This is just starting..
The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade-long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth. E.J. Dionne Jr. - Washington PostPresident Obama proposes to raise the taxes of America's richest citizens, whose tax bill has been getting smaller and smaller for the last thirty years. This disagreeable prospect finds the political defenders of this wealthy minority, the Republican party, in a state of ideological collapse, with the prestige of the market economy and Reaganomics in tatters.
This budget says the Republicans had Mr Obama right all along. The draft contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal's dream of a new New Deal. Clive Crook - Financial Times
Now, in trying to forecast how this situation will play out I base a lot of my analysis on a assumption that many may find quite controversial or even unfair. This assumption, briefly stated, is as follows: that the possessors of huge amounts of money are, with many honorable exceptions, greedier and more ruthless in the acquisition and defense of their wealth than the average person is of his modest possessions and that they also have at their disposal many more tools to express these traits than the average person does.
As I say, many may find this characterization of the rich unfair, however if you take this assumption of mine as a given, it is safe to say that the wealthiest Americans are not going to take the prospect of paying more taxes lying down. They will fight hard and fight to win.
How will they fight?
Before continuing, I would like to make a short aside to remember something an old Spanish communist told me way back in the 1970s. He said, "David, if the right ever called for a mass demonstration behind the slogan, 'Workers arise, defend the property of the wealthy!', nobody would come, maybe ten people might show up. So the wealthy have to call up mass movements to defend their interests behind the screen of, 'God and country' or even racial hatred".
How is that for teaching the ABCs?
For some thirty years, the American political conversation has been dominated by a strain of ideological conservatism that wields market fundamentalism as a sword and cultural populism as a shield. Hendrik Hertzberg - New YorkerIt is difficult to overstate the significance of this breakdown of faith in the market economy, because we are talking about transcendence. To have the economy collapse the way it is doing does not just mean material hardship, it is a "dark night of the soul" for many Americans.
It might sound like a crude joke, but for many Americans the line where capitalism ends and where Jesus begins has been steadily blurred and wrapped in the flag since the beginning of the "Cold War" and the "red scare" of the late 40s and early 50s. If you choose to consider that an accident or a coincidence, well it's a free country, isn't it?
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall this transformation of money making into a universal faith open to all, where everybody wins, has become worldwide. This can take paradoxical forms:
A couple of years ago, John Berger made a salient point apropos of a French publicity poster of the internet investment brokers' company Selftrade: under the image of a hammer and sickle cast in solid gold and embedded with diamonds, the caption reads "And if the stock market profited everybody?" The strategy of this poster is obvious: today, the stock market fulfils the egalitarian Communist criteria, everybody can participate in it. Slavoj Žižek - "The Undead Lenin"For a long time not only have the wealthy had their money practically untouched, they have been admired and encouraged to flaunt it. That era has crashed and is burning.
I wrote this in June 2007:
Millions of middle-middle class people who have been living in a dream world, thinking that were somehow part of the same universe as Bill Gates, are going to have to make drastic decisions about allocating their resources if they are not to lose their homes. They are going to re-discover why there was ever a universal demand for good, free public schools and universities or (in the countries lucky enough to have gotten that far) first class, free public health care in the first place. They will rediscover the nearness of the abyss of destitution and humiliation that terrified their parents and grandparents who lived through the Great Depression. As much as an economic and political readjustment, it will be a cultural change, for never before in history have so many "normal" people identified with the wealthy and considered them harmless or even benevolent.The "sword of market fundamentalism" is broken:
President Barack Obama enjoys widespread backing from a frightened American public for his ambitious, front-loaded agenda, a new poll indicates. He is more popular than ever, Americans are hopeful about his leadership, and opposition Republicans are getting drubbed in public opinion, the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests. Wall Street JournalThat leaves the "shield of cultural populism" as untrammeled wealth's last line of political defense: Jesus, fear and the flag. The shield can be couched in calm, reasonable language:
Even though Obama's audacious agenda might provide short-term relief to the economic and social challenges that now beset us, over the long term the Obama revolution is likely to erode first the religious and then the civic and moral fabric of the nation. Undoubtedly, this is not the change religious believers who put their faith in Obama last November are hoping for from this president. But if the European experiment with the welfare state tells us anything, it tells us that this is the change we can expect from a successful Obama revolution.Or it can be the red meat on display at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference :
In an address at CPAC, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee compared Obama and the Democrats' agenda to that of the former Soviet Union. "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff," Huckabee said. Market Watch - Wall Street JournalThe rage is close to the surface:
"What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail, if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?" (Rush) Limbaugh said at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Boston GlobeProbably the only card left to play with the economy in meltdown is the fear card and it certainly wasn't expressed subtly at CPAC conference:
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton believes the security of the United States is at dire risk under the Obama administration. And before a gathering of conservatives in Washington on Thursday morning, he suggested, as something of a joke, that President Barack Obama might learn a needed lesson if Chicago were destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Mother JonesThat is crazy talk, but that gives us a clear idea of the present fantasies of the neocons and we have certainly learned though painful experience that they are not people who are readily satisfied with just fantasies: they tend to act out.
By now, after eight years of Bush, I take these people seriously. There are at this moment a group of very well funded, well organized people who would rejoice if the United State suffered a huge terrorist attack or was dragged into a major war.
Armageddon is probably the last, best chance that the "Conservative Revolution" has of surviving and the only chance the super rich of America have of not ending up paying, what for them would seem, Scandinavian scale taxes.
They have plenty of potential disasters to choose from, for today's world is a "target rich" environment.
Finally the success of president Obama's "revolution" may well depend on the goodwill of the Communist Party of China and their endless purchasing of US debt, the cooperation of Vladimir Putin in Afghanistan and beyond, the passivity of the Ayatollahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the good faith of the Israeli Likud, which itself depends on the support of neofascist, Avigdor Lieberman... and of course, last of all, but not least of all, the acquiescence and quiescence of Al Qaeda.
Have I left anybody out?
The major challenge of progressives in the months and years to come will be to keep America out of war.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Advertisement
I didn't find your portrayal of the wealthy unfair at all David. I do think you may be tending toward hyperbole however, when you state "Armageddon is probably the last, best chance that the "Conservative Revolution" has of surviving and the only chance the super rich of America have of not ending up paying, what for them would seem, Scandinavian scale taxes" and the implication or assertion that that would be a primary strategy they would actively pursue. Otherwise, you make valid points here. Rec'd
March 4, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that Alec Guinness in drag - the one on the left?
March 4, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking Roman Polanski, But I see your point: Alec Guinness in Kind Hearts and Coronets. Maybe they're all Alec Guinness.
March 4, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"These are not the obscene riches you are looking for."
March 5, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a done deal, Obama is successful simply by having been elected, in that it repudiated everything GOP. Do you think his team is less talented than the Bush WH team was at spinning? It would require all the above to happen at once, to seriously threaten the huge approval ratings he has. Note the chomp-fest of self-mutilating Republicans being eaten by the Rushivores.
The comparisons to 1929 are becoming less fantastic and more ho-hum, in that what was man-bites-dog is now the reverse. There is little argument that a Depression is possible, only whether it can be averted, or just how likely the dreaded D is.
But the populist thing is newly added to the financial meltdown, making the fear of communism real, among the money folks. It's often been pointed out that FDR had some help from that fear, as in a bit of socialism might keep the Soviet Russian wolf from the door.
FT is wrong about no compromise, of course, there were major nods, in tax cuts, (not only increases), in leaving some topics for later. And there was enough visible attempt on Obama's part, like drinks at the White House, for the public to be on Obama's side, thinking he gave it a try and the GOP couldn't soften.
Since it has already happened, my bet is on a major recession, but the Depression lesson will soften the landing. There will be transformation, at least modest, in the political landscape. Conservative politics will take a long time to recover. The techniques that money could have used a couple of decades ago (Reagan) won't suffice now, with new information and money tools available to hoi polloi.
Bye-bye, greed, bye-bye, fundamentalist neocons, good-bye to every dreamy hope of the right wing, that actually got tried and was found to be a dismal failure.
March 4, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can haz pitchfork?
March 4, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes You Can! LOL!
March 4, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFLMAO! Yez U Can haz a pitchfourks!
March 5, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like your communist friend. hahahaha
March 4, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice take-down of the tactics that will surely be brought to derail or defame Obama’s agenda, likely to little effect. But, personally, I don’t see his agenda as any kind of revolt against the elite or that much of a threat to them (i.e. another AIG bailout this week, continuation of our empire escapades, no look into “unitary executive” abuses). The looting is just being put on hold.
Most of the reforms are middling proposals that will save money and spur growth down the road to the benefit of big business. $65 billion a year to universalize health care (taking it off the backs of employers) is just a few DoD projects. I just think the opposition will try to weaken what he does and portray it as radical because they’re looking down the road at reinstalling their Compassionate Conservatives.
Aside: Limbaugh decrying the destruction of our capitalist system and indivual freedoms is rich.
March 4, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are completely underestimating the ability of Obama's public opinion lead to evaporate under the pressure of any kind of sustained economic downturn. People can TALK about a Depression, and SAY they can handle years of unemployment, poorer housing etc.
But no way in hell, in our culture, with the extraordinarily short timeframes we've come to live by, that we can sustain this. All this stuff about how 60% to 70% of people back him, and his proposals... and the GOP is shattered and headed for oblivion in 2010 or 2012, strikes me as the purest insanity. Obama was inaugurated 1.5 months ago. We're falling into the worst economic hole in living memory. I'd put money that by May/June, if people are still shitting their financial pants, we'll see some ugly eruptions, and the loss of a significant chunk of that support.
March 4, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think the republicans will have come to a reality check by then? Because the only thing they can offer is I told you we wanted him to fail and no we will not take money to pay unemployment for our unemployed people and I'm so sorry mr. Limbaugh. They better get it together PDQ.
March 4, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "reality check" the Republicans will get - and already ARE getting - is that their old economic stances are gaining them no traction. Now assume their heavies are essentially morality-free, and resentment-filled. What they will do - and have no qualms about - is search for further resentments, and then say anything, do anything, to whip them up. They will use any internal divisions, any resentments, any foreign leader, ANYTHING they can get their hands on to whip people into a frenzy.
So I'd PREFER it if they just kept thumping their old, cold, tired and beaten economic ideas. I'd like them to bleat on about tax cuts 24/7. Because it's not a winner. What COULD at some point be a winner is a nastier, more social-cultural approach. I say let's fill the talk shows with tax cut talk 24/7.
March 5, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and weren't alive during the Depression, but my mother was, and she's still working. I argued that there is enough memory of that economic hole to soften this one some. We have new risks, but also new saving moves. We also have lots of company, in all those other countries, who seem to be looking for ways to mitigate the bad. China is looking at normalizing with Taiwan (cold war is expensive), they have their own stimulus plans, Kyrgystan might want that base after all.
Obama will not be so popular a year from now. But it doesn't seem likely the GOP will pick up the strays. They've lost the hope-to-be-rich sector, and can only hold onto the social conservatives, along with the already-rich. And as long as those folks can't buy votes (no guarantees there, of course) they are seriously outnumbered.
March 4, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tom. I guess I think the economy is a lot worse than many. There are many, for instance, who think Krugman's statements outline the outer limits of what might be wrong - i.e. that our stimulus is x% too small. I think Krugman is pretty much in the political mainstream, and that the mainstream is massively in denial.
e.g. In the 30's, the US was a creditor nation. In the 30's, there were not 1-2 billion new workers entering the world's labor force. In the 30's, tens of millions still had access to that non-state safety net - extended families, land in the family, subsistence possibilities. In the 30's, finance crashed - but finance now is wired into every life, homes and school and working capital for business. This economic crash is somewhat like the 30's, but I believe it is also something new, something we don't even have a name for.
I also think we have proven that we have almost no historic memory. Some can remember the Depression, yes - but in the 30's, many could remember the previous massive crashes, as well as remember WW I. Some today remember the Depression, but so few that our savings rate fell below 0%. Our political memory is now (present company excluded) short-term only, and quickly erased.
As for the GOP, their present floundering to find a leader and present absence of clear-cut stances worry me as much as anything. They are a vacuum. A vacuum fed by hunger for power at one end... and about to be fed by a society throwing off large numbers of the discontented. And into that party political vacuum, looking at all those discontented voters, inevitably will come... the populists and the demagogues. Their new voices will be positioned so they can proclaim themselves as a "bold new voice of change," NOT bound by old Republican ideology. As long as they promise behind the scenes to protect enough money, and publicly fan resentment and whoop up the masses, no one in the GOP machinery will raise a finger. A better Palin will appear.
In normal times, the GOP would go into a 10 year cycle of futile posturing, cannibalism, rebuilding. These are not normal times.
And so if and when people become disgruntled with Obama's solutions - which even he knows will see things being worse two years from now (and almost certainly, worse than his official figures) - the disgruntled will only have one place to go. Into the vacuum.
Demagogues, resentment, the absence of clear solutions, 101 competing explanations for the problems. That's the scenario I fear. I WANT Obama to succeed. He and some of his people are as skilled as I could hope for. But this is the equivalent of early 1930, not early 1933. FDR himself would have had a much worse time in 1930. I think we have some rough years coming.
March 5, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet Jesus I need to stop following you Quinn. sometimes it just chills the blood. I share many of your fears, and can envision many frightening perfect storm scenarios (Palin the sequel). But in times like these, when everything is in chaos, you can not trust the predictive power of past examples. Chance rules the roost, and that is must frustrating of all.
Heres to hoping our way through the vacuum.
March 5, 2009 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn,
I think you are hitting on important things, especially the time frame.
The whole point of my post is that the Republicans are not going to be able to put up much of a resistance on the economic issues themselves. They will attack
As the national mood sours the Republicans and the wingnuts will wrap themselves in the flag and blandish the cross (hat to Sinclair Lewis). There will be a search for people to blame (not the rich), the weight of this ire may fall on immigrants, dark-complected unwed mothers, or even, but not likely, on the Jews (ancestral western tradition).
Most probably some hapless dictator in some failed state half way around the world (or south of the Rio Bravo) will be elected the new "Hitler" and the US armed forces will be off to kick some brown ass, again.
We may be living the last nearly rational moment we will see for many years.
March 5, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn and David, I think you've left out some mitigating factors to these doomsday scenarios! My effort at finding them follows:
First, there is a difference between the demise of the free market system and the demise of the financial market model within the market system. The financial markets were where most of the deregulation took place, and the obvious point where it will start again. And somehow, Americans have figured this out, I think. According to 6 in 10 Americans that were surveyed between Nov. 7-9 believe that ""passing new, stricter regulations on financial institutions" is critical or very important for Obama to do as president...", even more than the rescue.
I think David is correct about the reaction of some of the very rich to higher taxes. But others, or at least the smarter ones, take what I call the Bill Clinton view of the situation. Which is better: Make a lot of money in a good economy and even if taxes are higher, you are still better off after paying them, or, make a lot of money and pay less taxes, but due to economic conditions, not making as much as you could in better times. (Not all high earners worked on Wall Street, you know.) My dad is a rich, white (former R, voted for O) guy that goes with the first view. So do his friends. So do others that I've read about in F.T, Economist, Forbes, etc, but can't link to, cause I'm out of them.
Republicans right now are not only in minority status, but are more like a regional party in minority status. While Obama does have a tight time margin, I think it's more than what has been offered here. Sure, the right-wing populist bs will start, as it already has. But right wing regional parties in the minority still do not have the clout, or the power to push clout, that the for now popular Democrats have, with the all important independents leaning their way.
Finally, we are not the only country cursed with stupid leaders and/or enormous problems. Europe has already positioned itself as the mediator between China and the US. But China has some enormous economic problems within, too and the loss of the US as their favorite country to export to is hurting them. China, Russia, Iran and India have mostly put aside thoughts of engaging the US in war and have spent the last 8 years fruitfully occupied in economic opportunities while Americans killed themselves and others in the mid-East. The rise of the Shanghai Cooporation Organization (SCO) is a good example of what that crowd has been up to.
In short, ha!, I give Doomsday far less chances to fall than you two, but have not completely written it off, either. The end.
Also.
March 5, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell,
Here is something to warm your optimistic heart:
March 5, 2009 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A related example David. Some people cling to the "multipliers" which various studies (like Moody's) place on infrastructure, tax cuts, extending unemployment benefits and such - and saying, "See? Our way forward makes so much more sense than the GOP's."
Which it DOES.
What isn't widely understood is just how variable those multipliers are. They're not written in stone. All they really say is that if I give a road construction worker $1 today, I expect they'll spend it on XY & Z. The problem is... if you gave them $1 today, they would NOT spend it the way they would have 1 year ago, or during the last recession. There's a real probability that they'll at least attempt to SAVE more. This rising savings rate is already showing up in the formal data, for the reasons your article provides.
But if that worker SAVES more of that dollar, the multiplier goes DOWN.
So what we could easily see is not just that the original stimulus was too small, but that the stimulus provided by the recent Bill has LESS impact. There are dozens of these variables in play right now, but I think it important that people look at the ones which don;t just say, "Hey! This'll all work out!" But equally to look at the ones which say, "We need to think about new approaches, more action, etc."
March 5, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
seashell,
It's heartening to hear that not all rich Americans are blinded by greed. Those that are need to remember the parable of "the goose that laid the golden eggs". The greedy are like the farmer in the parable and our economy like the goose.
The farmer didn't want to wait for the one golden egg the goose laid each day, he wanted ALL of the golden eggs now. So, he cut open the goose looking for the eggs only to find none. The goose was now dead and there could be no more golden eggs.
March 5, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're wrong about that, David.
March 5, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much is the new tax plan going to cost you? You personally. It's easy to talk about soaking the rich when it's not costing you a dime -- it's easy to righteously demand others make sacrifices while you get a benefit. So, how much is it going to cost you -- what sacrifices are you going to be forced to make?
If the answer is none, then remember that as you vilify those who are going to be asked to pay more of their incomes. Maybe that's fair -- I remember a scene on the West Wing where Sam made the the point that a graduated tax plan is the only one that makes sense, but it doesn't mean you should be indignant to those who are paying. i agree with that, and think it's not fair to demonize them for trying to hold onto that they have.
March 4, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
msa3,
It is hard to dispute your post, because it seems based on the idea that we are all just "one big happy family" and that the super-rich are just like us, only they have more money, and who knows maybe we'll be super-rich too someday and how would you like it if somebody came along and took your money?
The reality, in my opinion, is that there are a huge mass of people who are going to suffer or are suffering already and a very small group of people who have a lot of money and are not going to suffer.
My view of the crisis depends on what group I belong to.
March 5, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I see your point. Take from them, but not from me. There are fewer rich people -- and the threshhold that has been defined (250K for a couple) isn't that rich. It's two-week vacation to Europe rich, not private jet rich. But anyway, they should pay a higher percentage of their income -- money they worked for, schooled for, money that goes back into the economy -- because there are fewer of them anbd their guy lost the election.
March 5, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"money they worked for, schooled for, money that goes back into the economy"
Assertions not in evidence. This is the same bullshit that the Republicans are peddling when they claim that most of those who will be "penalized" by the tax reversion are small business owners.
Most people making over $250M are professionals tied in some fashion to paper trading of assets (e.g., merger and acquisition lawyers, financial analysts/planners). These people have benefitted for at least thirty years from the paper inflation of the asset base in this country, and by the diminishment of the amount of and the value of "blue-collar" work (i.e., cheaper goods from China and Central/South America).
Since much of their "hard work" consists of being on the right side of the intended results of government policy, I think it's only fair that they pay when the inherent contradictions of those policies cause an economic collapse that requires massive goverment intervention.
March 5, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
$250K seems pretty damn rich to families making around the median income (about $25,000).
And seriously, "2 weeks in Europe rich"??? You're lost.
March 5, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not tax the rich?
OK, we've got to find the money somewhere, what is nation supposed to do, hold up filling stations?
March 5, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How much is the new tax plan going to cost you? You personally. It's easy to talk about soaking the rich when it's not costing you a dime -"
How can you possibly ask that? How could you or I possibly say what the distribution of the future tax burden will be?
If you know anything about economics, then you know the reason taxes on the wealthy SHOULD be raised is so those funds may be injected into the economy as consumption, which is what the whole problem is. Lack of consumption.
The reason the wealthy should provide those tax revenues is simply because they are the only ones with any excess consumption power. It's not simply a question of whether they do, or don't deserve their taxes increased, any more than it's a question of whether the middle-class does, or doesn't deserve to have their taxes reduced. It's not a moral question. It's the correct mechanical economic decision.
It's simply that the middle class ran out of consumption power when the equity in their homes which was financing their consumption evaporated with the collapse of the housing bubble.
Finally, it's not even a matter of transferring wealth from the rich to the middle-class. The object is to inject demand for consumption into the economy so that productive capacity has a reason to grow again. Then, the middle-class can get back to work, and the rich can get back to getting richer.
March 5, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, a well presented post. Rec'd
March 5, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are all screaming socialist, or communist at Obama. Yet, the 20% capital gains tax Obama is proposing (the same as under Clinton) is still much less than the 28% rate I believe it was under conservative hero Reagan. How about that!
March 5, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fear too much in this post is true. The religion entwining God, Capitalism, and the false belief that anything SLIGHTLY progressive in tax structure is Socialism (no distinction in the thought process from Godless Communism etc.)... is very strong.
When you add it to nativism, racism, fear of the breakdown of 'traditional values', and the complete lack of understanding of basic (much less the minimum needed to understand what's going on) economics - it is too easy for a party (Republican) that regularly relies on demagoguery and irrational fears to see their way forward as a scorched earth policy.
Hell, how many people even understand what a MARGINAL progressive tax is?
If there was any significant amount of sincere conversation about economic choices and values across conservative, reactionary, and progressive Americans - I think a lot more progressives/liberals would be SCARED at how small a minority they really are (oh - and would stop bitching about the Blue Dogs).
March 5, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP has self-distilled to an insane core of zealots. It is a consuming cancer. As the GOP becomes increasingly zealous it also becomes smaller and less relevant. That process may be impossible for them to reverse, as evidenced by the parade of GOP leaders willing to publicly humiliate themselves before a radio talk show host.
What I make of the hyped up sights and sounds coming from Republicans is that they are signs of the party building, atomic bomb like, to a critical-mass. But I foresee an massive implosion rather than an explosion (fingers crossed).
I don't see any way for the nation to breakthrough to the other side of progress without having march through the forces that would naturally oppose any such progress.
What was it Gandhi said change looks like? (Paraphrasing) "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, and then you win".
March 5, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's all talk down the future and the economy.
It's soooo helpful. (not)
It worked wonders in 2000, when W did it.
March 5, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you have no relation to that chicken that was running around with open mouth, talking down the atmosphere's stability?
March 5, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, personally am optimistic, because my blood is optimistic, however, I am one thing and the economy is another. The economy is fubar and along with it we are moving into a new era. The most important thing we can do is to avoid war.
March 5, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
DS,
I actually don't think the economy is FUBAR, I think it is actually SNAFU and everyone finally figured it out. "Ignorance is Bliss"??
I have that optimistic gene in my blood also, and I think the most important thing we can do now is "avoid war" AND provide "SPUHC" (Single Payer Universal Health CARE) NOT INSURANCE... CARE. Paid for with a tax increase for ALL; a few dollars for some to a few thousand for others.
In ENGLAND, the cashier windows in hospitals are there to reimburse you in case you had to call for an ambulance. Really, If all these other countries can figure out UNIVERSAL health care, WITHOUT the INSURANCE Companies then surely we can.
Imagine the money freed up for both individuals and businesses and the stimulus that would bring.
