« My own private Israel | David Seaton's Blog | Annus horribilis: (Clarification) »

Annus horribilis... and you are pretty cute yourself



"My bucket's got a hole in it, and I can't buy no beer"
Hank Williams

I am getting the feeling that we are entering the most fascinating period since the Second World War, and we are entering it without a road map... if there ever was a road map. Part of me is excited by the idea of finally seeing some meaningful political thought and action and the rest of me is just plain scared.

Nobody seems to know what's going on or when the waves of the tsunami are going to sweep over us. We know how the crisis reads, but we have yet to really see how it plays.

Max Hastings writes in The Guardian:
What seems most striking about the credit crunch is that it reduces most people to silence, because they find its implications and possible solutions beyond their comprehension. It is rendered especially baffling because, metaphorically speaking, no bombs are falling. Shoppers still pack suburban malls, cars crowd motorways, passengers throng airports, the lights stay on. Thus far, for all except some hundreds of thousands who have already lost their jobs, only statistics reveal the bad news. The implications have yet to work through into real life. There seems an overwhelming public mood of fatalism. Anger must follow, sooner or later, and even perhaps social unrest. But this will come only when the consequences literally reach home. Meanwhile, number blindness has overtaken most of us. Max Hastings - Guardian
The huge stimulus plans look just like inflating another bubble to me... it was easy credit and low interest rates that created the mess in the first place

I find myself agreeing with some of the super-orthodox economists that think that all this will lead to hyperinflation and with it Wiemar-like destruction of the middle class which leaves a debt that future generations will curse all their lives or simply refuse to pay... And either choice will have catastrophic consequences.

I'd like to present a little collage of excerpts from articles that for me, alone and together, go some way in summing up the economic situation and the zeitgeist today.

