Having been critical of the President in past communications, I am now delighted to express my admiration for his speeches at Tucson and today, at Schenectady. At Tucson, he relaxed some of the growing rhetorical tensions promoted by the extreme Right. At Schenectady, he demonstrated his deep involvement in the much needed effort to promote American economic growth. Some even more difficult work lies ahead.
There are three very powerful forces at work to increase the already very large concentrations of wealth and disparities of income. One is the fact that labor is in plentiful supply while natural resources are limited. In addition, ever advancing technology will continue to improve productivity. This means that owners will prosper while workers will not. The third one is the powerful army of
serve-the-rich politicians and professionals who will not readily sacrifice privilege, even for the sake of a stable, humane, and productive social order.
Dealing effectively with these facts will require not only the will to do so but an unprecedented combination of genius and political skills.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Friday, December 17, 2010
Obama Wins (well, sort of)
Some call the present recovery a sham. I'd simply say that it is a managed economy, as usual. Mostly, it has been managed by bankers and intended in their own interest but sometimes with unexpected results. A good computer program could stabilize our economy much more successfully. Human beings are hindered by very short time horizons and a desire for quick satisfaction. The consequences frequently resemble what has been known as "the tragedy of the commons." In a word, they greedily foul their own nest and produce tragic results for many of the innocent.
Money rules; human beings primarily act as place holders for accumulated capital which continues to accumulate in good times and bad. Unfortunately, the human element only makes things worse. Incompetent hogs are Mammon's Achilles heel. They rig the "invisible hand" of the markets and create bubbles and crashes like there is no tomorrow. They will, if not restrained, destroy the biosphere of this planet. They create their own "facts" and slander all contrary science as "junk science." They employ an eagerly bought army of servile professionals; politicians, scientists, intellectuals, pr experts, media commentators, money managers, lawyers and, yes, even thugs. It pays well to lie and to spin and to legislate in their service.
Money rules; human beings primarily act as place holders for accumulated capital which continues to accumulate in good times and bad. Unfortunately, the human element only makes things worse. Incompetent hogs are Mammon's Achilles heel. They rig the "invisible hand" of the markets and create bubbles and crashes like there is no tomorrow. They will, if not restrained, destroy the biosphere of this planet. They create their own "facts" and slander all contrary science as "junk science." They employ an eagerly bought army of servile professionals; politicians, scientists, intellectuals, pr experts, media commentators, money managers, lawyers and, yes, even thugs. It pays well to lie and to spin and to legislate in their service.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Bipartisanship Rampant
Today, the compromise tax bill's romp through the congress seems to have become unstoppable.
When the two parties and the electorate come together like this, it is possible to infer that they are going to borrow even more money than had previously been contemplated. Even the staunch defenders of the "unborn" are not protesting loudly. After all, the debt is a long term problem and, in the long run, we shall be dead.
In the short term, this bill is good for almost everyone: the unemployed, the middle income taxpayer, the rich who just love to get richer, the businessmen whose main concern is the next quarterly report, the wall street crowd through whose sticky fingers pass the most lucrative transactions, and even me because my modest investments will be made moderately less modest.
So much for the class war, which will just bubble along quietly until the next election campaign is underway. The screams will probably be very audible a year from now.
Is there a point to all this? Yes, it is clear for all to see: it is not lack of information that afflicts us. The fault is in our nature. It will take more than a few deaths and modest ecological disasters to change us in any constructive way.
When the two parties and the electorate come together like this, it is possible to infer that they are going to borrow even more money than had previously been contemplated. Even the staunch defenders of the "unborn" are not protesting loudly. After all, the debt is a long term problem and, in the long run, we shall be dead.
In the short term, this bill is good for almost everyone: the unemployed, the middle income taxpayer, the rich who just love to get richer, the businessmen whose main concern is the next quarterly report, the wall street crowd through whose sticky fingers pass the most lucrative transactions, and even me because my modest investments will be made moderately less modest.
So much for the class war, which will just bubble along quietly until the next election campaign is underway. The screams will probably be very audible a year from now.
Is there a point to all this? Yes, it is clear for all to see: it is not lack of information that afflicts us. The fault is in our nature. It will take more than a few deaths and modest ecological disasters to change us in any constructive way.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
We are not all Sheep
In his hastily called press conference today Obama gave a very slick defense of his compromise with the Republicans on taxes.
It has not escaped me that the extra x00 billion dollars we will borrow to pay for it will be just another excuse for attacking important social programs. It is a part of the "starve the beast" strategy that is being used in a long standing and vicious class war against the American people.
Obama is a skillful shepherd but we are not all sheep.
It has not escaped me that the extra x00 billion dollars we will borrow to pay for it will be just another excuse for attacking important social programs. It is a part of the "starve the beast" strategy that is being used in a long standing and vicious class war against the American people.
Obama is a skillful shepherd but we are not all sheep.
Monday, December 6, 2010
What the Political Parties D0 Best
There are three important USA deficits that urgently need to be reduced: the budget deficit, the trade deficit, and the jobs deficit (we are exporting more jobs than we create internally). In addition, the swollen concentration of wealth needs to be reduced or there will never be enough American demand for goods and services to sustain economic growth. This growth will be needed in order to make the servicing of our huge debt tolerable.
Tax laws can be used in order to correct these monumental problems. What are the two main parties up to? Well there seems to be a "compromise" in the works. There will be a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts, which the Republicans want, in return for a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and maybe a few other tax breaks for the middle class, which the Democrats want.
The tax cut extensions mean lost revenue. The unemployment benefits mean more expenditures. The tax cuts for the rich mean more money to invest, mainly abroad because that's where the profits are. Tax cuts and benefits for the middle class mean more consumption, largely for imports because we don't make much anymore. So we are still in the mode of increasing the deficits. The Bush tax cuts also accelerated the longer term increase in the concentration of wealth.
What are the two parties up to? Kicking the can down the road. That is what they do best. This is unsustainable!
Tax laws can be used in order to correct these monumental problems. What are the two main parties up to? Well there seems to be a "compromise" in the works. There will be a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts, which the Republicans want, in return for a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and maybe a few other tax breaks for the middle class, which the Democrats want.
The tax cut extensions mean lost revenue. The unemployment benefits mean more expenditures. The tax cuts for the rich mean more money to invest, mainly abroad because that's where the profits are. Tax cuts and benefits for the middle class mean more consumption, largely for imports because we don't make much anymore. So we are still in the mode of increasing the deficits. The Bush tax cuts also accelerated the longer term increase in the concentration of wealth.
What are the two parties up to? Kicking the can down the road. That is what they do best. This is unsustainable!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Good Fiscal Policy versus Bloody Awful Fiscal Policy
The USA, as well as most developed countries, is now faced with a chronic and worsening fiscal problem: the national debt has been rapidly growing as a percentage of the gross domestic product. This is an unsustainable trend and it must be remedied by some combination of revenue enhancement and spending cuts.
In the political arena and in the media that report on it many aspects of this problem are being vigorously debated but there is a near silence concerning the central issue. One notable exception to this silence is in a New York Times op-ed column by Nicholas Kristoff, who cites Timothy Noah of Slate:
"The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana."
There are many important details to be considered but the central issue of solutions to our fiscal problem is just this: does it increase or decrease the concentration of wealth? This will determine the kind of nation the USA is to be.
The political parties have long made a game of this in dealing with the issue that is of central importance to them: winning the next election. The centrist Democrats have pandered to their base by always advocating increased social programs, while the rightist Republicans have pandered to their base by always advocating decreased taxes. The natural consequence of this has been alternating decreases in taxes and increases in benefits. Sure, there have been instances in which government has been forced to increase taxes or to decrease benefits but these are exceptions to the long term trend.
How do the political parties stand on the obvious need to increase taxes and reduce social programs? True to form. of course. The Democrats want solutions that will tend to decrease the concentration of wealth while the Republicans want solutions that will clearly increase the concentration of wealth.
The Republicans have an important advantage in this: their base has much more money for political persuasion, including corporate money, and that is available at all times. Money is incredibly effective in buying professional services, for example, pr spinners and intellectuals, media groups, lobbyists, legal firms, elected politicians, back room politicians, and even thugs.
The Democrats have a larger electoral base, including organized labor, some intellectuals, some politicians and some media (mostly internet). They are almost always outspent during political campaigns and it is harder for them to maintain focused popular enthusiasm for a long term struggle, particularly when compromises are necessary.
The question for independent minded people is, above all, what kind of nation do they want the USA to become? In this, opinions are divided but I believe that the Democrats, warts and all, are on the side of the angels. Less concentration of wealth means less misery, more social mobility, better education, better health care, more equality of opportunity, and a more productive nation. More concentration of wealth means more corporate control of government and, inevitably, serfdom or violent resistance.
Friedrich Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom", wrote that government control of the means of production will lead to serfdom, but it is clear that plutocratic control of government can have a similar effect. We stand at a cusp of history.
In the political arena and in the media that report on it many aspects of this problem are being vigorously debated but there is a near silence concerning the central issue. One notable exception to this silence is in a New York Times op-ed column by Nicholas Kristoff, who cites Timothy Noah of Slate:
"The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana."
There are many important details to be considered but the central issue of solutions to our fiscal problem is just this: does it increase or decrease the concentration of wealth? This will determine the kind of nation the USA is to be.
The political parties have long made a game of this in dealing with the issue that is of central importance to them: winning the next election. The centrist Democrats have pandered to their base by always advocating increased social programs, while the rightist Republicans have pandered to their base by always advocating decreased taxes. The natural consequence of this has been alternating decreases in taxes and increases in benefits. Sure, there have been instances in which government has been forced to increase taxes or to decrease benefits but these are exceptions to the long term trend.
How do the political parties stand on the obvious need to increase taxes and reduce social programs? True to form. of course. The Democrats want solutions that will tend to decrease the concentration of wealth while the Republicans want solutions that will clearly increase the concentration of wealth.
The Republicans have an important advantage in this: their base has much more money for political persuasion, including corporate money, and that is available at all times. Money is incredibly effective in buying professional services, for example, pr spinners and intellectuals, media groups, lobbyists, legal firms, elected politicians, back room politicians, and even thugs.
The Democrats have a larger electoral base, including organized labor, some intellectuals, some politicians and some media (mostly internet). They are almost always outspent during political campaigns and it is harder for them to maintain focused popular enthusiasm for a long term struggle, particularly when compromises are necessary.
The question for independent minded people is, above all, what kind of nation do they want the USA to become? In this, opinions are divided but I believe that the Democrats, warts and all, are on the side of the angels. Less concentration of wealth means less misery, more social mobility, better education, better health care, more equality of opportunity, and a more productive nation. More concentration of wealth means more corporate control of government and, inevitably, serfdom or violent resistance.
Friedrich Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom", wrote that government control of the means of production will lead to serfdom, but it is clear that plutocratic control of government can have a similar effect. We stand at a cusp of history.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Midterm Critique
Our President is one of the sweetest, most reasonable men ever to grace this office.
That's a pity because those who have our economy by the throat and who own most of our politicians won't give up their privilege without a very hard fight. This president seems to have no spine for a hard fight. Up to the present time, he has acted as an agent for the status quo (with minor adjustments aimed at preserving it more than reforming it) and he has made himself increasingly irrelevant.
While he smiles benevolently and offers surrender to the uncompromising GOP, the concentration of wealth continues, investments go overseas in search of profit, and the American middle class is being devoured. American entrepreneurship will inevitably also decline and most of what continues to be invented here will be manufactured elsewhere.
Among the sad failures of this administration is its weak response as its Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate were used as piñatas by the opposition amidst a flood of anonymous corporate campaign ads.
That's a pity because those who have our economy by the throat and who own most of our politicians won't give up their privilege without a very hard fight. This president seems to have no spine for a hard fight. Up to the present time, he has acted as an agent for the status quo (with minor adjustments aimed at preserving it more than reforming it) and he has made himself increasingly irrelevant.
While he smiles benevolently and offers surrender to the uncompromising GOP, the concentration of wealth continues, investments go overseas in search of profit, and the American middle class is being devoured. American entrepreneurship will inevitably also decline and most of what continues to be invented here will be manufactured elsewhere.
Among the sad failures of this administration is its weak response as its Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate were used as piñatas by the opposition amidst a flood of anonymous corporate campaign ads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)