« Healthcare Reform - What's Next? | miguelitoh2o's Blog | The Republicans and Blue Dogs are Right: Your Healthcare Insurance Policy IS Going to Change. »
You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows.
"Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization. Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation." Eugene Debs
I've been thinking about the lack of anger at what's transpired in the US and the world regarding the banking crisis. A crisis in which America's and the world's middle class lost trillions of dollars from their retirement portfolios and pension funds to unregulated gambling by the kingpins of the financial world. To add insult to injury, one firm that profited by selling the market short as it began its descent received massive amounts of cash from those taxpayers who had lost fortunes in the collapse as did another firm that invented the investment vehicles that led to the downfall. Perhaps worst of all, the same rubes who lost all that net worth were asked to bail out those firms that precipitated the crisis in the first place. All the while, the legislature wasn't legislating protections, the regulators weren't regulating, the auditors weren't auditing, and the rating agencies were feathering their own nests while fouling ours. We should all be pissed. But I'm not seeing much anger, just quiet resolution, shoulder to the wheel, nose to the grindstone, as the lathe of heaven sculpts the future of our parents, ourselves, and our children.
Trying to make sense of the general absence of outrage from those of the middle class who lost so much in this crisis, I reflect on the banking and social crises of the early 20th century and the dynamics in play at the time. More anger was directed toward the firms guilty of the financial gaming then and it manifested in strong regulatory reforms in the banking industry. Of course the sense of outrage had been building for some time. The antitrust movement in the latter part of the 1800s and early 1900s, plus corporate/government scandals had primed Americans to be keenly aware of the profound disadvantage ordinary Americans suffered when pitted against the wealth and organization of the capitalists. While the trustbusters of the earlier generation had curtailed overt collusion between principles in any given industry there remained a more insidious, and amorphous type of collusive thought among industrialists. At the time the labor movements in America and around the world attempted to organize workers in order to combat corporate greed and attain better pay, working conditions, and workers rights. Leaders such as Eugene Debs appeared in the US and began to inspire workers to claim their rightful share of the economic pie. The overthrow of the Tsar in Russia, giving birth to a large Communist nation, dedicated to anti-capitalistic ideals must have struck fear into the hearts of capitalists here and around the globe.
The manufacturers were cautious of pushing their agenda so far that workers in the US might actually rise up against them, and remove them from their position at the heart of the economic engine of the world. It was an era that the moneyed class will not soon forget. They quickly set out to discredit communism in particular and socialism in general, and did a fair job of it. Today we hear charges of socialism leveled at policy suggestions as if such concepts were born of Hades with little or no regard for the underlying humanistic principles on which those socialist ideas rest. Back in the early part of the 20th century the leaders of industry were truly afraid of how far the workers of America would go to achieve their goals. These industrialists show every sign of having completely recovered their composure in the interim. They no longer fear the mob which has quietly been lulled to sleep with a specilly prepared version of Grimm's Corporate Fairy Tales.
"I don't want you to follow me or anyone else. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, somebody else would lead you out." Eugene Debs
In retrospect, I think the Captains of Industry learned an unforgettable lesson from their brush with mortality, and what that was, and how they implement those ideas accounts for much of America's torpor when we ask 'Where is the outrage?'. The first part of this process was the co-opting of those who should rightfully feel outrage. At the tail end of the depression of the 30s, the US entered the war against the Axis powers, which united Americans for the most part, in a righteous and just cause. Anger toward corporate greed was diverted to a more easily quantifiable enemy whose combat brought America's engines of production roaring back to life in the production of war materiel. Following the worldwide conflict the US economy boomed as it became the supplier of manufactured goods and food to a world still recovering from the wars' ravages. To coin a phrase, we were rolling in it, (dough), and for once there was enough to satisfy the desires of the captains of industry as well as labor. The strength of unions continued to grow, at least for a while, and that was a worry for those holding the economic reins of the American economy. The civil rights movement added to the earlier successes of organized labor in spreading wealth from the capitalists to the workers by demanding equal treatment, voting rights, and pay for America's minorities. So sometime in the 1960s, a meme began to circulate. The message was that the American middle class is a partner in the corporate successes of Industry. Over time we came to believe, without much scrutiny, that our personal financial well-being was inexorably linked to the ideas promulgated by industrialists and financiers. Thus began the great co-opting of American middle class and labor. Polls have shown that as much as 40% of Americans believe the are in the top 20% of Americans when personal wealth is the yardstick*. The ongoing meme has worked to convince a significant portion of the middle class that they are actually upper class, and as such should support the ruling class's programs and goals, (see: Trickle Down Economics). The apparent dichotomy between capitalist's goals and labor's became even more apparent as industries began abandoning labor and producing goods abroad in order to increase corporate profits by 10%, while saving Americans 3% on the cost of Teflon coated skillets and other gew-gaws of 20th century life. Meanwhile union labor jobs as well as middle management jobs began drifting away to wash up on foreign shores, as we made the transition to the so-called service economy and free trade.
No one really explained that such an economy is essentially static, tied to population increases as the only real way to increase the market for 'product', and consequently overall wealth. A few will live the Capitalist dream of building a better mousetrap such as Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs and increase their cut of the available wealth. So a few will have carved immense fortunes from the remnants of the middle class, while many more work two jobs, trying to make ends meet as they reach for the brass ring of economic success in the 21st century. Many still believe that their fortunes revolve around the economic ideologies of the corporations that are bleeding them dry, with high healthcare costs, insurance rates, the latest, 47" plasma screen TV, and the premium cable package to back it up.
.And now that I've gone and mentioned TV, I guess I will continue a bit along those lines as to how these 'memes' become part and parcel of our cultural thought. One need only ask oneself who owns the means of distributing news/infotainment? Other than little corners of the web such as TPM, those media moguls are the same industrialists that have been defining the message from the beginning. So, with the exception of these still open corners of the World Wide Web, if the message starts to slip a bit, the corporatocracy just keeps posing questions in the form of news analysis and commentary. Ready-made, wind-up corporate weathermen, primed to tell us which way the wind blows, so those who are not paying full attention will know when to trim the sails of their expectations for healthcare reform, etc. Just keep repeating, " Obama's health care reform is imperiled" often enough, and people get the message. Everybody loves a winnah! And wants to back a winner. Mortgage products aren't the only thing that's been sliced and diced and released for test marketing. The American public has been studied, it's demographic preferences rated and weighted by politically and psychologically astute marketing experts. In short, these guys have got your number and mine. If you listen to them, everybody is a winnah! Step right up! Come see the dog-faced boy! Three tosses for a dollar! Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! That's about what we're left with now in the MSM. A carney side-show barker, and a trip through the hall of mirrors while trying to make sense of the continuing transfer of wealth from the many to the few, while the meme is circulated, and the next question is posed: Why should the rich fund the poor's healthcare? Contrary to the message promulgated by those who would co-opt the righteous anger of the newly displaced, the unemployed, those bankrupted by soaring healthcare costs, and those who work too hard for too little money, these Masters of Industry aren't your partners, and they don't have your interests at heart. You could cry in frustration, but it would be more effective if, like the workers of the early 20th century, you got MAD.
*I couldn't find a link to this, though I know what I stated is generally correct. If anyone knows of this particular poll, please supply a link.
Advertisement
"I have always been afraid of banks." --Andrew Jackson
I haven't been afraid of banks; maybe that's my problem.
July 24, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps that poll information is from Pew?
Not to upset you, Miguel, but Pew is a backer of the Fellowship Foundation.
http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/MC-Middle-class-report.pdf
From the above report's executive summary (http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/706/middle-class-poll):
"Some 53% of adults in America say they are middle class. On key measures of well-being -- income, wealth, health, optimism about the future -- they tend to fall between those who identify with classes above and below them. But within this self-defined middle class, there are notable economic and demographic differences. For example, four-in-ten Americans with incomes below $20,000 say they are middle class, as do a third of those with incomes above $150,000. And about the same percentages of blacks (50%), Hispanics (54%) and whites (53%) self-identify as middle class, even though members of minority groups who say they are middle class have far less income and wealth than do whites who say they are middle class."
July 24, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, the majority of Americans a living in sweet blissful fantasy about their lives and income level.
C
July 24, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Molly. I've seen the Pew study, which is similar, but the one I was thinking of was not it.
July 24, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, what Pew is saying is that the Reich is "winning" the game of illusions. People are much less afluent then they believe themselves to be when compared to the whole. It' sprobably because so few of us ever get to really experience what life is like at the top.
July 25, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mh20: brilliant post. Connecting-the-dots through time revealing unmistakable precedents for our current relative torpor.
July 24, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post. One thing I am wondering about is this:
We hardly ever see what we earn, what we spend, or have a tangible view of our assets.
My father built the house we lived in when I was a child. It was made of cinderblock; had two bedrooms originally, although a third was made up in the attic once there were 4 children. Everything was paid for in cash, except bills, (which were few) paid for by laborious monthly check-writing ceremonies. Even when the doctor came (yes), he was paid in cash. We didn't even have a phone until I was in 4th grade; always had a used care -- gas paid for with cash, of course.
Fast-forward to now:
I rarely pay for ANYTHING in cash; I get points, which I cash in for money once I have enough. I pay my bills on-line, and I keep track of all of it on-line as well. My retirement stuff comes quarterly and I just look to see if the monthly change is noted with or without parentheses (losses). I check my annual Social Security notification to see what I will get if I retire in 5 years or in 9, and then I file it.
I say all this, not because I long for the "good ol' days" before computers and credit cards, but just to note that I do think it distances us from the reality of what we earn, what we spend, and what we have saved up for our futures.
I think that is one reason the outrage is just not equal to the injustice -- we really don't get it -- it isn't personal like it was for those who were shafted by Mr Ponzi himself. It is all too diffuse.
Also, who is listening, and what are our options? How many of us feel qualified to pull all our retirement funds out and manage them (never mind that we would do better to put them in a CD and just relax!)
Short answer: These thieves got away with their crimes, and continue to do so simply because they CAN.
July 24, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you and cmaukonen make a good point with the role of easy credit in creating a gulf between the reality and our perception of our relative wealth'. So long as one can meet the payment obligations, one can certainly maintain a much higher standard of living than might be reflected by one's actual wealth. At some point I would expect some cognitive dissonance to disturb our fantasies though as our payments escalate, and savings remain flat. Either way, it would seem to be a useful tool for the wealthy to 'assuage' dissent.
July 24, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people have been lulled into a deep stupor by easy credit and plastic money. They believe they are well off since all they need to do is hand the man the plastic to get what their little hearts desire.
The reality is that they are not well off and in fact only one pay check from the soup kitchen.
But the people do not want to hear this or see it. It's the seduction of the rose colored glasses. Marx was wrong. religion is not the opiate of the people. Phony capitialism is.
C
July 24, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote a longer comment that apparently got lost in the ether. :( You make a good observation regarding easy credit and its effect on dampening discontent. It would seem to be a useful tool in the toolkit of anyone seeking to short circuit dissent from those at the lower end of the economic pyramid.
July 25, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The threat of socialism is a red herring. What has actually occurred is that aspect of our national heritage that allowed for the larger population to share in our prosperity has been turned on its head. We had a workable scheme based upon a well considered regulatory structure. It had one major flaw though. It was and is dependent upon people to administer it with integrity.
What we have now is a country where the larger population has been stripped of any opportunity to participate. The political, financial and social scheme that made all this work has been completely violated in my lifetime. It makes not a bit of difference which party is in power in Washington. Government no longer governs on behalf of the people. That has been fully displaced by a narrow scheme of governance where representation and enforcement of law is now the sole province of an elite class of financiers, political elites and conglomerates.
July 24, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "Polls have shown that as much as 40% of Americans believe they are in the top 20% of Americans when personal wealth is the yardstick*. The ongoing meme has worked to convince a significant portion of the middle class that they are actually upper class, and as such should support the ruling class's programs and goals, (see: Trickle Down Economics)."
Couldn't agree more.
Recently had someone tell me that "we" don't want anything to do with "those people" (long story).
Pointed out the "we" ARE "those people" and nearly got myself lynched.
Once again: terrific post.
July 25, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done, Miguel. I'd add one other factor for the lack of rebellion- outrage fatigue. I think most people instinctively sense that the Wall St. pigs (perdona mi) have picked our pockets out of pure greed. But seven, eight, hell, thirty years of screaming about being trickled down on eventually leads to laryngitis.
July 25, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good observation Don. It also leads to these ugly yellow stains, and a foul odor about the house, or perhaps I forgot to take the trash out once again.
July 25, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What we really need is to take the initiative with our own money, the money we have, and move it where it reflects our values. For instance, we all know who those big guys are, but even though investing in little guys leads back to the big guys, the big guys not getting our money so readily might cause them to reconsider. At the end of the day, they prefer profits to ideology. We're not hearing about Buy the Blue anymore, or even "Rather be dead then buy Red", or whatever. We need to get back to that.
When Citibank took our bailout money to fund an anti-organized labor action, we should have removed our money from there, ASAP, all of it. The bail outs only work if we consent, but the gov't can't hold up anyythng without our continued support, so why do we do it?!?! We as bad as the Dem Congresscritters, waiting for the GOP to join in crafting healthcare reform. Not gonna happen, and Citibank or any others will not come around either until there are real painful financial consequences, and we, the people, all together, for a little while longer, anyway, still have a lot of money. At least, if we all moved our money over night, it would be noticed.
July 25, 2009 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moving money as a method of getting the attention of socially irresponsible corporations is a sound idea, however I fear that even were a social movement large enough to have much impact, it would be negligible. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but only an observation that the amount of capital in the system and its use is largely directed by economic players far removed from our ability to control.
July 25, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Miguelito I just want you to know that I value your blogs so much that I often share them with groups outside TPM. The one on healthcare was much appreciated. This is a great post!:)
July 25, 2009 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eloquent as always, Miguelito, but I think it is a mistake to conflate the way an economy is organized with the way that people with wealth and power behave within an economic and political system. Socialist and communist economies often experience much worse political and economic problems (atrocities, in some instances) because of the much stronger "marriage" of political and economic power that results from state ownership of the means of production.
Remember that when Adam Smith, who some regard as the "father of capitalism," wrote Wealth of Nations, he devoted much of the book to discussing the very pronounced ways in which the rise of commerce and trade based on the division of labor benefitted the poor and middle class. He, too, noted the collusion that occurs among those with power and wealth, but recognized that well-functioning markets act to counter such collusion.
The current problems derive in part from companies and banks that have become so large (due to economies of scale and scope) that competition has become effectively dampened. Add to this that some are now considered "too large to fail" and you can see that we have departed the capitalist model and markets that Smith so eloquently described and lauded. It doesn't help that consumers haven't been paying attention, either.
For these reasons, I think we need to find other words besides "capitalism" and "capitalists" to describe the current problems in financial and housing markets. Capitalism in it's truest sense (many small firms that are all price takers, free entry, no externalities, no economies of scale or monopoly power) would solve many of the problems you describe. Finance is certainly at the heart of a capitalist system since (when it works) it allocates capital efficiently among competing interests fostering innovation and economic growth. But there is some tipping point where finance becomes in Keynes' words "casino-like" and no longer allocates capital efficiently. We have apparently passed that point.
We need a regulated and disciplined financial sector. But we need more than that. We need a new capitalism that recognizes the benefits and harms of corporate size and restructures or regulates to take account of them. And we need a return to a moral philosophy that recognizes both the individual's obligation to the community and the community's obligation to the individual. Such a philosophy would include the corporation's obligations to community and consumer as well as to share and bond holders. This is the tension of an expanded social contract that reflects the realities of our economy.
This is also the tension of the market that small business owners know so well. The requirement to live in and respect the community that they serve and that serves them if they want to stay in business. Anything that moves the dialogue away from the straw men of socialism and class and the misuse of "capitalism" to the real issues of creating a political economy in which individual freedom and social cohesion are balanced and corporations and banks are responsible will be a major step in the right direction IMHO. :-)
July 25, 2009 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points tuher. The problem I have when searching for a new name for the 'capitalists' in our system is the only word that seems more appropriate is something to the tune of "Greedheads". As you say, the nature of the regulatory system we labor under causes the flow of revenue to follow channels that would not be predicted by a pure free market. For the most part, those regulations were written so as to leave loopholes, often at the insistence of lobbyists from the industry being regulated, and thus set the stage for the kind of gaming and manipulation we've come to accept as standard practice. The only way to change that is by having an equally powerful lobby influencing the crafting of legislation with more 'altruistic' goals in mind. The easiest way for me to picture that is by having an powerful and organized labor consortium. Perhaps we should call it a 'Middle Class Consortium' today so as not to offend the perceived class identity of those it would primarily advocate for. I was not so much advocating a communist or even a socialist political/economic model, as I was advocating for the tension that existed in the early part of the 20th century between industrialists and labor, admittedly in the form of those political models. It was through the pressure, and even fear, that those movements brought to bear on the status quo of the 'business community' that the bankers and industrialists were forced to negotiate compensation if not principles in good faith. I think this tension functioned as a means of facilitating, in your words, "a moral philosophy that recognizes both the individual's obligation to the community and the community's obligation to the individual". Meaningful regulation and discipline will more easily follow if their exists that kind of dynamic tension between those at the top and the bottom of the economic pyramid.