First a well observed, artistic even, "slice of life", from Peggy Noonan:
At a certain point in the '00s, I began to notice, on the east side of Manhattan, that the 3-week-old infants, out for the first time in their sleek black Mercedes-like strollers, were amazingly, almost alarmingly, perfect. Perfect round heads, huge perfect eyes, none of the dents, bruises and imperfections that are normal and that tend to accompany birth. I would ask friends: Why are babies perfect now, how did that happen? The answers were the usual: a healthy, well-fed populace, etc. Then a friend said: "These are the children of the scheduled C-sections of the affluent. They are scooped out, perfect." They were little superbabies whose handsome, investment banking, asset-bundling, financial-instrument-creating parents commanded even Nature. Peggy Noonan- Wall Street Journal
Let's move farther into this with a quote from an article by Noam Chomsky on the election that, as always, should be read by anyone not satisfied with the pablum handed out by mainstream analysts. Here Chomsky talks about the recession-cum-depression and the president-elect's economic "new" team:
The power of financial institutions reflects the increasing shift of the economy from production to finance since the liberalization of finance in the 1970s, a root cause of the current economic malaise: the financial crisis, recession in the real economy, and the miserable performance of the economy for the large majority, whose real wages stagnated for 30 years, while benefits declined. The steward of this impressive record, Alan Greenspan, attributed his success to "growing worker insecurity," which led to "atypical restraint on compensation increases" - and corresponding increases into the pockets of those who matter. His failure even to perceive the dramatic housing bubble, following the collapse of the earlier tech bubble that he oversaw, was the immediate cause of the current financial crisis, as he ruefully conceded.(...) Obama's transition team is headed by John Podesta, Clinton's chief of staff. The leading figures in his economic team are Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, both enthusiasts for the deregulation that was a major factor in the current financial crisis. As Treasury Secretary, Rubin worked hard to abolish the Glass-Steagall act, which had separated commercial banks from financial institutions that incur high risks. Economist Tim Canova comments that Rubin had "a personal interest in the demise of Glass-Steagall." Soon after leaving his position as Treasury Secretary, he became "chair of Citigroup, a financial-services conglomerate that was facing the possibility of having to sell off its insurance underwriting subsidiary... the Clinton administration never brought charges against him for his obvious violations of the Ethics in Government Act." Rubin was replaced as Treasury Secretary by Summers, who presided over legislation barring federal regulation of derivatives, the "weapons of mass destruction" (Warren Buffett) that helped plunge financial markets to disaster. He ranks as "one of the main villains in the current economic crisis," according to Dean Baker, one of the few economists to have warned accurately of the impending crisis. Placing financial policy in the hands of Rubin and Summers is "a bit like turning to Osama Bin Laden for aid in the war on terrorism," Baker adds. The business press reviewed the records of Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board, which met on November 7 to determine how to deal with the financial crisis. In Bloomberg News, Jonathan Weil concluded that "Many of them should be getting subpoenas as material witnesses right about now, not places in Obama's inner circle." About half "have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both." Is it really plausible that "they won't mistake the nation's needs for their own corporate interests?" He also pointed out that chief of staff Emanuel "was a director at Freddie Mac in 2000 and 2001 while it was committing accounting fraud." Noam Chomsky
And back in 2005, James Fallows wrote an astoundingly prophetic piece called Countdown to a Meltdown that makes Nouriel Roubini sound like Little Mary Sunshine:
Half this country's households live on less than $50,000 a year. That sounds like a significant improvement from the $44,000 household median in 2003. But a year in private college now costs $83,000, a day in a hospital $1,350, a year in a nursing home $150,000--and a gallon of gasoline $9. Thus we start off knowing that for half our people there is no chance--none--of getting ahead of the game. And really, it's more like 80 percent of the public that is priced out of a chance for future opportunity. We have made a perfect circle--perfect in closing off options. There are fewer attractive jobs to be had, even though the ones at the top, for financiers or specialty doctors, are very attractive indeed. And those who don't start out with advantages in getting those jobs have less and less chance of moving up to them. Jobs in the middle of the skill-and-income distribution have steadily vanished if any aspect of them can be done more efficiently in China, India, or Vietnam. The K-12 schools, the universities, the ambitious research projects that could help the next generation qualify for better jobs, have weakened or dried up.39 A dynamic economy is always losing jobs. The problem with ours is that we're no longer any good at creating new ones. America is a less attractive place for new business because it's a less attractive place, period.40 In the past decade we've seen the telephone companies disappear. Programming, data, entertainment, conversation--they all go over the Internet now. Pharmaceuticals are no longer mass-produced but, rather, tailored to each patient's genetic makeup. The big airlines are all gone now, and much of publishing, too. The new industries are the ones we want. When their founders are deciding where to locate, though, they'll see us as a country with a big market--and with an undereducated work force, a rundown infrastructure, and a shaky currency. They'll see England as it lost its empire. They'll see Russia without the oil reserves, Brezhnev's Soviet Union without the repression. James Fallows: Countdown to a Meltdown - Atlantic
What Chomsky and Fallows are talking about has more the look of a systemic crisis and not just a recession. Some, like Niall Ferguson, think that the United States is better positioned than other countries to weather the storm... this is how he imagines Obama's New Years message in 2010:
The "unipolar moment" was over, no question. But power is a relative concept, as the president pointed out in his last press conference of the year: "They warned us that America was doomed to decline. And we certainly all got poorer this year. But they forgot that if everyone else declined even further, then America would still be out in front. After all, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." And, with a wink, President Barack Obama wished the world a happy new year. Niall Ferguson
I think Ferguson is whistling past the graveyard myself. I don't think that any country in world history is less prepared than the citizens of the United States of America: ideologically, culturally or morally for a serious failure of the capitalist system, less prepared for a failure which destroys social mobility and leaves a pauperized ex-middle class to carry wood and draw water for the super-rich that will float above the disaster, ... having the American dream chewed up and spat in their faces will finally mean blood. Of that I have no doubt.

Some observers predict that the global economic crisis will lead to "unrest" in Russia and China and this unrest will lead to greater "democracy" and "liberalization"...

They say this while the USA is effectively nationalizing banks and the auto industry and none of these observers seem to take into account that there might still be a "Communist" wing of the Chinese Communist Party or remember, in case the "villain" Putin falters, that Russia's largest opposition party is the Communist Party. I think the Chinese Communist Party could shift gears without missing a beat. Many if not most Russians already seem quite nostalgic for the good old days.

"Really-existing socialism", as it was called was dull, repressive and gray, but it guaranteed employment, housing and education to the entire population: nobody slept in the street or lacked medical care... "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work" was how Iron-Curtain wags described the system. With double digit unemployment that might start to look like a pretty good deal again... and not just in Russia and China.

The greatest challenge in foreseeable future may be to keep the need for social justice of some sort compatible with an acceptable degree of freedom of speech and association.

In this line I'd close these reflections with this quote from my favorite historian Eric Hobsbawm:
"None of the major problems facing humanity in the 21st century can be solved by the principles that still dominate the developed countries of the west: unlimited economic growth and technical progress, the ideal of individual autonomy, freedom of choice, electoral democracy. As is evident in the case of the environmental crisis, facing these problems will require in practice regulation by institutions, in theory a revision of both the current political rhetoric and even the more reputable intellectual constructions of liberalism. The question is can this be done within the framework of the rationalist, secularist and civilised tradition of the Enlightenment. As for left vs right, it will plainly remain central in an era which is increasing the gap between haves and have-nots. However, today the danger is that this struggle is being subsumed in the irrationalist mobilisations of ethnic or religious or other group identity." Eric Hobsbawm, historian - Prospect Magazine - March, 2007
Hobsbawm is very old, when he dies I don't know how I'll go on... I survived Edward Said's passing with difficulty, but Hobsbawm? May Noam Chomsky live a hundred years.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

52 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Jesus, you are one doom-laden disaster merchant, you cranky old fucker.

user-pic

"I don't think that any country in world history is less prepared than the citizens of the United States ... for a failure which destroys social mobility and leaves a pauperized ex-middle class ... having the American dream chewed up and spat in their faces will finally mean blood. Of that I have no doubt."

You pompous turd. That's the kind of apocalyptic grandstanding I usually associate with alienated adolescents. Are you enjoying spending your waning days prophesying the bloody collapse of American society? Wake up and grow up.

Pull your head out of your own ass and look around. The world endures and is filled with light and song that you have made yourself blind and deaf to.

user-pic

Thanks for saying it, so I didn't have to.

user-pic

David. Excellent piece. And you didn't even have to flog Obama, eh? Seriously, this stuff takes time to seep into all our skulls - changes like this one, however it turns out, do not come from reading an article. But Max Hastings - not too dull a lad - sums it about as well as it can be, I think.

What I'd argue you're missing are the signs of hopefulness, signs of something new. Sure, they're not as strong as we'd all like. But. When you paint your alternative future for us all, after the fall, you too are projecting out a future drawn from your past - one of the grim & grey Eastern Bloc life. which - as I've just argued in a demented post - is absolutely one road we can go down. And in some shape, for some time, probably will. But the kids today are different David. and our world is not Russian in '17.

In short, I wish - next - that you'd try throwing your mind out into that future, scour around and see if there's anything positive and new that might be brought together. Otherwise, you risk commenters coming on and calling you a "doom-laden disaster merchant, you cranky old fucker." Cheers, ;-)

user-pic

Now wait just a cotton picking minute! I've got my name all over the "doom-laden disaster merchant, cranky old fucker" franchise. Putty's using it gratuitously, albeit in a kinda' subtle fashion, no?

user-pic

Lighten up. I do not wish to cry in my beer.

I wish to sing old songs from the pub.

user-pic

Bravo!

user-pic

What's the point of the point of the copied picture? An old joke, and I don't see the referent. The US is stupid, blind? Humans can't see the future? Never would have occurred to me.

It's fun to predict the Apocalypse, and I've done my share. But you're getting repetitive. How about suggestions for action instead of dire warnings of failure? Those are a glut on the market.

Here's my suggestions for action: Emphasize, at every opportunity, the failure of pure greed as a virtue. Counter with the arguable virtues of more communitarian thinking, more respect for the commons, and more active steering of civilization's evolution.

user-pic

Sometimes I just sit in awe of your patience, dude.

user-pic

Some can make a high art of things that way beyond us ordinary mortals, dear Bwakfat! I concur with your comment. You've done your fair share though, and I've stood in awe of them. You just use a different style.

user-pic

That's Tom the "Uberpatient" yer talking about Bwak. Dude's got stamina, eh?

I was just wondering who was gonna come on & suggest the photo should be entitled "Self-portrait of Blogger." Seriously though, I hope Seaton takes a run at discussing things that might be new or positive, because without seeing that, there's not even the slightest reality check on our gloominess.

user-pic

I think you are unfairly heralding the blogger.

user-pic

I can't believe I was there at the "dawning" of the heraldry! Who else can really follow your drift? Well, of course they can... but yes, I was there to observe the decision on your part to pick up the heraldic language and determine to forge forward, carrying your banner hither and yon, astounding us with its bold verbiage - you saw your chance and you took it! Carpe Diem!

user-pic

Just limit it a bit DD, Huh? Don't want to have death threats coming down on your sources do we?

user-pic

Tom: I think the response here at TPM to the blog is reason enough for that picture. You can see people here getting "depressed" over what is happening -- and sticking their heads in the sand hoping it goes away.

And I believe that the average TPMer cares and thinks more about the issues than the average American. And yet, that apparently isn't enough. That's why, as a society, we are screwed. We will refuse to act boldly until we are literally overrun by events. Or, in reference to JEM's post today: we won't be able to "evolve" out of our present situation. Things are moving too fast for that to be our solution at this point. The longer we wait to act, the more extreme our actions will have to be.


user-pic

Why not a picture of head in the sand? And last I heard ostriches don't actually do that. This pic is cheap attention-getting, like the bleeding lead of another DS post

What have we not done? We have been shouting at our reps, helping elect liberals, writing to newspapers. Should we go and stand in front of Israeli tanks like Rachel Corrie? Who is the "we"?

Stop being so smug.

user-pic

We are constantly in a state of evolution, a state of flux. The changes wrought by that evolution only seem revolutionary in hindsight. We will make the changes we need to given the challenges and opportunities as presented.

Prognostications of doom are mental masturbation at best and can actually hinder forward movement if the end result of the audience is "Why Bother?" The end of the human race has been foretold just about every year for the last 50,000.

Either we are fucked or we aren't, sitting around crying about it won't change a single thing. I find posts like these and the notion we can't do anything to be like Randy Quaid's character sitting in the bleachers bitching and moaning about how bad the Indians are and how they will never win in Major League II. "It's over! Why bother! We should all go home!"

Bah.

user-pic

JEM: You do many things well, but unfortunately you really have a knack of misinterpreting my posts.

My posts are anything but "Why, bother?" Quite the opposite.

Revolutions and social upheavals are not evolutionary.

There is nothing about human civilization had provides a mechanism for a monotonically increasing "progress".

What I am saying is quite different -- and always has been:

Unless people are cognizant of the urgency of key problems that won't wait for us (mostly under the notion of resource management -- oil, water, etc.), then there *will* be a breakdown of business as usual.

There is nothing that grows exponentially forever in a finite space. I suggest this little nugget:

Blogers from the NY Times to the Atlantic have brought up the famous bet between biologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford and the late libertarian- economist Julian Simon at the University of Maryland. You will recall that Ehrlich authored the Population Bomb in 1968, predicting disaster resulting from uncontrolled population growth. Simon argued that everything that happens when population grows is good, at least for business. Ehrlich thought a group of five metals would increase in price as they became scarce. Simon thought the price would drop as new sources were found. In a famous bet Simon won hands down and Ehrlich paid off. Why is this coming up again? One of the people advising Ehrlich is said to have been John Holdren, Obama's choice for White House Science Advisor. The question is whether the world will become overpopulated. I think the answer is that it already has. Simon once asked me why physicists never agree with him. I said it's because they understand exponentials.

I maintain the most people here at TPM - indeed, most people in the world - don't understand exponentials.

The issue is whether we, as a society, will have the guts to try to control the transition of lowered standards of living (as measured by our current comfort levels) or not. That transition is coming and it's not based on a mismanaged economy but the finiteness of the Earth itself.

Perhaps David is right to use the head-up-the-ass picture -- if it shocks you into questioning your comforting assumptions that life tomorrow will pretty much be like life yesterday, so much the better.

It's only doom and gloom when people assume that we can "geek" our way out of these problems with science. There are rules to nature. And unchecked exponential growth is not one of them.

user-pic

My answer is always the same when accused of misunderstanding something or someone - perhaps you aren't communicating clearly enough to be understood. If enough people "misunderstand" often enough, then I say it is incumbent upon the writer to explain themselves better.

I am quite sure the Earth will take care of the excess population in whatever way is needed once it gets to the point that it can't be sustained. You say we have already passed that point. I don't disagree.

However, I don't think the answer is to impose draconian population controls, mostly because that is an impossible "solution" to implement. Which means it is no solution at all. Kind of like drug laws. Anything that can't be enforced should not be offered as the answer to our problems.

Instead, I say we are evolving a new consciousness that has people questioning the very things you state. We are already modifying what we consider "livable standards" in response to our changing environment and economy. These sorts of things usually start slow and gain a life of their own.

The ultimate solution only seem inevitable in hindsight.

user-pic

JEM: I'm sure your explanation of not getting A+'s because the teachers weren't effective has gone a long way in your getting jobs, etc. The fact is that I have never espoused an imposed government solution of sterilization as the answer -- despite your constant instance on bringing it up and putting words in my mouth.

I am saying unless everyone, voluntarily, decides to stop procreating, we are doomed. Okay?

As far as evolving a new consciousness -- please. No one is reducing their standard of living one iota. People are so clueless about the very infrastructure they live in -- and how fragile it is.

Your general argument is inconsistent.

Fact: you want to raise people's standards of living world wide to protect the planet. (Not a bad idea.)

Fact: the US, 5% of the worlds population, used 25% of the world's cheap energy to sustain it's standard of living.

How to you propose boosting the standard of living of the rest of the 95% of the world with the rest of the 75% of the world's cheap energy?

Specifics... I ask for specifics.

Our present standard of living is going to collapse -- and rather suddenly. This always happens in exponential growth.

We all laugh at the general idea of "duck and cover" now, because we are so much wiser. However, our present societal groupthink is no better.

Go read what James Kunstler wrote at the end of 2007 about 2008 -- and then read what he wrote about 2009.

As for your evolving consciousness -- consider this: there is already a credible and growing group of scientists who believe we may well be in a run-away situation with respect to global climate change. In other words, if we suddenly ceased all emissions, we still would be in trouble.

user-pic

Speaking of specifics, CT, do you have any for the idea of cessation of procreation? Is the goal human extinction?

user-pic

We need a negative birthrate in the United States for starters. We need people to be more aware of agriculture (and how to do it). We need to stop encouraging consumption...and we need to stop encouraging procreation via tax credits in the US. We need to stop artificial insemination. In Europe there are restrictions (based on age) for insemination -- this is progressive Europe. No reason why the government could simply not allow artificial insemination.

When we get this round done, I'll come back for more. ;-)

user-pic
We need a negative birthrate in the United States for starters.
Well, as I'm sure you know, it has been decreasing in recent years. I personally have doubts we'll reach a negative birthrate anytime soon, though that's entirely unbased on evidence. I think the best approaches to lowering the birth rate are increased availability to contraceptives, encouraging adoption, and realistic sex education. I know you believe that people deciding to stop reproducing is the best route, but to be perfectly honest, it simply seems an unviable option to me.
We need people to be more aware of agriculture (and how to do it). We need to stop encouraging consumption...and we need to stop encouraging procreation via tax credits in the US.
Completely on board with the agriculture part, and while I see the argument for removing the tax incentives, I also see the logic in the flip side of the argument, and am rather undecided on this point.
We need to stop artificial insemination. In Europe there are restrictions (based on age) for insemination -- this is progressive Europe. No reason why the government could simply not allow artificial insemination.
I'm curious why you only refer to AI. Would you extend this to all fertility treatments? IVF is much more commonly used - about 99% of all assistive fertility is through IVF. In any event, with regards to AI, I learned an interesting fact a couple months ago. In Sweden (and I think, a few other countries), sperm donation is not allowed to be anonymous (as it is here). As a result, sperm donation dropped drastically in Sweden. I don't have the exact numbers.

For the record, I do understand your argument. Which isn't to say I agree with it all. ;)

user-pic

A decreasing rate of birthrate is something people like to always point out...but it still allows for exponential population growth. So the rate of birthrate is not the issue. It must be the birthrate itself.

And yes, when I talked about AI, I really meant all non-natural forms of zygote production(including IVF). We certainly don't need science to produce more children.

user-pic

Bloody hell. Hadn't realized I screwed up those blockquotes so badly.

Only pointed it out as I would assume that on the way to a negative, or at least, zero birthrate, it would decrease, rather than immediately jump to 0 (or less.) Barring some freak event, I would assume.

user-pic

Well, the rate should be dropping negative much faster. As you can see on my other thread people really are insistent that they want children or grandchildren. And these are supposedly the more enlightened folks in America.

You are teacher: Please make all your students understand exponential growth! If nothing else, you can play the game of grains of rice per square on a chessboard.

user-pic

You use a lot of words to say nothing at all. Kind of like right wing radio hosts. Not sure what my 4.0 GPA in college has to do with your thesis, but whatever. I was obviously using hyperbole to describe your broken-record assertions that the only way to pull our asses out of the fire is to reduce the Earth's population.

Good luck with offering questionable opinions written by one person and considering it the Gospel as some sort of solution. Wonder what your guru had to say about Y2K. Oops. You use dogma and delusions of grandeur in the place of actual analysis or even intelligent guessing. I am not the first one to point out your inability to come up with more clear explanations of your stated beliefs beyond the Chicken Little routine.

My arguments aren't inconsistent because the entire length of recorded human history shows abrupt and significant paradigm shifts that none of the "big brains" of the day thought were possible. You live in a country founded during one of those moments. Either we change in some fashion that isn't readily obvious to us mere mortals or we will all die in some horrible, drawn-out fashion.

You may be right, but forgive me if I think otherwise in my terribly limited and idiotic fashion.

user-pic

You've yet to reply with specific ideas, JEM. Alas. When I asked you to mathematically justify your notions, you refuse (or can't). I suspect that this is the reason by the frothy response.

user-pic

My opinions aren't mathematically based so don't require mathematics as justification. I feel sorry for you that your world is so limited by that which can be quantified with numbers and statistics.

What your numbers also miss is that each of your inputs cancels or modifies the other. The end of oil and leans times lead to lowered consumption and more locally sourced goods and services. That leads to increased prosperity which leads to lower birthrates.

Ultimately, the house of cards you built as being our only "logical" way out of this mess uses an impossible measure as a baseline. Negative population growth may make your "equations" work, but that doesn't make them anymore achievable.

Why not use that big brain to ponder something that can actually be accomplished within the framework of reality as it exists right now?

user-pic

Mathematics would ensure that your solutions are based in reality, JEM.

What the rest of your post reveals is that underneath it all, you are very laissez-faire. Just let things sort themselves out. Don't worry about peak-oil because the population will collapse anyway... and see? No more problem.

Makes you a fatalist, which is cool, that's your outlook.

user-pic

Actually, that's not what I said. I have long advocated any number of things we can do today to make our tomorrow brighter. You claim we are all doomed unless we follow your very narrow course toward salvation. A road defined by impossible standards that could never be enforced. I'll leave it up to the TPM community to decide which of us has a better process.

user-pic

PS: I always cite specific trends in today's world that may lead to the future I see.

Barack's election was a great first step as far as America is concerned. A growing awareness about climate change is already in our popular culture, usually the first step toward wider acceptance. The newer generations having a deeper curiosity about how our parents and grandparents got us to this point and how we are going to fix it.

Where you see gathering darkness and despair, I see the lifting of both after four decades of devolution.

user-pic

You are not a student of history, JEM.

4 decades of devolution?

Let's start with the progress made in race relations.

Gender equality.

Sexual orientation equality.

The world is hugely different than in the 60s for the better.

Tell me, who exactly has the sour puss?

As far as "growing awareness" of the key issues -- many people were aware of these issues decades ago. Go google "the moral equivalent of war". So glad you just figured out to come on board.

user-pic

I never said that gains haven't been made, but in most other measure the world is not "progressing" by much and has in fact gone backward. We still have a mostly poor global population being preyed on by or supporting the habits of a small elite. Poverty is rampant. Not sure what history books you are reading. Perhaps one penned by James Kunstler.

user-pic

PS: We haven't progressed on the issues of which I have spoken because "progressive" leadership has been a huge failure. We have suffered through four decades of ideologues and demogogues yelling at each other across an imaginary cultural divide.

I see hope now because we seem to be waking up to these things. You somehow think we are culturally transcendent and materially fucked at the same time, obviously contradictory statements.

Any problems with consistency (not to mention reality) or understanding of history might be better attached to your comments.

user-pic

PS: If your "solution" is the only one that will save us, then we are fucked, because people aren't going to stop having babies anytime soon. You claim that forced sterilization isn't part of your Master Plan, though I didn't mention that, so I assume you think there is a better way to implement your much more reasonable idea than my belief we are in the midst of yet another evolution of humankind.

user-pic

To be honest, I was going to recommend this post when I first started reading it, because David is always very good with his writing and usage of an interesting photo. But by the time I was done with this post, I was too depressed to click the rec button, and not because he won me over with his world view, but because he still hasn't been won over by ours.

user-pic

Well said, Lis...maybe we'll rub off him, yet.

user-pic

I am available if either one of you wish to rub off on me. Its kind of cold here.

user-pic

Rub away Arthur!

user-pic

This is beginning to be a thread like the bible guy! Enjoy....

user-pic

I recommended this post because it was a good roundup of what socialist-leaning thinkers are saying about the economic situation. And it was no surprise, as they always take hopeful glee in the prospect of the world coming down, whatever the current news may be, they always spin it towards seeking evidence that the revolution is coming, ever trying to prove Marxism right. They're sort of like the "end times are acoming" Christian fundamentalists that way. Chomsky is one of the worst offenders.

That said, I don't understand why people get so angry at David Seaton personally. He makes it clear he's socialist, and throws in his own spin on his posts, but shares the results of his reading with everyone of all persuasions. Use what he offers, challenge or ignore the spin, like with all writers. Here, for example, he made it easy for me to get an idea of what socialist writers are saying, why should I get all in a tizzy that he believes what they are saying and I don't? I gained some knowledge from it.

user-pic

Noonan's a socialist? ;-)

user-pic

Some on the extreme right might make that case after her endorsement of BHO.

user-pic

Methinks you mean social disease? Like "Smarmy Opportunism" disease that presents with symptoms like "Extreme Caring" and "Loving All God's Children" and "Practiced Sincerity"?

It's non-fatal, unfortunately...

user-pic

Oops, no, my error--that's a spawn-of-the-devil anti-Christ thrown in for variety?

user-pic

Well worth noting that Seaton (or those he cites) don't always speak for all socialists. And much like candy and condoms, socialists come in many different flavors.

user-pic

The fact that the people here -- who like to think of themselves as activists and well-informed -- are disquieted by this post speaks volumes.

Remember, the rest of the country is even more willing to put their collective heads in the sand than this group.

So what does that say? It says that people ought to get their heads wrapped around the idea that if you don't control events, events will control you.

The breakdown in social order in Germany (with the rise of the left and the right who both promised solutions to the economic woes) portends a very great lesson on who human beings act when they are hungry and desperate.

Here's a view of 2009 by James Kunstler. Is he always correct? Not by a long shot. But he tends to get the big picture trends dead on.

Put another way: if this post depressed you now, just wait 6 months.

And finally, Americans are *no different* than any other country. We are all humans, we want the good life, and we want it as easy as possible. It's just that Americans have had an exceedingly good life for the past 100 years or so -- and now things are going to (noticeably) start slipping back to the mean.

Rec'd if for no more reason than the cajones to post this in the midst of the celebratory atmosphere the progressive are currently enjoying.

user-pic

Thanks for the recommendation!
I think that when you mentioned "cAjones" with an "A", you in fact meant "cOjones with an "O". "Cajones" with an "A" meaning "drawers" as in a chest of drawers. In a tight spot you wouldn't want to mix them up or bring one when you needed the other. But it is the thought that counts... thanks again.

user-pic

I like to make my typos in all languages. There's no reason to preferentially screw up just my English.

user-pic

A quibble.

Please note that your quote is from Hank Williams, Jr.. He's just not the poet his father was and I just hate it when the two are confused.

user-pic

There may be an inclination to avoid facing the facts but it is only compounded by those in the know, Mr. Seaton, speaking of the situation as some great, (nearly) unfathomable and unavoidable mystery.

The reasons for the situation are fundamentally simple, as are the solutions. State your case so.

Leave a comment

David Seaton

user-pic

Following: 4
Followers: 45

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address