There is an old adage concerning presidential races. That it’s difficult to challenge an incumbent since they are privy to information that they alone know. That the challenger does not know and will not know until and unless he becomes president.
This is only true if the divulging of this information does not have a sever negative impact on the country as whole or that the president believes that it will.
My father died of a brain hemorrhage when I was 14. We were in Miami at the time and my parents were about to sign on a house in Coral Gables. The decision made by my father to move from Ohio – which he dearly loved and where is family was – to Florida came as a complete shock to everyone. Especially since he was not known for out of the blue behavior. However he never gave any reason for this action. Only a number of years after his death did my mother confide to us that he had said he was sick. But even to her, he never gave any details nor did he say specifically how sick he was.
Though I suspected all along that there was a hell of a lot more to it than that. It was not until I had made a long over do visit to my cousin in North Carolina when I was in my late 50s that I learned how truly sick he was and that he knew as well but said nothing to us or my cousin’s family except his mother. That he had been into Cleveland and had some special test done after which he went to his mother’s room in my cousin’s house and spent over an hour talking with her. We he died and my aunt went up to tell my grandmother the news, her reaction was surprising as she her self was not surprised.
We could only guess that his decision to move to Florida was to make it easier for us – his family – to carry on when he did pass, which he had to know would be soon. Though it was obviously sooner than he expected. That he had decided to with hold the information he had to keep my mother in particular from going off the deep end and possibly causing more problems that it would have solved. My father was a very, very practical person. He would get angry when ever any of us questioned anything about his decision, like it was our fault that we did not know what he was unwilling to divulge.
I have had this feeling with Obama and especially with those close in to his administration. I am not fond of Obama in the least but do not see him as the evil incarnate that some do even here. And I am no conspiracy nut either having inherited my father’s pragmatism. But from the time he actually took office and maybe just after his election something did not feel right.
Romney is a lier and salesman just like Bill Clinton. I would say the only real difference is that Romney does not play sax. Pity. Both both are very good selling you anything. You really do want to believe that the old beat up Hudson they want to sell you is a steal at any price.
Bush was also a lier but very bad at it. There were a few times when he was lucid and clear. The first was right after he took office and said that economy was in the dumper. I thought this an odd thing for a newly elected president to say regardless of his agenda. The other time I remember was when the crisis was happening and he had announced it on the media. His whole demeanor was different. Not the cooky arrogant Bush we came to know but one who at least appeared to be really concerned about the situation.
Obama is not a good salesman. He is a very good speaker and as we have seen in that past can speak passionately about that which he believes in. However we have also seen that he has a very difficult time doing so when he does not believe. We saw that in the first debate. We have seen it before. We also saw – if we were paying attention – this his whole attitude, his whole agenda, his entire program changed after he had been elected. After he had been complete briefed. After the crisis of 2008.
It was not long after he took office that the topic of the crisis itself began to disappear from his conversation and speeches. That the biggest crisis since the depression of the 1930s became a non-issue be replaced by health care over haul and Afghanistan and Iraq and other items. When economists of all flavors were saying that the course that was being set was wrong and got nothing but derision for their trouble With Rahm Emanuel calling them stupid and other things. Like they were lame for not knowing what the administration knew or believed but refused to divulge.
The word that came out of the White House was they did not know how bad the situation was. This I do believe was a lie. That they knew very well how bad the situation was and they still know how bad the situation still is. But they refuse to admit it to anyone. That there is a belief that if the White House came clean on how truly bad the economy is and shaky it is that it would cause a panic that would bring the whole thing down at once.
And his is the kicker. That Obama and the White House also believe that they is no way they or anyone else can fix it and the best they can do is let it down as easy as they can.
And there are others who believe this is the case as well.
Our economic and political system is in collapse and there’s no way to fix it from inside the system.
It’s a systemic crisis. The systems we rely upon aren’t viable.
They haven’t been for a long time. Every year we are worse off than the year before.
A political fix, switch, or reform isn’t going to do the job.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that we didn’t see a wholesale collapse in 2008. When people lost faith in the financial sector. What prevented it? At first, it was the US government’s ongoing bailout of the financial sector’s gambling debts.
Since then, it has been the ability of the US government to spend enough to keep 41% of the economy afloat.
As long as the US government continues to borrow at those levels, we’ll avoid a sudden economic collapse like Greece and Spain.
However, this spending won’t fix the system. Far from it. We’ll still be in a slow and steady collapse. – Resilient Communities
This I do believe the Administration knows or believes to be true but nobody dares say one word about it. Obama is not stupid nor is he inattentive. Far from it. Is he trying to prop up the economy ? Well if that’s the case, he’s doing a really bad job of it. No I think he is just trying to let it down easy as possible.
And whoever becomes president will be briefed on this as well. If it is Romney he may or may not accept it.




79 Comments

Interesting. Obama “knows” that there is nothing he or the federal government can do to stop the impending collapse of our entire system because it doesn’t work. That’s probably true now. It wasn’t true when he took office.
There were plenty of things that the government could have done in 2009. The investment banks could have been nationalized and their assets seized. Public works programs that would have created millions of jobs and spin-off jobs could have been enacted and our national infrastructure would have been well on its way to being repaired. Guantanamo could have been closed at the stroke of a pen, our troops could have been pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and other places and the military budget slashed.
Obama could have been a hero and standing on the precipice of a re-election victory the likes of which no Democratic president has seen since 1936.
He didn’t even try. He didn’t try because he really believes that capitalism itself is The Best System and must never be challenged. So he really doesn’t know what the hell to do. Fortunately for him, neither does Romney. Doubling down on unregulated capitalism clearly won’t save the system from itself.
In 2008, the system needed FDR. It got Herbert Hoover. Now the choice is between Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. No wonder the Russians and Chinese are laughing.
Oh, yeah, recc’d for making me think.
Where did the money go?
It went in the pockets of the one percent.
Where does it go?
It goes in the pockets of the one percent.
How to fix it?
Stop giving them all the money.
Take it from the one percent and give the money to the commoners.
Though taxation and policy.
This is what a President should endeavor to do in case of pending economic collapse.
This is what a President should endeavor to do to stimulate the economy.
Where is the – “letting us down easy” part?
That doesn’t happen by feeding Lloyd Blankfein or Sheldon Adelstein or Pete Peterson or the Koch’s or Jamie Dimon. Or Eric Prince. Or Dick Cheney.
Let’s assume for a moment that everything you imagine to be so actually is so. I don’t think it is, but let’s assume it is.
What on earth would give him or anyone in government the right to keep information like that from the people who put him in office and pay his salary?
He is our employee, not our daddy, and we are his constituents and his employers, not his minor children.
Or by making Jeff Immelt the “Jobs Czar”.
Jeff Immelt’s skill is melting jobs.
Jeff Immelt is good at making jobs in “expanding markets”. In other words, Jeff promotes slave labor under abhorrent working conditions in order to maximize profits
.
Because that’s what Policy
allowsenablesencourages.Article and comment Recommended. Thoughtful analysis.
(Obama creating a special position in Government for Immelt was quite a betrayal: The media, even Amy Goodman, all talk up Romney’s connection to Bain, which pales in comparison to Obama appointing Immelt, then unconstitutionally downsizing the Post Office, while the Govt pays for commercials advising people to get their own computer equipment and “never visit the Post Office again.”)
Ah, but it is a fallacy to believe the requisite economic growth can be engineered through stimulus alone. Your graph makes this point clearly.
Economic growth in a capitalist society is as much a psychological as physical manifestation. The people must believe. The money must find a means to seek its maximum velocity throughout the entire society.
As Paul Krugman, the veritable Keynesian-in-Chief admits, along with any other honest broker of teh historical versimilitude, only total war provides the necessary means.
Progressives don’t want no war.
World War II was the impetus to move the US economy from the Great Depression.
Total war, accompanied by a tremendous surge of patriotic austerity and transfer of assets from outside the US to pay for the effort.
These conditions no longer exist. The more telling statistic is the amount of consumer debt. No amount of government spending can overcome the psychology of an indebted elderly majority facing an uncertain future.
Keynes is dead!
Long live Marx.
All I can say in response is that this kind of behavior has been going on in the presidency since the time of Lincoln at least.
That the presidents of yore have withheld information from the American people for what they believe are justifiable reasons.
For sure it’s psychological. The effects of FDR’s new deal programs were mostly psychological. It was WWII that got us out.
I find it quite curious that the right wing especially were so over joyed at the collapse of the Soviet Union when the existence of it was the best thing for us economically.
They may have been our political and military competition. However neither the Soviet Union or the Soviet block countries were ever any economic competition and their existence would possibly at least slowed China’s morphing into an economic power as well.
Great post and thread going cmaukonen.
Your assessment is probably dead on scary accurate. When Paulson showed up with a one page robbery note that America must save the world’s financial malfeasance and that we had no choice but to cash his unlimited blank check, we were screwed. This ongoing extortion racket, to just keep sending banksters money so they could continue to play their monopoly game, was the notice that our capitalist game was irredeemably broken.
Knowing that this corrupt game, neo-liberally designed to simply keep the top 1% on the life support they have been accustomed to, while the rest of us austeriterized folks go on down the drain, is the underlying problem. Can’t go on forever.
So why did we pay up? Primarily because we didn’t then and still don’t know how to play any other kind of game. We had and have no in-place viable alternative to the financial Motu.
We need a real National Bank. One owned by the people. That like the proverbial “StarWars” program that can absorb the incoming missiles for national physical security, a bank that can absorb the future financial attacks that your post describes as the inevitable financial collapse of capitalism’s system.
This socialist bank, that the American public debt and risk could be eventually be funded within, and whose profits pay down our debt, would be the in-place insurance policy. Capitalist losers of their game, would not get bailed out, and get their bonuses anyway,… they would never play again, extortion over. Initial capitalization would be the untapped American oil reserves that ostensibly belong to the American people anyway, whatever.
This bank could start small and grow with the absorbed assets of the smaller failing banks to get its feet on the ground and would be up and running as the public take over entity for the next Lehman Brothers fiasco which we all agree is only a matter of time.
In 07, we had no alternative but to accede to Paulson’s demands. The American people, like McCain, were running around with their hair on fire, the ‘confidence fairy’ was dead.
Without a plausible alternative to this make believe economy, (indeed, we all operate on, as matter of our faith, in the assumption that the money we have in our pocket is worth something), the economic threat that Paulson was communicating was actually to that ‘confidence fairy’ we’ve all bought into. Paulson threatened to expose the fairy. To rob us of our illusion of an economic security bubble that we exist within.
This thing we call our economy is magic, fairy dust. It hasn’t been real since the 70′s. We must depend on these paper and electronic figments of our very fragile imagination every day. Its the paradox of the looking glass.
But before we break it, we must have another one standing by, ready to continue to deceive us, but a bit more reality in its reflection. Otherwise, its the collective insanity of the chaotic dark ages all over again.
To acknowledge that the fairy may go away, one must soon use its remaining dust to buy a real place with a garden and gun and hope for the best.
The psychology of getting out of the Depression was important, but also the protections of and relief to the poor in 1933 had an immediate and profound effect relieving the emergency.
Which is why so many people recommended trying it to Obama. But he apparently didn’t try.
When the second crash happened in 1937 – the second-steepest crash we’ve ever had [1929 being first & 2008 being the third-steepest] – that 1937 crash severely hampered what had been an actual [non-jobless] recovery in progress.
The 1929 crash happened days after Sinclair [Oil] was sentenced to prison for Bribing Harding’s Interior Secretary Albert Fall to obtain Oil-drilling rights on public land. The 1937 crash came when Cannabis Hemp (Marijuana) was banned, causing thousands of products and hundreds of medicines to be suddenly withdrawn from the market. Both of those crashes seem intentional, but no more so than this one:
The 2008 inside-job crash happened:
~after Bush’s Fed Chairman Greenspan] and his Treasury Secretary [John Snow] pumped up the stock market, then bet on it tanking in giant hedge funds;
~and after Bush’s VP [Quayle] sold Lilly Pharma then bought Chrysler and GM, and with one hedge fund owning both car makers, of course they stopped competing, and because cars are American, Quayle got a giant bail-out;
~and after the President of the NASDAQ Stock Market [Madoff] made off with billions in loot, funneling some of it to Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign;
~and after the richest man in the world had lent billions to AIG, so that he [Buffett], could get bailed out too.
Thanks for the comment.
It goes along with a general gist here. The people do not trust the government because the government has long ago stopped trusting the people. And those who do not trust enough themselves will never be trusted.
Governments fall when they themselves stop being responsible and lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the populace.
It has been my experience – and history bares this out – that people when left to themselves, for what ever reason, will generally behave in a responsible manner for the most part. It’s only when those in charge stop or fail to do so that they will inevitably turn on them.
So any fear that those in Washington would have of general chaos is unfounded.
This is the question. Why not ? Obama is a lot of things, a good deal of which I do not like in the least. But an ideological fanatic is not one of them. He in fact wanted to – initially – break up the banks but Paulson and Bernanke would not do it.
But what is telling to me is the reactions that certain groups and people had. Most importantly the republicans.
There was a small news article on Huffington that stated quite clearly that when the republican reaction when fully informed as to what had happened before and during the crisis was one of complete shock. They simply could not believe it.
Republicans are so religiously fanatic about their free market capitalistic beliefs that they could not and will no believe that this could ever happen. It is their total detachment from and delusion of the reality that makes them dangerous. Almost like a psychotic.
I have personally seen this behavior up close and it is indeed pretty scary.
And more than a few democrats belong in this description as well.
The problem with people in Washington – especially republicans – is too many have an extremely fanatic, small and narrow world view. They picture capitalism as the corner Quicky Mart and not the shenanigans that goes on on Wall Street and they do believe that the two are the same. This makes them delusional and dangerous.
I think Barbarian that donkeytale @ 7 suggestion of the psychological aspect is very key.
What I would call “The Tinkerbell effect” that it only works when you believe.
That when you stop believing, it dies. So every administration invokes The Tinkerbell effect to keep people believing in it. Tis is one of the things that makes our capitalistic system so damned degenerate.
This was the very core of Reagan’s domestic policies and what republicans worship. They act like little children when told that Tinkerbell does not actually exist and cry and moan and carry on.
But the fantasy is coming apart. Reality is intruding and people are no longer buying it.
I rather liked Clinton but not as a president. He and Romney are at least entertaining.
Ryan and his ilk are like listening to a patient in a psychiatric ward and can drive you crazy if you try to pay attention to much.
They are deadly serious about their delusions and hallucinations.
If the Pope admitted Gawd was dead, the bishops would have to lynch him. Of course, what’s going to happen now that Capitalism is dead will be far worse.
Capitalism is Fraud.
“That’s not the way back to headquarters”
“You know that and I know that but the general doesn’t know that.”
“That corporal will be a private in the morning.”
“Yeah…isn’t he lucky”
When Romney was bullshitting his patrons about the 47% (etc.) they didn’t object.
Delusion sells, it’s good bidness, the .01% like it fine, and Romney & Ryan are only doing what a capitalist Gawd allows and rewards.
The ever insubordinate Hawkeye? Say, did any communists to visit the MASH speak engrish?
A historical quibble. It wasn’t the banning of hemp that caused the crash of 1937(though it was a stupid idea), it was FDR’s decision to pay down the deficit that did it with the subsequent decrease in federal spending that was actually beginning to work.
This was also a stupid idea.
“Deficits don’t matter.”
–Dick Cheney, from my Even a Stopped Clock is Right Twice a Day File
It surely does sell. Just ask Disney.
I disagree. It wasn’t war itself that got America out of the Great Depression, it was full employment caused by massive federal spending in response to World War II that got it out.
If there was full employment with almost everyone doing something that benefited society, there would be no recession. War isn’t necessary to recover(in fact, now, due to mechanization and computerization war’s actually counterproductive, but people being able to purchase or trade IS.
Oh, there was less political opposition to full employment because of the war; in relative peacetime the wealthy will whine about being taxed to help their own country, but full employment is the key. Not war.
And putative ignorance is a ridiculous defense.
Unfortunately do to the attitudes of the time and even those after, defense spending was the easiest and perhaps the only way of justifying it to congress and the American people.
Nearly every domestic expenditure from the end of WWII on through the early 1970s was justified as necessary for defense.
Education, space, interstate highways…etc.
Not a defense, an explanation. There is a difference.
Interesting post. Thank you.
I agree with someone who commented, above, that there were definitely steps & measures that could’ve been taken when Obama took office, which possibly would have made a big difference.
I thought Iceland basically collapsed – and endured some hard times but briefly – and that they are doing much better now bc they nationalized their banks and tightened their financial regulations?? Too lazy to get a link, but use teh google. Granted that Iceland is a small country with a pretty homogenous populace, but still….
I have to say that as much as I despise Obama for being a sell-out, I do sometimes flinch and think that Obama was “told” what to do OR ELSE. He often stutters & stammers & looks uncomfortable, not just in the debate (which I didn’t see), but at other times. His demeanor is very different from smirking frat-boy legacy silver spoon W or RMoney, who clearly don’t give one flying shit about anyone or anything… just give ‘em the money & screw everyone else.
I really cannot say whether Obama cares or not, but he at least *appears* uncomfortable. I think he did bite off more than he can chew, but it’s been clear at least since Reagan that the position of POTUS is pretty much a figurehead who is the public face of the real power “behind the throne.”
Clinton *may* have bucked that system somewhat, but he still pretty much danced to the tune of the 1% and has been *handsomely rewarded* for it. And now appears to me to be pretty craven, self-centered & all about the money for himself.
Obama will be similarly handsomely rewarded, but what Obama knows and whether he cares or not is a question, for sure.
Can the “system” be saved? Well I don’t know. It seems unsustainable to keep having the 1% continuing to rape, rob & plunder bc after a while I think that there is just a *limit* to what they can GRIFT. Why the 1% has become so incredibly & egregiously greedy is yet another question, for which it’s hard to find an answer. It’s certainly not that these CROOKS don’t live large & pretty much have whatever they want & live a life of luxury. But somehow it’s not enough.
I read an article in the “New Yorker” recently, whereby some rich GRIFTER was bewailing that a friend of his simply didn’t have “enough” to retire on, despite having well over $10million in his various holdings, savings, etc. $10-fricking-million! But it’s “not enough.”
I give up. When $10 million isn’t “enough” to permit you to live out the last 20 years or so of your life in comparative ease & luxury, then there’s something wrong with your “take” on “life.” Therein lies the crux of the problem.
Thanks again. Best to all. We be screwed, methinks.
Correct. The moment I completely gave up on O’bomber was reading – especially the end – of “Confidence Men” by Suskind. It was clear O justified his lack of courage in pursuing real reform with the theory, which by then he apparently had been persuaded, that it’s all about “confidence”- that his only role was to “manage expectations”.
However, your post struck another chord. I have had the feeling ever since his first real briefing that he was informed of something that shook him badly. And I don’t think it was the economy. He had been talking behind the scenes for years with his UBS buddy who had a
comprehensive understanding of what was really going on there. His obviously dispirited disposition – even depressive affect – ever
since that briefing has been utterly baffling and extremely disconcerting. His demeanor change was so pronounced my Comcast cable guy mentioned it to me in November 2008 when he was fixing my cable. (Talk about a confirmation it wasn’t my
imagination.) His signing of the NDAA, passed suddenly and without any obvious need or public support, with it’s violation of basic
constitutional rights, deepened my foreboding. At this point, my best case scenario is the “O’bomber as incapable of dealing with conflict/ elite corporatist Washington is impossibly entrenched” one. As to what else it might be, just say I’m open to a range of possibilities that I would not have been prior to 2008.
The one thing I agree with on this is that Obama is a firm and unshakable believer in American decline.
Comrade O’Donkeytale makes sense, Comrade Barbarian! Please do not discourage. Full employment kills capitalism. And O’Donkeytale refers to the psychological/sociological dynamics by which war is the easy way out.
WWII was an opportunity, nay, a necessity, for the prize. You can’t get risk-takers motivated for anything else.
Say, did you know that the Brits went for oil in Persia rather than Mexico because the Persians were more docile? Funny, huh.
Total agreement. To be clear – it seems clear real financial reform was possible and could have worked to place us on a firm footing going forward. The question is why wasn’t it attempted at all?
Comrade, this system thrives on deception and defensive self-censorship. One must search for the answer which will not be provided to the confidenced masses.
Not an explanation either, comrade. For one, you can’t know what the general thinks. We sure know that our “generals” are profiting from their fraud so I would think it much wiser to call it what it is, fraud.
Besides, the material/sociological basis of their religion is a worthy and necessary study. “Faith” is as bad a root as Gawd.
X2
I think what he was informed of was that he was bought and paid for.
A superb post, all around, cmaukonen.
The personal history set up the theory which you very successfully and properly, in terms of its “application”, laid out.
It should be remembered, however, that the US did not “beat” or “defeat” the USSR, they defeated themselves by “over-investing” in the wrong things …
Fortunately, that cannot happen here … it is widely believed … and banked upon … by many … and, most certainly, the precious few.
Looking forward to the gentle “letdown” of Total Victory in the “Homeland” and the soft-landing of World Domination!
Recommended (as all of your posts are, cmaukonen) to the thoughtful consideration of everyone at FDL … and even “beyond”.
DW
You have to factor in, though, that Nobel Peace Prize speech. He believes this neoliberal stuff. He would not have set aside public funding of his campaign otherwise. He was not only bought and paid for, he wanted to be.
?
Is it belief to believe what massah tells him?
Yes. To both of your comments, juliannia.
DW
Hope you are right. O certainly seems to the dog that caught the car and then had no idea what to do – psychologically unsuited and insufficiently experienced. My theory is that he pursuaded Michelle to make the run because it would sell his books believing it unlikely he would get past Hillary and then McCain. Maybe his craven desire to be part of the in crowd and secure his financial future has trumped concern even for legacy, including the desire for a 2nd term, which seems suspect. Like I said, that’s my best case.
You’re right, I oversimplified: As both happened simultaneously after the political Assassination of economic reformer and presumed Presidential candidate Huey Long, and bankers and top capitalists were still into tripping Roosevelt up, and Ford and DuPont and Lindbergh were flying over to schmooze with Hitler, a series of unfortunate decisions and coincidences contributed.
I agree that Obama is a NeoLib through and through and pretty much believes in it, but it does still seem as if there’s something with which he’s uncomfortable… as highlighted throughout the comments. It’s a “something” that seems to have been brought to his attention some short while after he was “elected.”
I dunno… speculation and about $3.50 will buy ya a cuppa Joe, but one does wonder…
Great diary entry, C!
Highly rec’d!
Sure it was. That does not mean it must always be so. Unfortunately, I don’t think it can be changed without major…I’ll say upheavals.
“?”
Sorry, I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your presuppositions. One big one may be, I don’t know, but may be that “the War got us out of the Depression, therefore war is good for the economy.”
Since war is clearly no longer good for the economy, if you are starting where I think you might be, you will inevitably reach the wrong conclusion.
I freely admit I could be wrong about that presupposition bit.
I dunno, C. You may remember my piece at the Cafe in early 2009 on ‘Hidden Constraints to Presidential Power’, in which I compiled some new evidence of many events, communications, and document discoveries that showed how many national security and military officials, multinational MOTUs, etc. had their fingers in electoral winners and losers.
The piece went from John Perkins’ messages to Russ Baker’s Family Secrets on the Bush Dynasty, Smedley Butler’s foiling the coup against FDR (Baker called it a DuPont/Morgan coup, the many intelligence officers Dulles placed in Nixon’s administration, Alexander Butterfield, the so-called “military liaison,” who told Congress about the White House taping system, who turned out to be CIA.
Then a raft of other stories, and finally Gates, who used to work for Pappy Bush being a key player in the Iranian hostage October Surprise, and then…chosen by Obama as Sec Def.
You weren’t quite buyin’ it all (I kept the whole thread since so many folks had brought loads of other information), but:
I will remind you that Obomba *was in the room* with Geithner, Paulson, et.al. when they were pushing for the fire sales of some *failing, crashing* banks, and the bailouts. Even Frontline didn’t know about the other $13 trillion or whatever, but…
Ah, bugger. I need a break; I’ll try to be back for the rest.
And FDR’s government spending programs…sucked./s ;o)
Oh, I understand the psychological bit, but that does not mean that the war in and of itself got us out of the Great Depression. It was massive, Big Government spending on the arms industry and the military in general in order to save the country from conquest that did it. That same massive spending resulted in full employment, and THAT got us out of the Depression.
It really wasn’t that complicated. Equally massive spending on other projects could have done the same thing. Government spending throughout the entire New Deal pales in comparison to what was spent in 1942 alone.
As for the British going for oil in Persia rather than Mexico because the Persians were considered more docile by the British Empire than Mexicans, I have never heard of that. I can see the Imperial point at the time, though. Persia was considered a backward, primitive country in the ’20′s and ’30′s. Mexico, OTOH, had just been through a revolution and civil war that took the lives of almost a million Mexicans.
Then came a series of at least somewhat reformist governments. Not exactly easy pickings for capitalist appropriation. Throw in the American Monroe Doctrine, and the British quite reasonably felt that they could have an easier time of it in Persia. And they were right.
You are correct when you say “full employment kills capitalism.” Capitalists need a pool of unemployed people who will be desperate enough to scramble for crumbs. Marx’s term was lumpenproletariat, yes?
LOL.
Ok, comrade. Imagine this analog. War mongering crapitalists enjoy massive profiteering whilst hardware production is dumped mid-Atlantic. Proles are propagandized to rally for Oceania. Military officers and other doofuses fight enemies in real-time simulations (virtual reality).
Obviously massively wasteful. And not sustainable without the fear.
You aren’t thinking crapitalists would be reasonable, are you? Much less massive, but more productive, spending is impossible because of crapitalist fraud.
@ Barbarian (Paul Ryan loved the book, too.) ;o)
Anyhoo, it turns out tha Obomba had been being advised all along by the American CEO of UBS, and he and Geithner were ‘twins separated at birth’ (glech). But it does beg the question if his *campaign econ team* were all just show, cuz he never brought any, or many, into his administration. (couldn’t find a list of the originals, but *not* Rubinites)
Yes, you’re right, too, in your memory that Summers advised breaking up ONE big bank as a cautionary tale. Frontline interviews said Obomba is so risk-averse (as we know) that he bought the line that even that would cause a panic, tra la la…
But that his administration had to even fight a few Congress-critters on true financial reform, and he blew up at Christina Romer when she told him the stim package needed to be double, or close…so that she quit, bless her little heart. And his ‘shovel-ready projects’ pretty much amounted to highway paving, (though some still claim some green money was actually spent, dunno), and I think now he’s shown his true colors: he’s a fan of Chicago Economics, war (as profitable for them that brung him to the dance), etc.
I just hadn’t realized he was privy to all the financial stuff while he was still campaigning; that pretty much changed my mind about him.
(And by the by, on that original post, you did day that not m,uch would surprise you any longer.) ;o)
But now comical is that *all* of the Wall Street except Wells Fargo money is goin’ to Romney now; what fucking ingrates they are. Cuz, man: did he keep the pitchforks away from the Banksters, lol!
By the by, Rutabaga said my piece was crap, and reminded us that: ‘The most serious challenge to Presidential authority since the Civil War was Douglas MacArthur’s independent negotiations with North Korea, along with an ultimatum he delivered to China on his own authority.’…and that Truman fired his ass. ;o) Meaning, if Obomba wanted to get rid of these assholes, he could have. But he does seem to have known how bad it was, but I think the True Believers reckoned the Fed and Banks could keep it alive for the big players, and maybe never have grasped what a Ponzi scheme it all is.
Know what I mean?
Oh yes Wendy. We certainly bandied that subject a-boot quite a bit.
I missed this. Can it still be read?
That is assuming “these ass holes” were the ones that put the the scary bug in his ear.
But be that as it may (and it may) the whole point is that we cannot for sure know his (or anyone else’s for that matter) motivations if we do not know what they know.
BIG problem for a democracy is secrecy as it diminishes trust on both sides. And the this lack of trust can cause resentment on both sides in a self fulling prophecy.
There are so many things to consider here. Like the dollar being the worlds reserve currency, which Russia and China and a few others would like to change. What do you think would happen to the dollar if this would change ?
What if the Euro became the reserve currency ? Would help it a WHOLE lot but the dollar would sink like a stone.
And how many “American Corporations” are actually owned partially or completely by foreign companies now ?
All this kind of stuff comes into play. Stuff the FDR and even Truman did not have to contend with.
I don’t think those archives are available any more.
I am in the field, saw/knew much prior to 2008, such as Fed complicity in mortgage fraud (no insider info needed, it was available from public sources to any discerning aware person). But was shocked to read in the books afterward how many politicians, including O’bomber, knew (from UBS), and how flagrantly WS was permitted for years to violate any/all rules, counting – correctly- on being bailed out consequence-free. Watching O’Bomber do nothing, while the fraudsters carted away fresh wheelbarrows full of (bailout) money (the’08 ’09 ’10 bonuses) was a final wake up call.
I just pasted it into an email to my Posterous; I’ll take it down later. Back with the link once it posts. Kinda fun history.
Some people argue persuasively that the whole Iran nuclear issue is cover – real issue is Iran is seeking oil payment in Euros gold, not dollars. China is also recently moving to settle trades in Yen, gold, yuan. And -surprise- last week big China tech companies essentially identified as terrorists by U.S. (Maybe already covered here?)
Thanks. I look forward to reading it.
Oh yes. China and Japan and (I think) Korea came to an agreement to trade using only their own currency.
I have zero idea why it formatted so strangely crazy-making, no idea how to fix it), but here it is..
(back later, CMaukonen; RL is calling)
What do I think ? I think all those you mentioned had it easy, that’s what I think.
I’m sure it’s an order of magnitude more intense and intimidating now.
“Who’d want to be president of the United States when they could be Mayor of New York” – Jimmy Walker.
Oh on the formatting. If you were copy/paste the HTML, you sometimes have to remove any line breaks in the HTML text or it formats weird in the other editor.
Wow. OT, what is the procedure for requesting and with permission exchanging emails with other FDLers?
I always wondered why there is so little/no discussion in MSM of why Carter was so screwed by Iran on the release. How dumb of me not to see Iran contra was the pay off for that. Foreign affairs not my speciality, never-the-less, a child could connect those dots..
You might also want to read this as well. Though the subject is more than worthy of a diary all it’s own.
How Psychologists Subvert Democratic Movements: A Talk at the 2012 Psychologists for Social Responsibility Conference
And this too.
Behavior Modification and an Authoritarian Society
I agree, C; the stakes do seem vastly higher now as more of us globally are twigging to the fact that the Emperor has no clothes, and the debt (which many see as money) and risk-free profits are so, so, enormous now.
That the system is going after any remaining revenue streams now…is a hard reality. When it all blows down, and who knows how long they can make it limp along, soooo many planet-wide will suffer so very much.
And that’s why I have faith that the Great Awakening and solidarity in consciousness and taking care of one another….will precede it. I do know you think otherwise. I’m not saying I’m right, but it IS what I believe, or…must believe (hard to separate the two for me).
LOL; I wish I had a clue what you mean; it looks fine in the Edit box. Never will learn this stuff before Ah Die. ;o)
Unlike Salon there is none. Do you mean mine, or someone else’s? If mine, I’m glad to give you a link which I’ll remove later. But fair warning: I am as crap an email correspondent as I am a commenter; my Inbox of unanswered mail is so full that my dreams even chastise me. (Only the more Dark Morpheus Twin, but still…) ;o)
The thing is, while people were celebrating Obama’s win back in Nov 2008, some of us were watching C Span, and we remember how Kucinich confronted Paulson’s lackey, Kashkari. And we remember how Kucinich said, “No one here doubts that you and Mr Paulson are working very, very hard. But our question to you, Sir, would be this one: who are you working for?”
Kucinich and Issa both chaired that Oversight Committee on Finance. Both men recommended that instead of Geithner, and Paulson and then Bernanke stating how that the crisis was so terrible that there was no approach other than to let the People at the Top Banks have as much money as they wanted, without a SINGLE restriction, instead o that Geithner/Paulson/Bernanke approach, the nation should have taken the same approach that was taken after the Savings and Loans Crisis of the Eighties. In that crisis, the nation offered up sums of money, not to the Top Wall Street Firms, but to state chartered banks. And those banks were then required to loan out the money to people in every area of the country. There was pain, but the nation, and the Middle Class recovered.
In Dec 2008, these S & L laws were still on the books, and if they had initially been followed when Obama was first in office, the money would not have gone back to the Elite who set up the First Crisis of 2008, but to the average business person and consumer. Since that approach was not taken, the situation is this: in the USA, out of every dollar of profit created, 49 cents goes to the Big Financial Firms. Rather than to average businesses. (Contrast this with the reality of the early seventies – when only 8 cents of every dollar of profit went to the Biggest Banks!)
Taking that approach, there would have been no need to paralyze Main Street and the middle Class, and to destroy any chance of any of it getting any better. From the available news of the current day economy, this nation is headed for another economic crisis: which is the same as the original one, only larger, and since the economy is so perilous to begin with, its results will be even more odious.
No people in the world should let banks continually gamble on “Exotic Instruments,” nor should nay nation be letting their Central Bank give away trillions of dollars to the Biggest Bankers in The World. It has been especially painful to watch Obama pretend that his two economic “Grand Masters,” Geithner and Bernanke, are doing the right thing. From all of this, I have concluded that Obama is working for Geithner and not the other way around. And Geithner himself tells the officials of foreign nations that very fact, bragging about how Obama works for him, when he visits them for conferences.
If we had a decent system of government, instead of “farcial elections” we could be watching those who did this to our economy be indicted and then go to jail. For whatever reason, only Iceland’s people have had this privilege – of jailing their nation’s economic looters. And those Icelanders also will not have to face the “austerity programs” that Obama will ensure for us over the “Lame Duck” sessions come late November and Dec 2012.
SLAM! You go girl. Truth to power. Righteous rant. Pity I can’t rec that.
My wife and I watched those hearings you speak of. The bankers were so reprehensible they made Issa look good. Kucinich was great. Too bad he sold out on Obamacare, though at least he saved a few thousand jobs in his district by doing so.
NASA Glenn is still in western Cuyahoga County.
Oh I agree.
However (there’s always a however) it
wasn’tisn’t just our banks in trouble but a large number of European banks as well. Including – but not limited to – UBS, Deutsche bank, Credit Suisse, BNP Paribas’, Barclays and some that I have since forgotten.This did not get a lot of air play here on our M$M but it sure as hell did from the European news outlets. And I think this had a lot to do with the fear and reluctance to act.
Remember the FED had been (and for all we know still is) funneling money there way as well. Kind of under the table.
It’s globally systemic.
Combine that with the general distrust and paranoia Washington has of the citizens and you might be able to see what was going on. And for my money most likely still is.
You are obviously arguing against your own mistaken concept of my “pre-supposition.”
I get it. You are just willfully, obtusely, not to mention massively, stupid. I could be wrong in this pre-supposition, but at least I base mine on the available evidence, not like your argument, which is based entirely on an inability to let what I’ve actually written obscure your faculty to reason and debate with any sense of honesty or more unfortunately for you, intelligence.
Here is what I actually said:
Here is what you said:
Note that I am explicitly not “starting from where you think I might be”. When I say “these conditions no longer exist” meaning clearly by “conditions” to attain sustained economic growth through war production funded by wealth transfer from other nations and extreme austerity at home, which is exactly what I said, you argue that I am saying the opposite!
It is you consistently reaching the wrong conclusion because you are a utopian. Ludwig take note. They do exist still today and not just an anachronism from pre-1848, as I mentioned in my Hugo Chavez diary that you lamely attempted to dispute.
blockquote>Equally massive spending on other projects could have done the same thing. Government spending throughout the entire New Deal pales in comparison to what was spent in 1942 alone.
You have perfectly described my very point while arguing that I’m making a different point? As well as confirmed for Ludwig that “utopian socialism” still indeed definitely exists in 2012 in the muddled minds of
socialistswhite middle class progressive third party fluff voters such as Ohio Barbarian.RIOTOUS!
Have a nice life, looser.
I don’t get it. To me you are both saying the exact same thing. At least one of you – perhaps both – need to take a reading comprehension course or something.
Or maybe it is you who also requires the reading comprehension course.
Let’s briefly recap:
1. I said something
2. OB disagreed with what I said but re-stated it in with a slight alteration thru a utopian implication: the war spending not the war effort pulled us out of the Depression.
3. Logically and factually, there is no difference but OB insists there is a difference.
4. The difference is his initial implication subsequently stated that the spending “could have been made” on something else.
5. This something else is not stated. It never is, because it is sheer fantasy akin to the sheer fantasy of increased stimulus that Obama “could have made” again spent in an unspecified manner. After it magically passed Congress in some unspecified manner. How to distribute stimulus throughout the economy for optimal velocity instead of it also being pocketed by the elites (as in TARP, with the exception of GM bailout engineered by Obama). The Obama stimulus that did ppass faced similar problems. Much if it went to the states for Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance. The shovel ready infratsructure projects of so many progressive fantasies did not and could not exist in any remotely viable fashion to be effectively stimulative. I would have preferred mortgage principle write downs to save foreclosed mortgagees myself in both TARP and Stimulus and Obama clearly bungled that aspect of both measures.
6. So OB is both re-stating my position while claiming to disagree with it by manufacturing a “pre-supposition” I not only never made but stated the opposite, followed by his fantastical Utopian implication that the stimulus could have been spent somehow someway assuming peacefully and just as effectively lifted the US out of the depression. Right.
7. A bunch of stuff. As Biden would say. Utopian fluff replacing materialist historical analysis. The fatal disease of the white middle class third party fluff voter exposed once again, which is at base the same malarkey invested in the Jill Stein “Movement.” Or the ideological opposite for that matter: white middle class tea party utopianism.
Both types of ideological delusion are equally reactionary in that they perpetuate the status quo in reality. The progressive tea party is simply more ineffectual because unlike its conservative counterpart it exists outside the Democratic Party and is confined to blogs mostly where its real world impact is essentially nil.
8. Now do you get it?
edit last sentence of #7 into:
The conservative tea party is more effectual than its progressive counterpart because it exists within the confines of the GOP and has successfully infected the party with its own brand of utopian delusionality more meaningfully (not for better but for worse) into the status quo.
The progressive tea party (“tea” using the beatnik era nickname for marijuana) is unable to effectuate anything meaningful with their brand of utopian delusionality (defined roughly as “what coulda/shoulda/woulda occur, if only we lived in an alternate historical reality defined by white middle class progressive third party fluff voters’ delusionality”).
IMHO, this is your current manifestation of Utopian Socialism, Ludwig. The original Utopians were small religious sects who sought to create their own agrarian social reality away from the mainstream society.
The current brand of utopians seek to create their own
agrarianonline social reality away from mainstream society.Ludwig, far from being the highly evolved revolutionary vanguard he fancies himself in fact the online utopian fluff farmers’ pet goat.
Congratulations, comrade.
While O’Donkeytale creates an offline vanguard? Ho ho, only in your bulbous Brooklynesque bloviations, O’Donkeytale. Have you got yourself straightened out on supporting “CIA”-backed Islamists for Trotskyite revolution, yet?
And, besides that ludicrous misrepresentation, how does your flaming Trotskyist vanguardism do here? What does putting comrade Barbarian in a reactionary progressive tea fire bag do for his Keynesian dreams? Does it inform his theory or does it rather stimulate your ire? Or does your fluff-farmer bull-shitting pay, eh?
Besides, a technical misunderstanding of Keynsianism is not the strongest base for diagnosing “Utopian Socialism”, which exhibits the belief that:
So, you would be wise to break down the misunderstandings and the illusions, but instead you label and digress.
Trotsky would not be proud.
Non-sequitorianism becomes you, O’LudicrousWhig.
You just stated an entire pile of
nonsensemalarkey which I accept as your admission that you have no effective response to my incisive commentary, both here and previously regarding the Middle East Revolution, which I note is still in progress and never was stated by me as “leftist” much less “Trotskyist.”SO, nice try with repeating the lying attack of the changed subject matter, O’LudicrousWhig. And brownie points for the repetition of O’wikipedia substituting for your lack of knowledge.
You expose yourself more and more to be less the revolutionary vanguard and more and more the second coming of Fairleft.
Congratulations, my Pet Goat. You fit very well inside the barnyard.
This exquisite piece of internet projection on your part perhaps sums you up best of all, O’LudicrousWhig:
You are thick, O’Donkeytale.