarantee that you will not see a 'negro'.
  16. Becoming a blood-sucking parasite that killed its host.
In simpler times, goppers would have been denounced as being possessed by demons and subject to the 'trial by water'. Certainly --by defining their opposition as 'terrorist' in nature, the GOP had hoped to subject them to trial by water boarding.

Political dissent is one thing --but the outright subversion of the rule of law as institutionalized by the GOP is nothing less than high treason.

The GOP is not a political party. It's a crime syndicate and a kooky, malevolent cult.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Twilight of the GOP on the Eve of Great Depression II

I have blogged for years, much of it spent blasting the endemically crooked GOP to the best of my ability. Now --when even the GOP ponders its own imminent demise --I suspect that the sharpest critiques of gop-ism are coming from the GOP.
This generation of political leaders is confronting a similar situation, and, so far, they have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed. Instead, by rejecting the rescue package on Monday, they have made the psychological climate much worse.

George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

...

Now they [the GOP] have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

--David Brooks, Revolt of the Nihilists, New York Times
These are the words of a party on the eve of eclipse and the Great Depression II that they will have helped bring about. Brooks misses the point, however, when it comes to 'free market principles'. The 'bailout' ought to have been rejected. It's probably the only thing the GOP has done right in years.

As for 'market principles', Brooks errs again. He still believes in them as many still believed in them on the eve of the Great Depression. He was willing to 'interfere' with the 'free market', however, when it was thought the bailout would save the fat cats' ass on Wall Street.

I wonder if Brooks' recent chagrin may be due to the fact that Brooks cannot resolve his hypocrisy, that he knows but will not admit that he has been betrayed by the 'free market' ideology. Pssst, David. There is NO 'invisible hand' but the the thinly disguised jerk off we got from the GOP leadership for as long as I've been able to read a newspaper. There were, I am sure, many like David Brooks on the eve of Great Depression I.

Brooks may be right in the sense that the GOP, as a monolith, an institution, as the primary opposition to Democrats, may go the way of T-Rex. The nation might benefit, however, if the GOP were to break up into its natural factions, one of which is correctly described as being to the right of Genghis Khan. The term 'moderate Republican' has been an oxymoron at least since the party tried to pin on Bill Clinton an act that was not even a crime. There are rumors that there were--at one time in the dimming mists of history --'liberal Republicans'! Your chances of finding one are probably less than your chances of finding a beached mermaid or a tamed Chupacabra. There was, of course, a 'libertarian' streak and under the 'leadership' of Ron Paul, it already shows signs of bolting a party that has shown little interest in them.

The upside is this: as Bush runs out of juice, as the GOP limps off to licks its wounds, some sanity might be restored to our relations with the rest of the world. An Obama Presidency must be influenced to roll back Bush's assaults upon the Constitution. In the longer term, it would be hoped that Scalia will retire. GOP dominance since 1980 has resulted in an extremist court typified by Antonin Scalia who hardly bothers to conceal his contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution. He claims to be 'too smart' for the court. That being the case, he should be 'urged' to quit and find a another job more in keeping with his talents, perhaps, 'mafioso'.

In broader terms, there may very well be a window of opportunity in which we may
  • restore the separation of powers
  • restore the supremacy of the Constitution as the source of US law
  • restore Due Process of Law, indeed, the Bill of Rights
  • restore habeas corpus
  • restore US treaty commitments --Kyoto, Geneva, the Nuremberg Principles
  • restore the principle that the 'President' is answerable directly to the people of the United States.

Obama may find himself, like FDR, in the position of having to save America from itself. As was true in Roosevelt's first term, a 'counter-revolution' may be on the agenda.
Government, under Franklin Roosevelt, got serious about regulating financial markets after the first cycle of financial bubble and economic ruin in the 1920s. Then, as now, the abuses were complex in their detail but very simple in their essence. They included the sale of complex securities packaged in deceptive and misleading ways; far too much borrowing to finance speculative investments; and gross conflicts of interest on the part of insiders who stood to profit from flim-flams. When the speculative bubble burst in 1929, sellers overwhelmed buyers, many investors were wiped out, and the system of credit contracted, choking the rest of the economy.

In the 1930s, the Roosevelt administration acted to prevent a repetition of the ruinous 1920s. Commercial banks were separated from investment banks, so that bankers could not prosper by underwriting bogus securities and foisting them on retail customers. Leverage was limited in order to rein in speculation with borrowed money. Investment banks, stock exchanges, and companies that publicly traded stocks were required to disclose more information to investors. Pyramid schemes and conflicts of interest were limited. The system worked very nicely until the 1970s -- when financial innovators devised end-runs around the regulated system, and regulators stopped keeping up with them.

--Only a Roosevelt-Scale Counterrevolution Can Prevent Great Depression II
If FDR had not restored confidence in the White House, there might very well have been a revolution in the US in the 30s. The threat of FEMA camps notwithstanding, millions of people robbed of homes, hope and jobs will find a way to speak. Enriched and compromised power would do well to learn the lessons of history.
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it.

--Georges Santayana, American Philosopher
And there is likewise a warning.
People must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law; peace is considered already broken.

--Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Guerilla Warfare


Homer Tries to Vote for Obama

Published Articles

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Download DivX

Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Obama Wins Debate, Calls 'Crisis' a 'Final Verdict'

Barack Obama seized the offensive and never lost it! Setting the tone at the outset, he charged that McCain had been a 'loyal supporter' of an unpopular President over a period of eight years. He called the current financial crisis 'a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain.' We can't afford another four, he said.

Obama's win was impressive. Unlike McCain, who often tried to mask displeasure with an uncomfortable 'smile', Obama refuted McCain consistently and deftly turned refutations into rapier-like attacks.


Presidential Debate. Obama Winds Decisively
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 (UPI) -- A post-debate poll indicates Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Barack Obama won Friday night's first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, conducted shortly after the debate ended, showed 51 percent thought Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, did the best job, while 38 percent said Republican opponent Sen. John McCain of Arizona won.

Only people who watched the debate were questioned and the audience included more Democrats than Republicans. Some 524 people were polled by telephone Sept. 26 after the end of the debate.

There were big differences by gender. Men were nearly evenly split, with 46 percent giving the win to McCain and 43 percent to Obama while women voters gave Obama the win, preferring him to McCain 59 percent 31 percent, CNN said.

"It can be reasonably concluded, especially after accounting for the slight Democratic bias in the survey, that we witnessed a tie in Mississippi tonight," said CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib. "But given the direction of the campaign over the last couple of weeks, a tie translates to a win for Obama."

--Poll: Obama won presidential debate
Obama seized the offensive and never lost it. In response to McCain, Obama did not merely 'refute', he countered and charged.
From the outset of the 90 minute debate, which was almost called off because of the economic crisis, Mr. Obama was on the offensive, mocking his rival for having said that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” when it is in freefall. He accused him of promoting a failed Republican philosophy of deregulation that had caused havoc in the financial markets
“This is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies, promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain,” Mr. Obama, said. He described it as “a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections, and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.”

--Obama and McCain clash in first televised debate
A high point of the debate was Obama's devastating assessment of the GOP's Iraq war:
“You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003. And at the time, when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni and you were wrong.”

Barack Obama, Presidential Debate

Published Articles

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Download DivX

Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine