« Behold a dancing Russian bear | David Seaton's Blog | Assessing George W. Bush »

What it's all about


insensible
Photo AmyPalko

Sometimes it is possible to explain up an entire situation , no matter how complex, with only a few words. This is how Dimitri Orlov has masterfully summed up the present dilemma of the United States:
No matter what your political persuasion might be, there is simply no way that an economically insecure, badly educated, badly treated population can be made to thrive, and this sets the stage for some very bad economic performance. Dimitri Orlov
I think that those words should be hung up on the Washington Monument, in flashing neon lights, in time for Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony.

That is what it is all about really, developing people's potential: ignorant, unhealthy, stunted people cannot be either happy or productive. When people are just left hung out to dry they wither. This from BBC News:
The rapid mass privatisation which followed the break up of the Soviet Union fuelled an increase in death rates among men, research suggests.The UK study blames rapidly rising unemployment resulting from the break-neck speed of reform. The researchers said their findings should act as a warning to other nations that are beginning to embrace widespread market reform. The study features online in The Lancet medical journal. The researchers examined death rates among men of working age in the post-communist countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union between 1989 and 2002. They conclude that as many as one million working-age men died due to the economic shock of mass privatisation policies. Following the break up of the old Soviet regime in the early 1990s at least a quarter of large state-owned enterprises were transferred to the private sector in just two years. This programme of mass privatisation was associated with a 12.8% increase in deaths. The latest analysis links this surge in deaths to a 56% increase in unemployment over the same period. However, it found some countries with good social support networks withstood the turmoil better than others.
The suffering that the American people are about to endure, or are already enduring, shouldn't be such a surprise, some people had identified many of the problems we have today several years ago. I was emptying some drawers yesterday when I came across an old article from the March 2003 Guardian, which shows that alarm bells were already going off even then.
The alternative interpretation looks at the effects of 20 years or so of financial deregulation on the demand for consumer and business credit, the size of the US trade deficit, the changing balance between investment in real assets as opposed to speculation, and the quality of corporate earnings. From this perspective, the US economy is in far worse shape now than it was in 1991, sustained only because a bubble in housing has taken the place of the bubble in stocks.While incomes were rising by a modest 2% last year, borrowing was going up by 9%, mainly because consumers were able to borrow on the back of house price increases. As one analyst puts it, you have to ask how sustainable an economy is when consumers are using their homes as cashpoint machines.(...) Like US consumers, companies appear to be in denial about the extent of these structural problems. Sooner or later, they will have to be rectified. Expansionary macro-economic policies help, but only in the way that pain-killers help a struggling athlete; by temporarily deadening the pain. Larry Elliot- The Guardian, March 10, 2003
What could long term remedies be, beyond the "stimulus", now planned which will probably have the same effect that Larry Elliot describes above, the "pain-killers that momentarily deaden an athlete's pain."? David Walker, until just the other day and for ten years, America's chief accountant and another analyst who has been warning that the sky was falling for a long time, has this to say:
The US is at a critical crossroads. Our future will depend on actions taken within the next few years. We must turn the economy round and address the long-standing challenges associated with our entitlement programmes, spending policies, regulatory approaches and tax systems.(...) The president and Congress must put a process in place that will enable elected officials to reimpose tough statutory budget controls and reform our nation's Social Security, Medicare, healthcare and tax systems. All these require significant reforms that Washington has delayed for too long. David Walker - Financial Times (the writer was head of the US Government Accountability Office from 1998 to 2008)
We must "address the long-standing challenges associated with our entitlement programs" and "reform our nation's Social Security, Medicare and health care". When a bookkeeper talks about "reform" he usually means "cutting costs". How does cutting costs in pensions, and health care effect a population that is already "economically insecure, badly educated (and) badly treated".

Did you hear anybody talking about cutting defense spending?

Neither did I.

That millions of their fellow citizens are suffering inadequate health care and poor education seems to leave many Americans completely unfazed.

In Joshua Landis's
blog today, I read a quote from Britain's great World War One poet, Wilfred Owen titled "Insensibility".
Wretched are they, and mean
With paucity that never was simplicity.
By choice they made themselves immune
To pity and whatever mourns in man
Before the last sea and the hapless stars
Because, finally, America, like every other country in the world is about people, isn't it?.. Because this, life itself, is all about people isn't it? ... Or isn't it?
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/


31 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

It's spelled "Dmitry" on his book.

user-pic

Has David yet recognized that you've been giving us chapter & verse on Orlov for months now, Donal?

For which, thanks by the way. Whether I agree with him or not, it IS an interesting comparison.

user-pic

You are sounding depressed again David. I recommended this though because of Landis' poem.

user-pic

You know, you make it sound like we're the chorus line from "Les Miserable", only low budget. We have some extremely well-educated people in the United States, as well as some dumb lumps.

There's a hell of a lot that can be done in this country and we're about to start doing it. If you don't have any gumption but to stand around and wail, stand out of the way.

user-pic

Brant, David is a little on the low side right now.
Let's let him rest up and he will face a new, rosier Dawn.

user-pic

And if you think most americans aren't in favor of universal health care, think again.

user-pic

David is quite secure in his belief that we are all callous, brutish cretins with no self-awareness and no regard for our fellow citizens. On good days, he pities us.

user-pic

Then why have they been voting against "socialized medicine" for the last twenty five years?

Sorry, folks. David's right that Americans have been squandering what is (was?) best about this country for my entire adult life on dreams of unimaginable wealth without risk or hard work, and perpetual, unchallengeable military superiority.

There's not been much to be proud of in our country since the Civil Rights movement.

user-pic

errrr......Life is short nasty and brutish.

user-pic

Ever wonder what it is all about?

user-pic

Mage, terrific memory.

user-pic

Bravo!

Your point that no one even mentions cutting the obscene "defense" budget is right on! We spend over $650 Billion annually on essentially war preparations. That's more than all the other countries on earth combined! Combined! All of them! That's the definition of obscene and doesn't even include the two wars we are fighting or nuclear weapons expenditures. We are insane to discuss anything else if we don't start out our national planning with the assumption of massive and permanent cuts in "defense". That means we have to decide once and for all to shut down the very unAmerican empire we have been maintaining. It's a decision long overdue.

user-pic

And the person David was more comfortable with during the campaign was John McCain, as more serious than the empty suit, Obama. But it's hard to see McCain achieving much in the way of defense cuts. so I brush off this mention of it as convenient to being able to show America as 1) dumb, 2) in the process of failing, and 3) deserving to fail.

With economic depression looming, no one is going to spend much time arguing over cuts, you may have noticed. It's about spending right now. The majority of the defense budget is payroll, so you really mean reducing personnel. Good luck with that.

Having failed to save us from the heartbreak of Obama not being the Messiah, David hopes to make us just generally depressed, by recycling dire warnings from others.

user-pic

Whose empire do you reckon will fill that void? The flower children empire?

user-pic

Perhaps it's time for the age of imperialism to end? That was our position at the end of WWII and we lost our way.

user-pic

Defense expenditures are amongst the least productive that can be made and though there are many on the Pentagon payroll, there's no way that payroll is their biggest expense. the biggest rat hole on earth is the R & D budget for the Pentagon then you can add on top of that all the completely unnecessary weaponry. We can cut the Pentagon's annual outlay by 50% and not lay off one uniformed person.

user-pic

From the 2006 proposed budget---
"Highlights of the spending include $108.94 billion for military personnel, including funding for a 3.1 percent pay raise and additional recruiting and retention bonuses for troops. That funding would include $4.1 billion for Special Operations forces -- boosting their numbers by 1,400 and increasing spending for language training -- underscoring the request's assessment that the forces have "contributed significantly" to the war on terror. The budget also allocates $416 million to start the repatriation of 70,000 military personnel from overseas bases,.

In terms of weapons systems, procurement funding declined about 2 percent to $78 billion. Funding was stepped up for some systems considered important to the military's goal of modernizing: The Army's Future Combat System receives $3.4 billion, an increase of $200 million; and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship gained an increase of $156 million to $613 million.

But the budget would cut funding for such weapons systems as the F/A-22 fighters, DD(X) destroyers, LPD amphibious ships, Virginia-class attack submarines and V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft."

So it is true that military personnel, accounts for about 1/4 the total, but I don't know if that excludes non-uniformed Defense employees. R&D is less than the amount for "military personnel".

My main point is that David is complaining about defense when Obama is more likely to contain military spending than the GOP would have. And you ignore the other point, that stimulus is the operating principle right now. I'm way in favor of Chalmers Johnson's views, and would love to see us back away from empire. But it's pretty silly to pile onto Obama when you consider the alternatives, whether McCain or Clinton.

user-pic

We could always sell the Chinese a couple of Carrier Battle Groups... I don't think Saudi Arabia could use them.

user-pic

Given Obamba's affirmative action legal degree and William Ayers' advice, I figure the greater part of our navy will wind up in the hands of the Somali pirates.

user-pic

Better hide that white bedsheet and hood.

user-pic

two words: hokey pokey

user-pic
But it's pretty silly to pile onto Obama when you consider the alternatives, whether McCain or Clinton.
Whoever is president, that's the one to pile on.
user-pic

So it's not just a certain president you hate, just the United States as a whole? Suddenly things seem much more clear.

user-pic

I don't consider that the president of the USA is the United States. I consider that he is the person in charge of implementing what the system demands and is the symbol of that system... I'll freely admit that I have issues with the system...

user-pic

I think it is obvious from my post(s) that I am concerned with the welfare of the American people, but I don't think the system is.

user-pic

Actually, the only thing obvious from your posts is that you have little more than contempt for the American people.

user-pic

The American people deserve contempt. The only reason we pulled back from Bushism is that it's failures could no longer be ignored, even by the average American.

user-pic

Hear, hear!

user-pic

These are not exactly revolutionary ideas, Mr. Seaton. I am not sure why you are so enthused over this fellow?

I stopped reading when it became apparent his grasp of genetics was somewhat weak.

user-pic

What part of the genetics? I think it's true that most great minds had average grandparents and grandchildren. We haven't heard much from the Mozarts or the Einsteins lately, have we? Things tend to return to the mean. That is why taking good care of average people is so important.

user-pic

You know, David, I really try to like you.

You have a soul, it's obvious. You have a heart, you show us the picture of it right here in this post.

You are an ex-Pat, living in Spain, you've made that clear to us.

You sometimes write beautiful posts that I recommend wholeheartedly. You sometimes write posts I disagree with but rec anyway because they are so well-written and displayed and researched.

I try to like you, but I sometimes feel you don't do me the same favor, nor my fellow Americans. And that distresses me. Because I too would love to live in Spain but I can't. I too would love to sit there and discuss what's wrong with America, but I can't because I'm in it and I'm busy working and making a living a here and paying rent here and hoping to make ends meet until I die here.

What the hell are you doing in return?

I love you, David, and I think you are an awesome writer with a really artistic bent that I adore, but...WTF?

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address