In the parallel of chicken and egg, which came first? At this juncture, which failure requires attention first, the failure of wages, the failure to produce, or the failure to consume?

What is becoming more and more apparent is the existence of terminal system collapse beyond the existing capability of economic theory to initiate self-correcting behavior. None of the attempts to restart economic activity have the slightest chance to be effective. The “window of opportunity” to alleviate the collapse is rapidly closing if it isn’t already closed. No matter the numbers involved, nothing being done or contemplated can or will be enough.

The only way clear will require the complete overhaul of the economic structures and reassessment of the understanding of the economic process. Without such understanding, the economic tools necessary to fix the broken economy will not be available. In many ways, the only solution requires thinking outside the box defined by currently available theory; there is little in there that can be of utility, at best, even in hindsight, there is no 20/20 vision to be had out of the irrational construct economic theory has become.

The only rational coherent theory to date has been Adam Smith’s (with critique by Karl Marx), the focus there being on the nature (and abuses) of capital. It is now a necessity to revisit and reassess the economic tools provided by these observers and use them to rebuild a rational economic system. Nothing less will suffice in the long run, nothing less will work in the short run, nothing about the current state will assist in the interim.

If and when these economic icons are restudied for their substance, the effort most likely to find success will be the one taken from the point of view of “Koyaanisqatsi – life out of balance” to restore the dynamic equilibrium required of a function-able economic system.

Insiders are trying to get some sort of popular enthusiasm going, but really, even most people who support it think “it’s better than nothing. But it’s not very good”. All the enthusiasm and energy, for killing it, is on the right. On the left, a palpable yawn.

this is just the point i was trying to get at with mike lux when he was here advocating for progressives to get behind some big issues – but i think it involved taking direction from obamaco:

as for big issues – there are plenty to choose from: single payer health care, energy transformation, economic restructuring for a real economy instead of a paper economy (based on the finance industry) are a few.

the problem i see obama having is that any of these issues, in order to get popular support, would not have a significant portion of the establishment on board. i don’t see how obama can have both big issue campaigns with popular support – and operate via bipartisanship if bipartisanship is defined in DC terms. for example, the center of the country wants universal single payer health care. but apparently not the center of the political elite.

imo if we are waiting for obamaco to give us “big issues” we’re going to be waiting a long time.

And the irony is, it’ll probably pass with as bare a vote margin as if it had been a more effective, more liberal, bill.

Yeah, but that’s the great thing about shooting yourself in the foot. It makes no sense.

You always have to ask whether Democrats are just weak and intimidated, or whether they agree more with the Republicans than they do with us. Think of Feinstein and Bayh, to say nothing of the Blue Dog types.

Democrats often talk as though they have to be cautious because of the voters, but they really mean the donors. And as often as not, the Democrat in office agrees completely with his donors, and is only talking about the voters in order to get liberals to shut up.

With Obama there are additional questions. First, is he really just giving the Republicans a rope to hang themselves with, or does he really believe the bipartisanship nonsense? (This is one of the times when you hope your guy is faking it).

Second, will he learn? FDR came in talkign about balanced budget, but he switched gears soon enough.

The Republicans should be paying the price now for having driven the country into the crapper. Why do they still set the agenda when we have the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse?

The price they should pay is to have to deal with not setting the agenda. I say if they don’t want to play ball we go back to the stimulus plan that will work not some lame compromise that they won’t vote for either.

The country can’t afford another Epic Fail form of government.