July 25, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What to call unprincipled, short-sighted, self-interested people who may or may not be capitalists is always a challenge. I call them Gyges.
Gyges was a fellow described in a dialogue in Plato's Republic who found a ring that made him invisible (like Gollum in Lord of the Rings). Gyges used the ring to enter the king's castle, seduce the Queen, slay the king, and take over the reins of power, setting himself up as king. His wealth, power, and prestige were unearned and undeserved, thus violating every principle of fairness (not to mention the murder thing).
One participant in the dialogue is a fellow named Glaucon who asserts that we would all do the same thing. That without accountability, all of us are Gyges. I don't happen to agree with this, but I agree that without accountability the Gyges of the world will flourish and can do a lot of damage to the rest of us (e.g., recent mess in financial markets brought on by many Gygeses obscured behind complex models and risk instruments).
No matter how an economy or a political system is structured, Gyges will always be part of it and it will have to take account of and prevent him doing damage to the larger society. In a local capitalist economy with many small firms, the market does a pretty good job of weeding out Gyges. It gets harder as the economy becomes more global and firms become larger with more market power. It is particularly difficult with Gyges obtains both economic and political power. In some situations, the internet is one possible antidote to Gyges, but it requires that people be paying attention and not get distracted by emotionally-laden flak generated by the MSM.
Your point about loopholes in regs is also well-taken. However, this most recent debacle in financial and housing markets is due more to the removal of regs than to the strategic installation of loopholes by interest groups IMO. Gyges will always promote or find the loopholes. Our job is simply craft and re-craft regs that promote efficient markets while impeding Gyges. The problem to date has been a failure to recognize that markets do not automatically eliminate Gyges. Now the problem is to get elected officials to understand that they must do the right thing for US citizens. This is not "altruism." This is justice, i.e., giving citizens their due.
Unfortunately, there are many examples of Gygeses who started with good intentions. All of us have the potential to be Gyges. That's why, in addition to well-crafted regulation, a moral compass and a modicum of self-reflection (Adam Smith's "Impartial Spectator") are also requisite for a just society and a just economic system.
July 26, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Gyges" works from a historical-mythical point of view, but I think we need a term with a little more *snap* to it. :)
All of which is becoming even more compounded by the ability of corporations to avoid taxes by keeping foreign earnings out of the country. We worry too much about keeping our borders impermeable to illegal immigrants, and not enough about permeability in regard to the fungibility of corporate wealth.July 27, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great blog, Miguel. It's funny how the middle class people think they're rich and the rich think they're middle class with their piddly 350G income. A country where everyone's above average but not part of the priveleged elite.
There's that, but also bizarre or confused notions of fairness. There's the mentality like that of Lalo over on Orlando's thread complaining that one can't reasonably get angry at the insurance companies because what they are doing is legal. As if 'unfair law' is an oxymoron. As if tiptoeing along the ledge of the legal line were morally exculpatory. As if corporate management and shareholders weren't actually people with minds and responsibility for their actions.
July 25, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just the fact that so many have an inflated view of their own relative position in the economic reality of America, undermines the probability of enacting meaningful economic/financial legislation. It reminds me of that Keyser Soze, axiom: "The greatest trick the devil ever did was to convince us he doesn't exist". It's as if a large portion of the middle class has put blinders on to the truth, and that doesn't serve them well in the marketplace of ideas we call congress. Regarding: "As if corporate management and shareholders weren't actually people with minds and responsibility for their actions", These people won't ever act responsibly unless their is a price to pay for their actions. Whether that price is more restrictive legislation or market backlash from public censure, or even economic censures as Gregorzap suggests above, it would go a long way toward encouraging responsible corporate behavior. Our biggest obstacle IMO is the education of the public in the face of media manipulation by corporate interests. One very big reason we need to keep the internet out of the hands of the Greedsters.
p.s. Much of my ruminating for this blog was inspired by your excellent blog, "Liars, Anger, and Fear", which I highly recommend to anyone passing by who hasn't read it.
July 25, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm honored and touched Miguel. You and Wendy have me thinking alot about these issues, as well as Q, Bwak, TPC, and the list goes on I guess...
Media manipulation is a big part of it. It's strange, I keep expecting the MSM to meet its Katrina moment - the moment when they're exposed as frauds. I thought it might have been the Iraq war propanda (in the run-up and during) with their bought and paid for military pundit/experts. I thought it might have been the financial crisis, with the cheerleading and real-estate bubble propaganda in the run-up and then the happy-talk as the economy teetered for another year. It just seems that each time they turn around with the hoocoodanode excuse.
And worse. The excuse is more insidious. Each time it's the public brought in as accomplice. It was the general public sentiment that drove the media to avoid a serious debate about the WMD and al qaida connections. It was the public diving into risky real-estate investments that caused the crisis. No one's at fault because everyone's at fault. Their own role in causing these misconceptions - with their blaring banners: HOUSEPRICES NEVER GO DOWN - that is never mentioned.
Frankly, I'm wondering whether the few remaining good journalists at these outfits are not complicit in this sham. THey after all are the face of respectibility for these organizations. Ezra Klein, what the hell is he doing associating himself with WaPo? GTFOOT!! Their brands should be dirt.
July 25, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your larger point is well taken regarding the MSM. Lately the discussions here keep leading me back to Larry H's blog, Is Life Becoming Like Cable TV?, regarding America's 'Jumped the Shark' state of mind. If we truly can't meaningfully affect matters of politics and economy through election of different parties as was done in the last election, I'm predicting an increase in black market economies and other 'parallel' systems which can be affected by the choices we make. Which kind of reminds me of the faltering final years of the Soviet Union with as much product being bought and sold in these parallel economies as in the de facto official economy. Are we as a world power on the brink of some massive paradigm shift? In the end it may be inevitable, perhaps even welcome, although I would like to have some say in how that change is structured. If only someone were listening...
July 25, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I just say: Kudos! to this lovely exchange!
Lots of good stuff - I'm mostly missing... due to other stuff...
Peace to all. Keep up the pressure! ;)
July 25, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that piece by larry crystalized a lot of feelings for me as well.
As for the paradigm shift, it seems we might be more like 1930 than 1933. Just hope it's not the Weimar Republic...
July 25, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the while, the legislature wasn't legislating protections, the regulators weren't regulating, the auditors weren't auditing, and the rating agencies were feathering their own nests while fouling ours."
Who the f...could put on a better show than Miguel.
I hereby award you the Dayly Blog of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe site; given to all of you from all of me.
THIS IS FANTASTIC. I am bookmarking this. I will probably return..Just for the comments. ha!!!!!
July 25, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Captains of Industry have figured out how to marginalize the labor force. They just pay off a slave-master in China and bada-bing, it doesn't matter what a factory's worth of workers in Michigan wants.
The American people still need to eat and still need the other products that are produced, so will always provide the stream of cash. But they no longer have the power to interrupt production in any meaningful fashion. If you make things tough on the employer, the employer closes your factory and moves the tooling to India, China or whatever nation gives them the power to demand of the workforce what they would have to negotiate if they stayed in America.
And even when they overplay their hand and place themselves in a position where the fruits of their actions should result in the demise of their house of cards, they literally take the wealth of the people directly out of the storehouse. And the politicians are more than happy to sell them the keys for a song - so they don't even need to break in.
The show of force in St. Louis was a very clear message that even were we to take to the streets in protest that they own the entire security apparatus and will crush us before we even get to wave a sign. The warrantless surveillance program that taps our every discussion is also a very chilling fact. They have access to our every thought and word ... stored in a searchable database so a warrant now gives the power to review all past communications of anyone in America.
The people are plenty pissed - they just feel powerless. If throwing the entire elected structure out by electing the seeming polar opposite in Obama and the democrats leads to the exact same result ... and I think with another unaccountable sweatheart deal for the banks just this week shows Obama has no intention of changing the dynamic (in retrospect, obvious from the get-go with the selection of Summers and Geithner and an economic team devoid of liberal thinkers) ... what can we do?
They can smash our teeth in and take our lunch money at will. (yeah, feeling kind of cynical today :-)
July 25, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
God loves drunks and cynics kgb. :) Your assertion that the American people
may be put to the test if the economy stays flat or worsens. We might just be forced to reduce the disproportionate consumption of resources we're so famous for, and in so doing have a very direct effect on production.July 25, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink