
Parable of the Ungrateful Servant. Photograph by John Dekker of stained glass window at Scots' Church, Melbourne
The American Oligarchy has done enormous damage to the rest of the country. A brief history of the economic damage would include the depressions of the 1800s, the Great Depression and today’s Lesser Depression; and the Fed’s constant war on inflation which results in one recession after another to the benefit of the Oligarchy and to the misery of those laid off. The human violence is equally fierce, a steady stream of people killed for striking, killed in unnecessary industrial accidents, killed by unsafe products and killed by infected food.
The indirect damage is equally horrifying. Where once US Oligarchs were partially under control, beginning about 1980, they began to dismantle the regulatory and institutional control system. Up to the 70s, the SEC was a scary bunch of regulators. That change began with Reagan’s appointment of John Shad as Chair of the SEC. I was Securities Commissioner in Tennessee, and we were working on fraud cases with experienced SEC and CFTC people. They were pulled off those cases and put on insider trading cases and broker dealer examination. Lots of people quit rather than do such pointless cases.
A succession of billionaires began to use their money to fund think tanks that produced apparently scholarly papers to support the interests of the Oligarchs. They sought out business and economics schools to fund, insuring that the wide-ranging intellectual John Maynard Keynes would be forgotten, replaced by sterile mathematical models and outright lies from people who manipulated data to serve their paymasters. They bought up and consolidated the public media, insuring that a huge number of people would be ignorant as toast.
They export jobs. They speculate in markets for food. They demand the right to privatize roads, water, parking, prisons, education, and parks. It’s all part of a grubby search for safe high returns on their money, selling us things we must have, and can easily and efficiently provide through government.
The Oligarchy refuses to pay taxes. A recent report by the Tax Justice Network says that the total US tax evaded through the shadow economy is $337 billion. The rest of us have to make that up, or do without.
As part of their tax avoidance schemes, the Oligarchy persuaded conservatives that taxes are evil. That idiocy essentially wrecked the public sector. We won’t pay to fix our infrastructure. We won’t pay teachers, cops, and firefighters. Most of us can’t pay for our children’s college education. Most of us can’t pay for our own retirement. Most of us have little, and are losing that. What we do pay for is militarizing our lives, arming our military with every conceivable weapon, and arming our police with less powerful versions of the same weapons.
The latest disaster is typical. When they wrecked the economy, the Oligarchy demanded that the nation protect them from their losses, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Then they turned around like the Ungrateful Servant in Matthew 18:21, and screwed the people who owed them a few thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, we don’t have an avenging Master to deal with them.
What do they do with all of that money? They stack it up like cordwood overseas, refusing to pay taxes until Congress cuts them a really good deal. And while it’s there, they screw around with the world economy, using their money power to replace democratically elected governments. It’s like a giant monopoly game to them: Oligarchs like Pete Peterson and his European equivalents demand austerity, which cuts growth and curtails tax receipts. Then they place bets against sovereign debt. It’s just like Goldman Sachs and the Abacus deals.
The Oligarchy loves austerity, by which they mean you lose your Social Security, your Medicaid, reasonably priced education, cops, teachers, and pretty much everything that makes life secure and pleasant, all so that they don’t have to pay any more taxes.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The per capita number of millionaires and billionaires in the Scandinavian countries is comparable to ours. But, at least on the surface, their Oligarchs don’t use their material wealth to screw over their fellow citizens, to deny them the fruits of good government and democratic institutions. But here, hordes of our best-educated people rush to serve Oligarchs, scrambling for a few crumbs and screwing their fellow citizens into the ground.
We need austerity alright: we can’t afford this Oligarchy any more.



83 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
A superb post, masaccio, thank you.
In about ten years time, almost everyone “living” in America, who is not a part of the oligarchy or its small, if unpleasant, legion of grovellers, will understand exactly what you are talking about.
Without OWS … it would take twenty years …
DW
This doesn’t make any sense. For one thing, you’ve already established that they’re already avoiding paying taxes. For another, beyond some municipalities and states government spending isn’t constrained by tax receipts. It’s currently constrained by policy.
So there must be some other reason they’re out like gangbusters for all this austerity.
Good one, masaccio. I especially appreciated the, uh, shout-out to right wing think tanks. It is difficult to over state their influence and effect. An allied phenomenon is Luntz and Luntz-ism. The Right are master framers. The frames are delivered to the think tanks which use them in their fake scholarship until they turn into memes.
The Left is way, way behind in the frame wars. Even unwittingly helps to propogate right wing frames, I think.
Masaccio:
Most of us here at FDL know and understand this “stuff.” A much better post would suggest some actions to be taken against the Oligarchy. OWS is doing what they can, but we need more. What are your suggestions?
Another most excellent post, masaccio. Thanks much.
It’s a matter of faith.
We live in such an astonishingly productive society that we can indeed afford quite a bit of waste, distortion and outright destruction from our oligarchs. And no matter how much the mounting downside grows, the productivity is such that the 99% remain unwilling to run the risk to such a society’s organization that would be involved in ending the oligarchic control. Sure, the process has been aided by a massive propaganda effort, but that effort would not work had not the success of our society built up a mountain of credibility for the elites in charge.
People aren’t going to stop believing as long as the system is working. It could, in theory, work much better for many more of us, but the faith will not be shaken until and unless the system stops working so well compared to most of history and most of the present world.
Not to worry — or, maybe, time to relly worry — for the very finality of the oligarchs’ success at this con game has removed the last constraints they might feel on their behavior. They are free to be destructive of society without limit because the 99% will not limit them. The last obstacle to their individual success is competition from other oligarchs. And, in this competition among themselves, the successful strategies tend to be those that destroy the system.
They all want to drive down their own employees’ wages. They all want to destroy the social safety net to make workers more dependent on them. They all want to lower their tax burdens. But none of them want the consequences — a society in which only 1% can generate any demands for goods and services beyond subsistence, a society whose infrastructure of publics services and facilities is crumbling.
The 99% are not going to go in for revolution. They aren’t confident enough in each other. But the 1% are making the revolution for the rest of us. They are plenty overconfident in themselves, and are busy destroying the society that benefits them so greatly because it doesn’t benefit any of them completely.
It’s a good point, Nathan. I’m no economist, but there’s a desperation, seems to me, in the attacks on social programs which began at the beginning of Bush’s second term and have never gone away. I would hazard a guess that it is something like a cash flow situation on steroids that the oligarchs are facing, which they seek to leverage (remember way back an e-comment friend saying ‘it’s all about leverage’). They do it through the machinations of shortselling and derivative markets and suchlike that I will leave it to the experts to suss out, but the point is, they do need to get their mitts on every aspect of the government treasury, flimflam or not, so they can flimflam it into survival of their unwieldly enterprises. No, that’s not a clinical appraisal, but I agree, more than just avoidance of taxes.
Very much agree with the following:
“A succession of billionaires began to use their money to fund think tanks that produced apparently scholarly papers to support the interests of the Oligarchs. They sought out business and economics schools to fund, insuring that the wide-ranging intellectual John Maynard Keynes would be forgotten, replaced by sterile mathematical models and outright lies from people who manipulated data to serve their paymasters. They bought up and consolidated the public media, insuring that a huge number of people would be ignorant as toast.”
Point of personal experience: I saw this beginning to happen in the early ’60′s, when as seemed harmless enough my own excellent alma mater sent out feelers to nearby Washington, DC to involve government bigwigs in seminars and colloquials with respect to the liberal arts. I have a sinking feeling that I was watching the germination of neoliberalism even right back then. Probably started with the best of intentions, but these people weren’t our best academicians; even I knew that.
Let me go out on a limb, massaccio, and guess that you’re not going to support
billionaire Bloomberg’s third party presidential bid.
Austerity in the government sector means governments will be willing to sell off (privatize) their assets. Part of the deal that Greece got into with the banksters is that they have to sell off (privatize) government assets.
Government requires the consent of the governed.
Not a fan of Bloomberg. The guy is number 12 on the Forbes 400 list, behind the creepy heirs of Sam Walton.
True enough. Spending, in fact, is not constrained by taxes. But some may believe that one day taxes will be raised to pay for all those social programs and aid to the underprivileged. So a logical response would be to work against those progressive programs. I also think that austerity is driven by fear of deficits, that this will lead to more taxes in the future. How else does one explain the all the hand wringing we saw over the debt limit, for one.
I was watching the movie “The American Ruling Class” with Lewis Lapham advising two young Harvard grads on how to select their future path in life. In one scene he takes one of the kids to a hedge find manager for the manager to show him the ropes of how to get ahead.
They sit down in front of a computer and the guy says, “Here look at this chart of stock market performance. You can see that over time that it has been rising steadily, but here is the lowest point. Here is where they gains started to grow. Right here, just before 1980.”
If you look at the chart that shows economic inequality in the US (Inequality.org ), will see that the lowest economic inequality was about 1976. If you look at hourly wages, you see a steady rise until 1972 when they begin to level out.
In other words, the best time for us was mid 1970′s and the worst time for them was mid 1970′s. After that point things got worse for us and better for them.
My question is: “What happened right then in the 1970′s?” Vietnam was over; Nixon was gone; Carter is in the White House and Reagan has not been elected yet. What happened? The oil embargo? Inflation? The Powell Memo? My graduation from college?
Geez, we saw those think tanks at the last thug debate. They make themselves seem so intellectual, you know.
Yes?
Free consent? Or coerced “consent”?
Until things get bad enough, all we can do is prepare the way for a 21st century FDR. America is not ready to see the hard truths about the oligarchy that we here already know. If things don’t get worse, there’s probably nothing we can do. If European plutocrats crash the Euro and us along with it, keep telling the truth and don’t get distracted and we may be able to elect some true populists. Assuming, of course, that the radical right supreme court hasn’t abolished elections by then and installed Grover Norquist as emperor for life.
Karenb: as you no doubt know, this is one of a series on Oligarchy in the US, based on the work of Jeffrey Winters at Northwestern, among others. It’s true that people generally know this stuff, but when it gets organized into a theoretical perspective, it is easier to explain and justify the solutions.
None of them are easy; in fact most of them are based on the willingness of the 99% to take specific actions that run counter to mainstream influences. I will be talking about them in future posts.
I liked this post very much. But this line resonated with me since I had been taught JMK (not an economist, just the basics) and thought he was brilliant. Then I heard that Friedman had “disproven” Keynes:
Check out the first link in this post. I discuss part of the change here.
This is why I’m grumpy this Thanksgiving.
http://www.theamericanhuman.com/
Calvin Ross
Excellent post, masaccio!
Sorry to hear how SEC Enforcement was defanged. My superb trial techniques instructors, in the mid-70s, had been from there.
When Reagan was elected for the first time, I was doing oil price enforcement litigation for the U.S. Department of Energy. DOE had an office that made criminal referrals to the U.S. Dep’t of Justice concerning apparent crimes by oil companies, e.g., filing false statements as to their pricing.
Within days after Reagan’s swearing in, DOE’s criminal referral office was history.
DOJ was actually pretty ineffective in prosecuting oil company crimes that DOE had already referred. No matter. I concluded that the Republicans came in with a well-worked-out game plan as to what in government they were going to change and for whose benefit, and that they executed it smartly.
Excellent. I look forward to the “solutions”.
It is hard to imagine legislation is among them. The Senate has a majority of oligarchs.
Damn good thread, Mac. First rate analyis.
Pray, continue. :o)
The unemployment scourge has been on going in the US for a few decades now. Somewhere back there, they decided that the lower the unemployment the higher inflation. The obvious answer is to keep a “reserve” workforce of wage earners to guard against that eventuality. Well, you also need austerity to help guard against it. It’s nice that this all dovetails to lower tax rates.
There is likely some truth to the connection between inflation and unemployment, but there are ways to get around it. And it is also true that we now have 26 million unemployed and 45 million unemployed or earning poverty level wages. Nice place to be eh?
And here’s the kicker. Two of them actually. First, energy and food prices will rise apart from employment. And when, if it gets any better, there will be inflation.
A very good question, and one that is not easy to answer, in part because the oligarchy are not a homogeneous group, but range from people like Soros, Buffett and Gates to people like Peterson and the Koch’s. One can’t pin this down to a simple Marxian class-interest story, though there is certainly a lot of self-interest (both unenlightened and enlightened) involved. It is also important to distinguish between the American oligarchy, which seems to be considerably more pestilential than the oligarchies in Europe (and maybe in China and Japan for all I know), and to think about the different historical trajectories of Europe and the United States. If we could sort out the differences, the similarities might start making more sense, and to try to see how much of this is due to ignorance and how much to pure malevolence.
In the case of the United States I think it is mostly malevolence. The US has been a get-rich-quick society since almost the get go, and since the early 19th century one of the easiest ways to get rich was to get the government to give you something for almost nothing. Apparently that is how the Koch family got its start when the Indians were cleared off their lands in the western territories. From the 1840s and 1850s on manufacturers and construction entrepreneurs disproportionately hired foreigners, who in the late nineteenth century expected to work hard, save money and return home. Not much reason to cater to the needs and desires of home-based workers. So you get a much more virulent capitalism in America than in Europe, where the industrialists and bankers had to come to terms with a local aristocracy and a local population with histories of revolt.
The late 20th century is another case altogether. People of ability in my generation went into academics and public service (and medicine); the generations that followed went into law and finance, where how much you make determines who you are. Friedman’s ideology was a perfect fit for these people. Its a perfect storm compounded of a rigid all-encompassing market ideology and very bright people going after the main chance in an environment that is placing ever less constraints on them other than conscience, which isn’t a very strong reed.
I apologize for this extended babble. The question demands book, not a blog comment.
“A succession of billionaires began to use their money to fund think tanks that produced apparently scholarly papers to support the interests of the Oligarchs. ”
Yes, people like George Soros and his Move On org.
You’re leaving linkprints, which the birds won’t eat, on the forest floor so we can find our way back out.
Once you get a sufficienly large cache of wealth, you likely detach from society as a whole. Your interests are no longer the same. Everything you want or need is up to you, health care, retirement, etc. You need to protect your wealth that includes taxes of all kinds including estate tax. That also involves keeping the rabble away from the cache. So you devote money and time to politics and think tanks to put forth your ideas and you join with others, and to convince the rabble what to think. That’s what it’s all about.
All of the above and more. The job market for highly educated professionals was bound to taper off as the bulge of the baby boom got through university — this happened in the early 1970s. The academic market, which had boomed in the 1960s as part of the accelerator effect of rising admissions, was probably the first to sink. After that you see young people trying to improve their credentials to get the kind of job that bright hard-working students a decade earlier could have for the asking.
The second point was the productivity slow-down and what on the whole was contractionary government policies in the late 70s. This is a very complex period and economic historians have not begun to sort out what happened because of the simultaneous occurrence of negative supply shocks (the 1979-80 oil shock in particular), persisting inflationary expectations, which drove up the price level, and rising unemployment. What really started rising inequality was rising unemployment, which entered with a bang under Reagan, and was not undone until the second Clinton administration, by which time other factors making for greater inequality had come into play.
I doubt any single reason explains what happened, but if I were a betting man, I would put most of the weight on what at the time seemed to be ‘austerity.’ Nothing creates inequality in a modern economy like a good dose of unemployment brought on by contractionary government policy.
That’s true to a degree, but Keynes got forgotten even by the so-called Keynesians. This was largely because the kind of Keynesian macro economics being taught by the mid 1970s was a cardboard cut-out that had no relation to the subtlety and depth of the original, which was still being taught when I was a graduate student in economics a decade earlier. The mathematization of economics also played a large part. Old-fashioned Keynes seemed too simple and non-rigorous. But to put the rigor in, the mathematical economists had to take the really complex stuff about coordination failure out, and coordination failure is the heart of the Keynesian message.
Some of what happened resulted from Nixon’s devaluing the dollar. Some immediate effects included a few seasons of wage and price controls. Then, by the end of the 1970′s prices for things had pretty much doubled in dollars, while wages either stayed where they were or rose no more than 5% for employed workers.
Not a bad bet. I tend to think the oil shock that began in the early seventies caused inflation and there was a concerted attack on that. Then comes your unemployment and continued austerity. We hear Obama sounding the need to cut the deficit today. I think that meme must be defeated to start our way back.
In 1971 or 1972, Nixon cut $200 million from higher ed.
There is an article in the NYTimes today touching on this and suggesting that many no longer believe stimulus works. If it doesn’t, then what does?
“Once you get a sufficienly large cache of wealth, you realize that other people don’t work as hard as you, don’t risk as much as you, and don’t have the same sense of personal responsibility as you. You realize that the harder you work, the more of your money other people want the government to confiscate in the name of supporting THEM. You realize that until they bring you down to their level of futility, they won’t be satisfied. And you start to look at them and their confiscatory government, their socialist policies, and their utter disregard for your sacrifices as mortal enemies. So yes, you do realize that you are on your own.”
There – fixed it for you.
There you go. Two sides of the same coin. I’m sure it will go over big with the 99%.
You know they are preching austerity in Europe even as the euro may be going under and unemployment spikes. We could have another banking bailout.
Nope, I’m pretty much always on one side of the coin. Tired of being taxed to make up for the failures of others, and then villified that I’m not giving enough, and without a smile on my face.
But I’m planning my way out. Uncle Sam will always get what he legally can from me but I’m going to make darn sure that there’s not one extra penny that he gets if I can help it. And I’ll make sure that I’ve got my safety net ready when the 1% finally decide that they’re not going to subsidize losers any more. You think the OWSers are mad now? Just wait until their unemployment checks, food stamps, and free cell phones all get turned off for good.
Like bank bailouts do you?
Nope. I think they should have lost much more control that they did In exchange for the bailouts. But I also think the forecolsures should be handled differently. People who can’t pay their mortgages should lose all their equity and any equity that continues to build up in their homes, in return for a rewrite of their mortgage balance and rate. I don’t believe in wholesale forgiveness for debt when those instruments are legally entered into.
I hope you are working on that book. I’ve been looking for a way to think about economics that starts somewhere else than the mathematicized version that I saw the beginnings of in my college courses. Even then, I saw that the math was too simple for the complexity of the interactions. I’ve read Keynes, but as a lay reader, I can only hope I understand. I’m reading Tomas Sedlacek’s Economics of Good and Evil. Any suggestions are welcome.
The Oligarchy has fought off all efforts to make them eat their losses, and is going to inflict the cost on average people, just like the Ungrateful Servant did. You won’t escape.
Oh and before I go, Jeebus Christ your progs must be apesh*t scared that the Republicans may run Newt against you. He’ll wipe the floor with the O-man in debates and he’s red meat for the conservatives on the Right. I’m a bit worried about the three marriages thing but that’s nothing compared to the baggage of rapist Bill C, and look what he was able to do. O-man is one and done.
You’re assuming I’m an average citizen. That’s the problem with you progs. The whole ” there’s no such thing as American exceptionalism” thing is your undoing.
I highly recommend the MMT economists like Warren Mosler, Randall Wray. Warren has a bunch of mandatory readings on his site. They are very informative and Wray and others write on New Economics Perspectives. Wray has a series of posts on MMT for the beginner.
Yes! Yes! The Nasser article is it exactly. I don’t know how I missed it on “That Blog That Must Not be Named”. All this had been boiling in my brain, but it is good to have it put into words by somebody who actually knows what he is talking about.
To say that the 1970′s were marked by “low productivity and low profits” just sounds so awful and disparaging to the American worker, like we drove ourselves to this by laziness and goofing off. But what one calls “productivity” or “efficiency” somebody else might call “exploitation”, where the owner gets more profit by sharing less of labor’s added value.
Sure there was some laxity and arrogance by labor, but there was a hell of a lot of bad management and complacency by the owners who refused to take their overseas competition seriously and got run out of business by a lack of imagination and an attitude that the American public could damn well buy whatever defective products they produced. (Detroit comes to mind.)
Ah, then, John Henry, you must be something very special, most likely, “exceptional”, and not like the rest of us?
Do you assume most of us support Obama?
And I bet you are just salivating for that moment…. Just hope you don’t get caught up in the violence that that will beget.. Nothing like like a starving persons anger especially when it is wide spread amongst the populace.. Got some cake do ya….
Gee, you mean giving the oligarchy lower taxes and deregulating haven’t worked out so well?
You assumed they don’t want to destroy the world economy then – are we sure that’s a valid assumption?
I think they just want to privatize those things. We lose social “securities” and they’ll move in to provide them in the private sector, where they can skim off loads of profits.
Planning on going Galt? Let us know how that works out for you.
I’m pretty sure you are exceptionally full of shit. You’ve shown absolutely no signs of above-average intelligence here, in any of your comments to date. I challenge you to share anything here that will support your grandiose claims about yourself. Anything at all.
What happened Pragmatic Realist was the transformation from a wage based economy to an asset based economy. The political and financial elite were so spooked by inflation that wages were actively depressed and the push to asset accumulation was encouraged. This push for asset accumulation of course led to the massive amount of private debt not just in this country, but throughout the world. For most people, assets could only be obtained through credit. David Atkins explained it much better and more throughly than I.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/22/1029078/-Wages-vs-Assets?via=blog_731950
Ah, revisionism.
“Where once US Oligarchs were partially under control, beginning about 1980, they began to dismantle the regulatory and institutional control system.”
The oligarchs were never at any point “partially” under control. What happened was that the system they created, wherein compromises were made with the working class in the name of a semi-populist version of Keynesian economics, was seen in the 1970s as no longer necessary. Thus the oligarchs began to roll back that system, slowly, and so as not to disturb the masses, in favor of another system called “neoliberal economics.”
The problem, then, is not that we can’t afford the oligarchy per se. It’s that we can’t afford the oligarchy now, with its increasing demands for profit flying in the face of a decreasing global growth rate.
Oh it does make sense. Successful government programs like Social Security and Medicare are a clear and present danger to the corporatist oligarchs: They show that government works. And effective government programs must be funded; and the logical place to find the money is where the money is–with the corporatists. So it does make sense to destroy the programs from their point of view–even if they are not paying taxes at the moment because the money to support the programs is being borrowed–because, so long as the programs exist, they eventually must be funded by taxes.
There are other reasons, though: A poor, desperate people is an easily-controlled people. It is much easier to force people to follow orders if they must depend upon the order-giver for their very sustenance. A strong middle class is a notoriously free-thinking, independent bunch, people who can think for themselves and will readily stand up to the kleptocrats. Destroy the middle class, reduce the people to subsistence level, and they no longer have the means to resist the authoritarians. The result: Feudalism–which is the endgame for these thieves; a few rich autocrats, everyone else in some sort of slavery. And if We the People don’t stop these criminals NOW, it won’t be long until that’s all there will be.
SUPPORT OWS
It doesn’t make any sense the way that masaccio provided the narrative in this piece, which is mostly what bothers me… that this ~10 paragraph piece isn’t even internally consistent.
The oligarchs can’t both be doing all manner of things to keep government from spending money on people because they’re afraid of the ostensible increase in taxes when they’re already exempting themselves from those very same taxes.
Ummm, what if we stop them from exempting themselves and still tax them? Ya think that is a worry? Either way or both, not something they want.
See, you progs believe that to be exceptional, you have to be more intelligent than others. Some once-hot-shot lawyer, or professor, an economist maybe. Or a failed medical researcher turned Kinkos hack.
And I don’t need To build myself up in your eyes in order to feel good about myself, as you do by bringing others down to your failed state in order to look yourselves in the mirror. I’m pretty damn comfortable in my own skin, as well as all of my material trappings of wealth.
Now, if you will kindly get off the ladder, I need to pull it up since I’m already in the boat.
Oh yeah, programs that are on the brink of bankruptcy are PROOF that government works! Jeebus wept.
I don’t know why they’d be worried about that. It’s not like they’re under any risk of losing their control or influence over our political institutions.
Your idea of “brink” clear differs from mine. I’m ~40 years from the probable end of my life, but I’m not on the brink of death.
But you’ll outlive these programs by a good 20 years.
I don’t know. I just know that I most likely support you, financially that is.
So far, so good Mac.
You’re “egging” exceptional ole John Henry on, rc.
Got to admit I’m powerful curious as to his many great achievements and, as you say, genuine evidence of JH’s steam-roller intelligence and astute observational prowess …
He’s got all his of red flags well-hoisted, blowing and flying furiously in the winds … (well, self-generated hot air, anyhoo …)
Gave JH a flag, meself, which he rightly deserves, as he reminds me of ole “happydamnbuttstoshare” … you ‘member ole “happy”? … with his Porche and Mercedes and the goin’s on between them … happy’s likely to end up with a litter of Porchedes … or worse, Merches … then he’ll be on about the dreadful consequences of Teutonic miscegenation … however brilliantly “engineered”.
Wonder what will happen if all these clever, successful, and “exceptional” wisdoms ever discover themselves trying to occupy the same exclusive and exulted “postion”, at one and the same time”?
Might be cheap entertainment for them what like public messes and sech thangs, like the those “Debates” the Newt and his exceptional cronies are celebrating so joyously, together.
Well, I see that my truly exceptional wee doggie wants to come into the house after terrorizing all the chipmunks in the back yard … which makes me glad I’m not as exceptional as JH, as I reckon he would have to send out z seasrch party just to find the meets and bounds of his rear domains, prolly take six weeks or so, even in good weather …
Hope yer well … and well-stuffed, rc, after the debauche of Thanksgiverating which this nation has been all turkey-fied over and aboot of late, as well as the bleak-Friday shenanigans in the run-up to the Spirit of Xmas … next year “they” are going to have to “sex-up” the door prizes considerable-like to get the cash-cowed to moove along spendin’ their Jingle.
Upon further consideration, I’d be willing to bet you, rc, that JH doesn’t reveal a damned thing about himself except that he holds those whom he regards as not “like” in total and utter contempt.
You may recall that I have postulated that the world of human beings is composed, today, of two basic “types”; those who realize that they are fundamentally like everyone else, nore alike than “different”, and those who “believe” that they are different (an better) than everyone else, such “belief” is a pathology, a dangerous social disease and a clear and present danger to everyone whom the self-selected elite make mock and sport of, taking advantage of the many as a “right” and what is owed them by virtue of their innate superiority.
Betcha a plugged nickel, JH, if he “responds” isn’t gonna be exhibiting ANY of that “good faith” engagement you mentioned a while back …
;~DW
Well, my thinking is that if you are of the !%, but got there through inheritance, like most did, then you have no claim to exceptionalism, nor to our respect. OTOH, if you got there by merit, which we would respect, you ought to be able to show some evidence of that merit, i.e., of your personal exceptionalism. But you’ve shown none, you just parrot the same factually discredited talking points as any low-grade moron commenting on any Drudge Report article. So, show us something to indicate you’re not just another low-grade personage claiming to be something you’re not, or I’ll just conclude , very comfortably, that you’re just another faker who trolls here to fill the time because your wife has discovered vibrators.
Awesome. I’m apparently also on the “brink” of sending my yet-to-be-even-conceived children off to college too!
It’s possible to make a coherent criticism of the structure of Social Security without having to resort to being brazenly idiotic.
Hi DW. I’m fully recovered from T-day, thank you, and hope and trust you are as well. I’ll bet my last Aston-Martin that JohnHenry is, in real life, a very mediocre creature.
If you’re only 40 years from death, then you’re probably going to need to adopt, old pal. That, or start putting your thing in a female instead.
I’m approaching 32. All of which is completely irrelevant, because neither program you’ve shit-fit about is on the “brink” of anything other than continuing to provide their intended services. Moreover, both programs’ respective long-term shortfalls would be completely mitigated by either economic recovery or uncapping the income amount which is taxed to collect for them.
Ostensibly we’d just pay for them regardless, because government spending isn’t constrained by tax receipts, so it’s all just a little ridiculous anyway.
This is all circular argument, as you won’t ever be convinced that you’re wrong. But your last comment about government spending being uncosntrained by tax receipts says it all. How that supports your ass-ertion that somehow “government works” is beyond me.
Well, have a great night. good luck with the kid thing. Just don’t raise him to be the Commie that you apparently are, Comrade.
And off into the night goes mediocre JohnHenry, rushing with “exceptional” speed to buy more batteries for his wife.
Circular? Do you even know what a circular argument is?
Claiming that something being “on the brink” of something would seem to imply it’s a whole lot closer than at least a generation away. One would think it would mean to the point that nothing could possibly be done to prevent some distant undesirable outcome from occurring.
Secondly, government spending isn’t constrained by tax receipts. The government constantly spends more than it brings in in taxes by a HUGE margin on a regular basis. The government spends. Full stop. What it brings in taxes has nothing to do with it. This is just plainly observable. Unless you’re literally telling me that every single government expenditure is offset by some equal amount in tax receipts? That’d be news to me.
Commie? I don’t happen to think a well-functioning wholly centrally planned economy is likely to be successful. Not sure where you got that idea.
Being able to note that your statements are observably ridiculous, and your arguments functionally bankrupt, doesn’t make me a Communist. It just makes me smarter and more articulate than you are. I’d chalk that up to a victory, but honestly it’s mostly just depressing, because I’m not particularly smart or articulate.
I’d agree with that last part. And as for me, I ended up hijacking this post, didn’t I?
Again, that you believe it perfectly normal for our government to outspend its means says it all.
Says it all? In that between the two of us, exactly one of us is able to observe the events that occur during the passage of time and then write them down?
Of course I believe it’s normal, because it happens literally all the time. It’s as normal as observing that it rains in Portland more than in Death Valley.
I rate self-proclaimed exceptionalism as entirely ordinary.
Bravo! Au superbly written piece that gets right to the heart of the matter: we can no longer afford our masters. We need to get them off the payroll right now!
JesusFDR isn’t coming back to save us. It’s better if we don’t engage in fantasies. Electoral politics hasn’t worked so well, how long have progressives been buying and selling more and better progressives? Idon’t believe there is a way to elect people who are willing to take on the corrupt apparatus that they’ve successfully navigated to get elected. Decent people are filtered out, shut out, or attacked. masaccio mentions the institutions and organizations dedicated, or operatives embedded. That is what is missing on the left- long term thinking is what the oligarchs have done, the left has only engaged in short term defensive thinking, emergency triage of mostly electoral politics. Democrat politicos don’t help one bit.
The Broken Market for Democratic Primaries by Matt Stoller
New Democratic Group (Robert Gibbs) Finances a Republican-like Attack on Howard Dean
Matt Cantor works behind the scenes, on campains and as an aid where he made sure the Tribe was represented, if you’ve ever wondered why the I/P situation never changes.
Now Matt Cantor is in the DSCC working for Debbie Wasserman Shultz..
Democratic Senate Candidates Encouraged To Tie Themselves To Obama’s Foreign Policy
Shorter DSCC: Yes, it’s routine to call and brief everyone on their new Thirdway positions on a variety of issues. Senators and candidates who want financial help from the DSCC should be hawks…
Foreign policy discussions are “gratuitous”, none of the plebs business, and should be avoided, but above all, agree with Obama.
This packs a message:
Isn’t that nice? Senators or candidates retain the independence to ask tough questions.. what is implied here is that they aren’t allowed to retain independence with their votes.
thanks, masaccio. i enjoyed the piece.
the commenters taking the bait – not so much.
when a piece degenerates into just about everyone responding to whatever the troll says, it just becomes tedious and boring for me. on the other hand, when there’s no troll or when people ignore the troll, i usually find the comments and the back and forth interesting and educational.
A certain amount of ideological overkill and essentialism is to be expected from all sides in a political debate. The 99% are so much more sinned against than sinning in this respect, that while it is useful to pursue your perfectly valid criticism of Massacio’s consistency, I hope that no one concludes from that enterprise that there is anything like a moral equivalence here. Massacio is at worst a bit overeager to blame the capitalists rather than Capital, while the paid apologists for the 1% are typically much more confused even on those few points where they are not simply lying.
The 1% tends to favor austerity in order to keep taxes low both because of their personal tax situation (of course they pay far less than they should, but of course they still pay more than they would like) and because they believe that it is important to the growth of the financial sector that more money be left in the hands of folks who don’t need it for consumption. People whose anual incomes are in the $150,000 to $1,000,000 range aren’t the 1%, but these 19%ers provide a lot of the loose change the 1%ers need flowing into their investment products.
Their analysis is wrong, and austerity doesn’t actually meet their needs. Industrial, and even financial enterprises, would do much better, on a more secure and stable basis, if fiscal policy tended to protect demand rather than capital accumulation. The latter simply isn’t the rate-limiting step anymore for growth. In fact we have way too much money sitting idle than can be used to capitalize growth, which leads to low returns on real, capitalizing, investments, and the consequent channeling of this excess accumulated wealth into speculative bubbles. Even if we didn’t need the money to fund the govt, we need top tax rates in the 90s to prevent excess money from gathering into ecnomic weapons of mass destruction. But the folks who run these bubble markets can’t admit that they and their metier are anything but the true commanding heights, where the real RoI action is, and therefore they push austerity despite its devastating effects, not least on themselves. Contraction and deleveraging will definitely not serve their interests. They are simply too vain and over-confident to see that.
Attributing to these people some greedy purpose is similar to the attribution of some sinister plot to control the oil to the folks who maneuvered us into Iraq, as the “real” reason for their machinations. Actually, these “Vulcans” were just very stupid ideologues, and their plans made no sense on any level or as serving even evil and self-interested ends. But we find it more frightening to imagine that these elites are simply incompetent than that they are self-interested. Looters and parasites who knew what they were doing could at least be relied on not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The oligarchs unfortunately seem intent on dining on roast goose, even if that pauperizes all of us in short order.
Massacio highlights the fact that the oligarchs are knaves, while I see more danger in the fact that they are fools. We would be infinitely better off if they were more knave than fool.
Hi, gw. Don’t miss the silver lining here-the asshole, in his arrogance, publicly proclaimed his delight at successfully hijacking the post, at #75. Since he has now made clear that that is his purpose in coming here, even we First Amendment purists need feel no compunction about immediately flagging him any time he makes another appearance. His obvious lack of good faith disqualifies him from entitlement to participate here.