March 5, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH...Rec'D
March 5, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, I like the quote from your Communist Spaniard. :-)
This is a very even-handed, cold-eyed look at the next few years. A very good read.
What I would say, though, is that today's unblinking news coverage makes it significantly more difficult for that small, well-funded winger cabal to upset the apple cart undetected. The best thing the left can do is continue to hawk those who would sabotage Obama's plans.
Rec'd.
March 5, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good job David! You laid this all out very nicely.
I especially like what the old communist told ya. Of course it is true too and we have seen how true for many years now. I once ran into a fellow with a Mao cap in New Hampshire of all places back in 1980 or 81. I couldn't resist asking him what an old communist was doing up in NH which was then a one party, very conservative, Republican state. He just looked at me and said "Bore from within son, bore from within!" Then he turned around and went about his business. I still chuckle when i think about it.
As for keeping out of war I think we've got a problem David as we're already in two of em and our President doesn't seem likely to end either of them. His decision to escalate the one by partially withdrawing from the other is a bad one of course that will only speed up our national bankruptcy and do nothing to enhance the security of the United States or the poor nations we have decided to level for their own good. I don't know if we have the option of a thrid war. I doubt it, but these two will be enough to finish off the America we all knew and loved if we don't get out soon.
I pray everday that Obama and the Democrats will decide since they are being blamed for being socialists anyway, to simply openly proclaim that we do need some socialist approaches in this country the same as all our allies have.
March 5, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
China is a likelier place for you to watch for the reactions you predict than the U.S. is.
I just read the following after seeing your post, and it made me think of it. In the U.S., there is still a big middle class and even before Obama, a much more progressive tax system than China has:
from
The Color of China
by Minxin Pei and Jonathan Anderson
The National Interest
03.03.2009
China also has a lot of young men without spouses. And if you don't keep them busy somehow....well, there is a traditional job for young unattached men, the military.
What I especially found interesting in that article is the suggestion that the wealth is concentrated in urban areas and they do not have much of a "suburban" middle class yet. That exacerbates a universal resentment that one finds in a modern, overpopulated world, the "country mouse v. city mouse" thing, where the "elites" in the cities have the money and power. The irony is that a strong central government, of any kind, is prone to all of this....
March 5, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Besides the population of unattached young men, this also comes to mind: which has more chance of causing problems along the lines of which you speak: the current U.S.A., or a place where wealthy elites and a dysfunctional policing system have supported things like a thriving black market in children?
March 5, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic suggestion: It surprises me that a writer as careful as you are about giving credit for written citations continually posts photos you take off the internet without giving them captions. If you are ever challenged on the photos you use, you don't have much argument that it is "fair use" if you don't even credit the photographer with a caption. It happened to come to my mind with your choice this time, because I know that this photographer stamped his photos "Credit Weegee the Famous."
March 5, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee Art,
The picture is such a classic, I thought everybody knew it was by Weegee. Would you put up the Mona Lisa with "Credit Leonardo Da Vinci"?
March 5, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Summing up before this rolls off into TPM heaven.
The most important thing that will come out of this meltdown will be the loss of faith in the economic system. The whole bubble was built around a false egalitarianism: "everybody can own their own home" or own a bigger one, "everybody can own shares", "everybody can travel, "everybody can go to college", "If only they were smarter or worked harder, they would be rich too" etc, etc.
Such a spiritual crisis on top of the material hardship will be hard to bear. How will that play out? This loss of faith is the real wild card, the joker in the deck of American culture for decades to come... it leaves an enormous empty space. For Americans are not by nature skeptics.
In Spain for example everybody is quite willing to enjoy the fruits of capitalism, but nobody believes in it. They sleep with it, but they don't love it.
If you like Spanish quotes, here is a good one.
In the 1920s an American Protestant missionary was trying to bring a Spanish anarchist to Jesus. After politely listening to the preacher's spiel the Anarchist turned to him and said, "Mister, if I don't believe in the Holy, Roman and Apostolic Catholic church, which is the only true church, outside of which there is no salvation, how do you expect me to believe in yours?"
March 5, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink