What planet do they live on?
It is difficult to render me speechless, but this may have done it. Thomas Friedman in the New York Times tells us in very earnest tones with very earnest meaning that we very earnestly must -- MUST -- be willing to be the generation that takes the hit.
We are leaving an era where to be a mayor, governor, senator or president was, on balance, to give things away to people. And we are entering an era where to be a leader will mean, on balance, to take things away from people. It is the only way we’ll get our fiscal house in order before the market, brutally, does it for us.
As evidence of the very serious nature of his admonition that the "market" is waiting to hammer us over the head, he cites Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed as a leader willing to be a "pay-as-you-go" progressive. The backgrounder on Reed is impressive - he seems to be a creative man who benefitted from Federal matching grants to get his education, and who certainly has some conscience when it comes to social issues concerning equality. He is clearly quite bright.
Yet, the gist of Friedman's argument seems to be that one generation needs to suck it up in order to make things nice for the next one.
Ahem. Excuse me. For all the vilification of the Boomer generation, it might be worth remembering that our work is paying for our parents' benefits as well as our own. The problem isn't "us". The problem is the seismic shift in where the nation's wealth lies. So when I read platitudes like this, they leave me a bit speechless.
In a recent address, Reed elaborated: “The bottom line is that for the country to do and to be what we have been ... there must be a generation tough enough to stick out its chin and take the hit. ... It is time to begin having the types of mature and honest conversations necessary to deal effectively with the new economic realities we are facing as a nation. We simply cannot keep kicking the can down the road.”
See? There it is again. That whole "honest conversation" thing again. Really, it's what John said, and which I echo: F&ck that. Talk to me about sticking out my chin when you take care of the fat cats' double chin, especially while sitting in the comfort of your "palatial 11,400-square-foot house, currently valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel" in Bethesda, Maryland, with your heiress wife. Until then, screw your mature and honest conversations.
But fuck Tom "Suck on this" Friedman, who's always wrong about EVERYTHING. If there's one Villager who should be put in stocks in the village square, it's him.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
is on point with Globalization...
Ha Joon Chang has tore him apart time and time again. His "Lexus and the Olive Tree" book is nonsense. The freaking Lexus is made by a car company that was protected by the government, owned multiple times by the government and financially supported by the government for a 25 year span. There would be no Lexus if the country that car company was from listened to people like Friedman, if they had let the "free market" work. No country that is called developed has followed Friedman's advice, ESPECIALLY the US, which has historically been the most protectionist country in the world, and which developed with massive state intervention in the economy.
What he is calling for is generational theft. His parents weren't GIVEN a god damn thing. They fought for what they got and they paid much higher taxes, had far more constricted trade and finance, had more social programs handled by the government and a wider safety net than we do. They were handed a good country and made it better. When it came time to pay for that society they did. Now, Friedman and his generation comes along and when it is time for them to pay, to pass on to the next generation a good educational system, health care system, etc, they refuse. They've destroyed everything with their nihilistic materialism. They refuse to pay higher taxes, allow for inequitable trade, financial and tax deals, allow for economic exploitation and greed to dominate the economy and here we are. They have made every single part of our society worse and are now saying to us that we better not dare hold them accountable. We better not let billionaires who couldn't posisbly "earn" that much money (it isn't possible to earn that much money, you must obtain that money by monopolizing someone else's work in some way or creating debt that adds nothing to the world) pay for money they didn't earn. It's not even let them eat cake. It's denying that cake exists, that he and his parents had plenty of it when he was younger but now he's grown, fat. and its all gone. He's telling them to eat paper.
If you don't mind, I may quote you on a post I'm working on about Coburn preaching austerity as well.
I appreciate it.
Well said.
>The freaking Lexus is made by a car company that was protected by the government, owned multiple times by the government and financially supported by the government for a 25 year span. There would be no Lexus if the country that car company was from listened to people like Friedman, if they had let the "free market" work.
You do know that by protecting a domestic firm you are just saving the firm at the expense of the consumers, thus robbing them from their money and their freedom of choice...Yeah there would be no Lexus, but we would have gotten a more efficient firm with a car with better qualities. All that we get from protectionism is a deadweight loss in society.
>No country that is called developed has followed Friedman's advice, ESPECIALLY the US, which has historically been the most protectionist country in the world, and which developed with massive state intervention in the economy.
Oh, ok so the Smoot Hawley tariffs were a good thing for the economy? why don't we go back to that? lets see all the peace and prosperity we will get once we close ourselves from the rest of the world like N. Korea. Also you are wrong calling the US the most protectionist nation in the world. Yes the US has been protectionist (Reagan arguably being one of the most protectionist, i.e. steel quota in the 80s and Japanese products), but nothing compared to Statist nations.
"When goods cannot cross borders, armies will" - Frederick Bastiat
It isn't a difference of opinion or ideology. Every single country that we call developed protected domestic industry from foreign competition until they were strong enough to compete internationally. There are two possible exceptions, and they're partial exceptions. The Netherlands (because they were the first to develop widespread industry and didn't have to protect themselves from anyone) and Switzerland (which isn't a model that can be generalized). Every other country, ESPECIALLY the US and Britain, has protected domestic industry and has used massive state intervention in the economy when developing.
This country, from the the early part of the 19th century until about WWII was the most protectionist country in the world, by a mile. We copied Britain's protectionist policies (which went back centuries and were at times extreme) and actually had much higher tariffs. The highest tariffs in the world, by a long shot. Early on in this country there was a debate between people like Hamilton vs. people like Jefferson. Jefferson, and Adam Smith, said that America should just produce what it has a lot of, raw materials, and just buy manufactured products from England. If we tried to protect domestic industry it would, as you are saying, destroy the country. Here's South Korean economist, Ha Joon Chang's response:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/co...
"However, over time people saw sense in Hamilton's argument, and the US shifted to protectionism after the Anglo-American War of 1812. By the 1830s, its industrial tariff rate, at 40-50 per cent, was the highest in the world, and remained so until the Second World War...Britain and the US may have been the most ardent - and most successful - users of tariffs, but most of today's rich countries deployed tariff protection for extended periods in order to promote their infant industries. Many of them also actively used government subsidies and public enterprises to promote new industries. Japan and many European countries have given numerous subsidies to strategic industries. The US has publicly financed the highest share of research and development in the world...When they needed to protect their nascent producers, most of today's rich countries restricted foreign investment. In the 19th century, the US strictly regulated foreign investment in banking, shipping, mining, and logging. Japan and Korea severely restricted foreign investment in manufacturing. Between the 1930s and the 1980s, Finland officially classified all firms with more than 20 per cent foreign ownership as "dangerous enterprises".
South Korea copied Japan's protectionist, state lead economic development. Japan's government created a comparative advantage through the state and the famous MITI (look it up). Go to Korea today and try to find an American car dealership. I lived in China for a year and a half, they're developing by doing the same exact thing. Not all protectionism is good, but no country has or will develop without it. It is fact and the reasons are obvious.
"Oh, ok so the Smoot Hawley tariffs were a good thing for the economy? why don't we go back to that? lets see all the peace and prosperity we will get once we close ourselves from the rest of the world like N. Korea. Also you are wrong calling the US the most protectionist nation in the world."
Grow up. Honestly. The US was, for over a century and a half, the most protectionist country in the world. A fact, not arguable. Most everything we excel at is the result of the state. The computer you are on and the internet we're using came out of the largest socialist institution in the world, the US military. Civilian air craft, which we still make here and export, is just a modified bomber. The satellites we use for cell phones, cable, etc? The government. Bio-technological research? The government. Our capital intensive agricultural sector? Highly subsidized. I could go on an on. The fact that the US government pays amongst the highest percentage of R & D costs domestically as any other country in the world does in their domestic economies?
Helping to fund, develop and protect, for example, green industries here is a no brainer.
I forgot to mention the Argentinian economist Raul Prebisch. I first read about him in Vijay Prashad's "People's History of the Third World". Good book, especially if you want to read something from someone like you will disagree with. He was a very influential economist, especially in Latin America, worked at the UN, was influential in the Third World and the non-aligned movement. He was similar to Hamilton in that he thought protection for "infant industries" was important. Many Latin American countries developed industries around the time of WWII, thanks in part to Europe focusing at the time on production towards war. It was also in part because of either protectionism or import substitution strategies in many countries in the region. This was changed after WWII, when many of them went towards "free trade", it was often forced on them.
Prebisch saw this and was convinced that smart protectionism, under certain conditions, could benefit the country. He saw later on, when some of the schemes he was in favor of failed, that protectionism doesn't ALWAYS work. If you have protectionism in countries like Latin America, you must do something at the same time about the differences in wealth, about the explosion in wealth inequality, land reform, labor laws, etc. Countries that didn't do that many times failed. They didn't always, but when they didn't fail they necessitated a pretty radical economic program. Many countries weren't willing or able to do that.
In a country like ours, you have to ask yourself what we will trade with other countries. We produce less and less domestically, because our wages are too high, our environmental rules too tough, our minimum wage too high, our (much weaker than they used to be) unions too strong, our dwindling social programs too vast. Until that changes, say people like Friedman, the US will produce less and less domestically. So, what exactly, if we leave everything up the "free market", will we trade with other countries? Services? Developing countries rely on service jobs too. Finance? Finance is just debt, doesn't produce anything. Will we move backwards to exporting mainly agricultural goods, like developing countries? If the government can't do what all governments do when countries are developing and (more equitably) growing, which is fund, direct and protect needed strategic industries, then what?
will require all to contribute to paying it off, but the wealthy must pay for a disproportionate amount of it because they benefit from the current system disproportionately. This is not about a redistribution of wealth as the liar Glenn Beck would have his gullible viewers believe; it is about pragmatic fiscal policy (not to mention pragmatic election strategy).
"The antidote to bad speech is more speech." ~~J.S. Mill
Hey ! I have an idea asshole , one that's probably never occurred to you , close all tax escape loopholes for corporations , clamp down on corporations renting a vacant building or paying for some post office box in the Cayman Islands or some where so that they can get out of paying their taxes , eliminate all corporate welfare , eliminate the Bush / Obama tax cuts for the top ten percent , raise the SSI tax cap to a quarter million or more , get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq ... put an end to the money laundering operations , one way or another rebuild our manufacturing / jobs and tax base in this country and ... would you like me to continue ?
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
I'm convinced that a people's (populist) approach toward the federal budget would cut the deficits down systematically and lead to the surpluses that we're going to need for generations (plural) in order to pay down this debt and restore economic competitiveness again.
The one area where this needs to be done responsibly is defense. Senator Hart has come up with a way to cut the pentagon budget in half within 5 years by trimming the waste including all programs no longer needed and focusing instead on fighting terrorists.
We need a news populist movement to take this country back from the bipartisan foreign policy of the CFR and from corporate control of our political order.
"The antidote to bad speech is more speech." ~~J.S. Mill
So is he for or against making tax cuts for the top two percent permanent?
Thought so...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The international greeting for this planet is: "Are you rich? No? Then fuck off! Here's our bill."
to get a bus transfer...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I'll join Friedman's conversation as soon as I hear him and George Will and a dozen more of these assholes lead off with, "We, as America's top 2% earners have to pay more because we have gained the most in the last rape and pillage 3 decades." As soon as these hypocrites say something like this I will be willing to approach this conversation.
I voted for the guy who was going to raise my taxes as well as the taxes of many others. In addition, I voted for the guy whose policies were sure to reduce my income. Why doesn't Freidman ever talk about the privileged (guys like Friedman and overpaid journalists who do little to really educate and inform) getting away with robbery and their unwillingness to take it on the chin? Thomas Friedman is a sanctimonious, hyprocritical blowhard.
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
Adolf Hitler
"And we are entering an era where to be a leader will mean, on balance, to take things away from people. It is the only way we’ll get our fiscal house in order..."
Let it start with retaking it from the scum that basically stole it from the rest us in the first place. You had your run rich piggies, how about doing the right thing?
Generally speaking I don't trust anyone making over 150K a year.
If the American people ever wake up and realize what is being done to them, a revolution will happen. If that revolution happens, guys like Friedman will be the first to go...
OK, ok, now I understand. He blames the lower 98% for not spending more borrowed and non existent money for his wife's family trust evaporation. Since it is our fault the trust busted then we must suck it up and pay, damn it!
wasn't the f-i-l listening to Friedman's advice?
on only $25 million in wealth. So, no sympathy for YOU, Friedman & Co.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
if he's willing to give up what he has to help achieve this goal. But his type never do, they just expect the middle class and lower middle class to buck up.
Jeanne
Brilliant economic policy.
Preach to us, Brother Thomas, preach to us who have been so reckless as to not be born into money or married into money, preach to us from the book of austerity the dread lesson that it is OUR fault. Preach to us that we might forget that six or seven Friedman Units ago you were preaching the virtues of outsourcing American jobs to India.
how many more "Freidman Units" until this clown gets something right?
Harry Chapin wants you.
by the RepoCons, Between 2000-2003 about 80% of my savings and investments disappeared into the Bushies' pockets.
I'm a Baby Boomer which means my serious earning days are over and I have essentially no investment income to access because of Bush.
So, sure go ahead and rob us again (as Bushies did again from 2007-2009, but we are already broke and will, in the next 5 years bring the total of retirees and elder living in poverty to pretty impressive numbers.
So sure steal all the rest of my retirement it doesn't amount to squat anyway and won't, even multiplied by a million make a dent in the federal budget or federal debt.
If that is the Republicans best idea, it's pretty pointless, if you want to raise serious money tax the people who have money.
To be well paid for usually being wrong.
According to Wikipedia, Thomas Friedman's net worth is $25 million. I have no idea if he donates any of his income to charity, but it does seem incredibly sad that one person can be so wealthy and so disconnected from the world around him. He presents himself as a well meaning and scholarly journalist spreading his good intentions via his informed sensibilities to the rest of us. However, he is incredibly out of touch and has a tin ear when it comes to day to day realities for most Americans.
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
Adolf Hitler
Maybe we should all just give up 50% of our wealth. A flat tax, fair for everybody, how would he like that idea? I've got no problem with it from the idea of the how much blood they get out of this turnip.
How about making the banking industry and wall street suck it up? We loan them billions to save their asses, it works and they go right back to doing the same old things and handing out bonuses to themselves for screwing the whole system up in the first place. Why not treat them like any other criminal and sieze their ill gotten gains and charge them huge fines for their major f#ck ups?!!!! God I wish Obama had some guts like Franklin Roosevelt and stopped worrying about his own reelection as if that mattered more than doing the right thing for the American people.
I have a hard time seeing the outrage in what he's actually written after RTFA.
We should be shutting down insolvent banks that have overleveraged for the past decade which will mean cramming down debts and everyone taking a bite of the shit sandwich. Without banks being honest about their assets and defaulting on bad debt, we are kicking the can down the road just as Friedman says.
Unfunded pension obligations work in the same way, especially when agreements were made with tax valuations/expectations during a rampant housing bubble. It stands to reason that these obligations must be reconsidered.
Rather than bailing out insolvent banks or pulling forward future demand to bail out insolvent pension funds, this generation does need to be the one to take the medicine whether the bankers or the tax payers or the corporation.
No point in making ad hominem attacks on Friedman (someone with whose opinions I disagree frequently) since in this case I tend to agree with his general point.
Pensions are unfunded?
No they aren't. Pensions are usually funded (at least in part) by the employee over the life of their employment. The problem lies in the mismanagement of funds--where those employee contributions go into a general fund that were counting stupidly on bubbles lasting.
No one--not one of these idiot bobbleheads--is suggesting that those who put us in this situation should "take it on the chin". The banks that leveraged their asses on ethereal credit default swaps were "too big to fail". Look at the salaries and bonuses on Wall Street.
The only people expected to suck it up and suffer for the economy are the ones who can least afford it.
Absolutely Nicole. As soon as I hear people like Friedman say that the mega wealthy like himself should not get tax breaks that will do nothing for the economy Is when I will listen and not consider everything he says hypocritical. He has no credibility. Why can't people like him realize that if the "little people" don't have money to spend in his family's malls then his malls are going to fail. And as long as people like him have huge mansions and tell the little people that they have to suck it up they are going to be in danger of a revolution if the little people have to "suck it up." Does he really think that people like Marnie up above have to suck it up more after they have been sucked dry already?
What does this bloviating moron think has been going on for decades? The people have been taking it on the chin, shin and gut for our "betters" since Ronny Reagan stormed the WH. They have managed to privatize all profits and socialize their losses and they were whining about a 2% tax increase on their ill gotten loot. I want to see them all cuffed and in a perp walk down Wall Street and their property confiscated.
"we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country." …..Thomas Jefferson
Sounds like he is having a "Let them eat cake moment."
He means "Yellow Cake" from Niger...
I trust that's better than from the urinal.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Poor Marie Antoinette. Never quite got it. Famous last words: "I guess they don't like cake..."
Say...has this thing been sharpened yet?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
His words of "Wisdom" are nothing but a sack of shit for the masses and piles of gold for the very few..
But on a lighter note Happy Holidays:
_.____.____.✯_____._____,
_____._.__☉✺☉___.___.___
___.__.__❄☉✺❄☉____.___
_.___._❄☉✺❄☉❄❄☉___.__
__.__✺❄☉✺❄☉❄✺❄☉.___._
_._✺❄☉✺❄❄☉☉❄✺❄☉_.___
_✺❄☉✺✺❄❄☉☉❄❄✺❄☉_.__
✺❄☉✺✺✺❄❄☉☉❄❄✺✺❄☉.__
..............♟☦♟ ...............
..............♟☦♟................
Tom, you and your bloodsucking Criminal friends forget "Liberals Can Read " The more I talk to folks who used to be neutral I see them agreeing with me that people like "You and all your butthead buddies" are the biggest threat to the average working person.Pack up your rhetoric s#!t head and wake up ! We don't buy it anymore .
TJM
1 - C&L you Rock, and;
2 - "kick the can down the road..." like where was this sort of hypocritical, rhetorical horse-shit when it was time twist a few arms on splitting the Bush tax cut extensions to the hyper-rich 2% and everyone else?
Now that that is done "whew!" say the hyper-rich, gated community, or gated 7 1/2 acres, it's time to "sacrifice".
Sounds like "I'll eat my cake, while you sacrifice half your stale loaf of bread".
Do these people even know there is a Wal-Mart-Christmas-shopping hoi palloi out there? Obama is of the same closed mind set. He needs to borrow one of Clinton's (Hillaries) balls so he would have at least one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLCKSPFrkJQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
they gave for needing the tax breaks is because businesses were unsure about the future. Businesses adapt to new situations just like people adapt to new obstacles they face in life. That excuse for not hiring was the lamest ever.
Regrettably, businesses *still* won't be able to create any new jobs because they're *still* uncertain about the future of their tax cuts. Why, [**clutches pearls**] with the cuts only lasting 2 years, just how could they possibly consider taking on new employees when they won't know if they'll still have their cuts after that?
It's almost as if they have a built in excuse for not "creating" any jobs.
If a poor, powerless person commits a consensual (i.e. victimless) or petty crime, the rule of law demands that he be locked in a cage for many years of his life. If a rich, powerful person commits multiple horrific crimes that victimize the entire world, those crimes are in the past, and we must look forward, not backward, so as to get on with life.
If a poor, powerless person smashes a rich person's car window to steal some cash, the rich person is a crime victim, and his perpetrator dangerous, and must be locked in cage. If a rich, powerful person raids the funds into which people of lesser wealth have been required to pay their entire working lives so that he may acquire even more things he does not need, shit happens, and those of lesser wealth must be grown-ups, not whine, and realistically assess their situation to determine how they and their children will live now.
They come from planet double standard. Its other name is Earth.
The saddest part about it is that those who benefit from the double standard have managed to con
vincemillions of those who suffer under that it is not really a double standard at all. It's apparently not that difficult a trick to pull off. Just tell the suffering masses that if they just buy into the moral structure of the status quo, they will have a chance to be on the winning side of the double standard, looking down at everyone else. It's not really a double standard, you see, if one can earn one's way out of it (which requires, of course, tax cuts and other goodies for those who already have earned as much).Planet Double Standard's unwritten constitution is a Ponzi scheme.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Take a deep breath and prepare yourself, Karoli. You are going to be one spitting mad BC (blog contributor) when Obama endorses "reforming" social security in the name of just-plain-fiscal-common-sense.
I'll be working from an insider's perspective. Before I wrote blog posts I was a third-party retirement plan administrator for over 30 years. I know how they work and why they're broken, and what they need to do to reform SS. It's not cutting benefits; it's expanding the taxable wage base. As far as I'm concerned, they can leave the rate at 4.2% and tax everything up to 500K of income. that works for me.
Fine, I am willing to take a hit. BUT, let's raise income tax on high brackets to 45%, close Citibank and BofA, make Chase and others return the $3 trillions they were given by Obama. Then let's move to single payer in health care, i.e. eliminate the health insurance companies. Make big Pharma into tiny Pharma. Limit the interest on credit card debt to prime+2%. Increase the payment of SS to retirees. Put the heads of all TBTF banks in jail; do the same with hundreds of financial heads. Stop the false foreclosure.
Then, I'll a hit.
Fine, let's have that "honest" conversation! Let's start with where the deficit came from. That would be Republican deficit spending, starting with Reagan and ending with the pseudo-republican we have in the White House now. Let's go on to where we can save tax $$$. That would be corporate control of the legislature - tax loopholes, generous tax rates for the rich, military spending boondoggles, the health "care" scam, etc. Take care of these things, and we could actually balance the budget AND have social services/security. Any other conversation would NOT be honest.
what a bunch of fucknuts, this is very reminiscent of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SlCtIz0j4
I lost 25% of my meager 401K in the Wall Street debacle and lost my job at age 66 in January of 2009. Now I'm apparently too old to hire (no matter that I look about 60, am healthy, educated & intelligent) and can't get a job to support myself. My Social Security is not enough to live on in a metropolitan area, and I'm divorced and with no rich relatives or sugar daddy.
I think that qualifies for sacrifice....so, Mr. Friedman, count me out, you rich bloviating prick.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
These millionaire pundits are telling us that we all have to take the hit. And I just want to scream at schmucks like Friedman and Noonan, "What do you mean, we? What hit are you taking besides another two years of budget busting tax cuts that your toadys in the Senate got for you by holding a gun to the head of millions of Americans whose unemployment ran out. If "we" all have to take a hit, how about at %5 surcharge on all incomes over a million dollars, including capital gains and hedge fund fees and bonuses?
Unfortunately, the well-fed pundit class isn't about to let anyone on the Sunday shows who will ask a question like that.
That would mean he and that heiress he married would have to turn out of their Potomac mansion in their gated, exclusive community and turn it into a home for the homeless.
I am particularly sick of bastards like Friedman telling me to suck it up while he looks for more tax cuts because he's wealthy and I'm not.
Friedman is dead on correct that "It is the only way we’ll get our fiscal house in order before the market, brutally, does it for us." It will by 2016 at the the latest. I'm sorry but it really is clear many liberals think money grows on trees. Always we hear we need to take care of others without so much as an clue or care where the money is going to come from. I always ask here "with what money?" I never get a good realistic answer, never. The solutions commonly put forward are:
* Drastically reduce the military - not going to happen and it still won't fix the fiscal problem
* Tax the rich - not going to happen, not enough to make a difference anyways, that won't fix it
* Keep stimulating the economy - We're doing that and it's killing us, don't you know it's a credit card over it's limit? They aren't even putting the borrowed money in the right places!
The economy is not improving with all they have done, I'm willing to be the generation that takes the hit so my kid doesn't have to. I already know how this is going to end. Their are a lot of ways it can happen the largest generation, the baby boomer's panic and empty out their mutual funds and down Wall Street will go again. The rest of the world who hold 53% of our national debt lose faith and dump the dollar, the banks which should have been allowed to fail all take a dump again on foreclosure gate. The EU tanks and the contagion spreads.
It doesn't really matter because it will spark more fears of deflation which the news is lying about as being 2% when it's really at 8% to 11% (yeah they don't count food or fuel in core inflation). It will be followed by real deflation and then a panicked Bernanke will turn on the printing presses like no tomorrow, rather he'll do it with a keyboard stroke and we will be sitting in a hyper-inflationary depression. Economics is quite simple to understand, unless you listen to Keynesian's who would like you to believe it's beyond the average persons understanding. Oh they like you to believe that. Bernanke is using Keynesian practices now and is increasingly looking like the man behind the green curtain. For all who said I was smoking my front yard on gold being needed to stabilize and fix the problem, looks like the World Bank agree's with me.
World Bank head reaffirms gold as "reference point" to monetary system reform
http://www.quote.com/news/story.action?id=XIN...
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
"* Tax the rich - not going to happen, not enough to make a difference anyways, that won't fix it"
Really interesting. You've said that the fiat currency is the root cause of every economic problem we're facing, say it is the biggest reason for the financialization of the economy but then pretend that financialization hasn't happened. You are aware that there is, literally, hundreds of trillions of dollars of fake, fictitious "wealth" that private financial capital has created, right? On computer screens, within the fractional reserve banking system, within the huge, massive "shadow" banking system, in the Euro Dollar Market. How in the hell was a single cent of that "earned"? How is that money "theirs"? They didn't add anything to the damn world and they've destroyed the real economy with debt overhang. Tax a fraction of that or tax (especially speculative) financial transactions and you can pay for any social programs you need. The financial economy relative to the real economy needs to shrink any way. Finance is ruining economies the world over now. Its either going further in debt to finance or shrinking the size of debt (finance) relative to wages and profits in the productive economy (the real economy).
which most people here completely ignore as if it's not real. If you tax all the wealthy in this country you wouldn't bring enough in to fix the national debt, we now owe more than all the capital currently available in the entire global market. You misunderstand my position with your other arguments, I know we don't have an honest true capitalistic market, and I've never debated that point.
There is only possible outcomes now, default or restructure, we have passed the point of no return on our debt and our ability to realistically pay it down. The countries we owe money to know this as well as those who hold power now. They are going to destroy the dollar, it's clearly part of the plan now. The only saving grace is the free market, the will of the people always wins in the free market, it just takes time because that is what forces real change.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
"If you tax all the wealthy in this country you wouldn't bring enough in to fix the national debt, we now owe more than all the capital currently available in the entire global market."
For one, as you know, there is tons of fictitious wealth, hundreds of trillions of dollars worth, in the world. A good portion of that is in this country, or passes through this country. It certainly passes through all the countries who are now destroying their economies in order to please financial capital. This destruction has been gradual, over the last 40 or so years, it has now causes economic implosion. There IS enough fake ficititious wealth around to pay for any social program we need, and you know that. This is capitalism of course, it is just a different type of capitalism. The capitalism of 1950's, gold standard America was much different than late 19th century British capitalism, but they were both capitalism. I consider people like you nothing more than useful idiots for the modern equivalent of the Robber Barons. You think that you're solving people's problems by not changing a flawed system, in many ways making the problems we're having much worse, and you're pushing to hold on to the most parasitic elements within the capitalist system. The people at the top of the economic system are predominantly not former mom and pop store owners, most of them were born rich, all of them got rich by monopolizing other people's work. It is impossible to "earn" a billion dollars with your own hands, if you go by the standard definition economists use.
Besides, you don't seem to understand how the economy works. It isn't like we look at our debt or deficit, then look at the amount of profits, savings and capital gains and see if they match up. If the government were to raise taxes on financial speculation (I can't see a logical argument as to why they shouldn't), if they raised capital gains taxes, if they raised taxes on rents (why an oil company should get to keep rents, unearned revenue, is beyond me. That is something the classical economists like Adam Smith agreed with ME, and not you on. That's how far right wing you are) they could pay down the deficit, they could also re-circulate that money in the real economy. Public works projects, public spending, direct lending, etc. More people would work, more people would pay taxes, more people would have money to spend, thanks to the insane fractional reserve banking system, it would spread quickly. It has what economists call a multiplier effect. Yes, there is enough money to do this and not destroy the economy.
What you are arguing for anyway is not capitalism, although you seem to think of it as some purer form of capitalism, which is cute. It is much closer to feudalism or at least mercantilism. You don't even want to take us back before the New Deal, you want to take us back to the time of Adam Smith, when the capitalists had to go to war with the remnants of feudalism, the landed aristocracy, the rentier class, financiers. They were involved in production of real things and hated the people who sat on their ass and got fat and rich on un-earned income. You are defending the people who do this and you're pretending that they earned it. I realize that many people who have lots of money have worked hard, made smart decisions, etc. They certainly earned a portion of that wealth. However, ALL of them got incredibly rich by in some way monopolizing the work of someone else, most of them inherited their wealth (the facts are clear on this if you bother to look it up).
"The only saving grace is the free market, the will of the people always wins in the free market, it just takes time because that is what forces real change."
How can you say this nonsense without knowing economic history? "Free trade" destroyed Britain, it has destroyed us, no country, NO GOD DAMN COUNTRY, has developed in modern times using the "free market". No country has maintained a high standard of living, ours included, using the "free market". How can you talk about the f*cking "free market" when the "free market" has performed so horribly? You are rich and out of touch with reality. That is certain. These issues aren't real to you, you don't have to understand reality to get by. I'm sure you wow that people at your local coffee house with your Ayn Rand nonsense.
You say "It is impossible to "earn" a billion dollars with your own hands", maybe for you it is, but my old roommate with 20 years of hard and "smart" work has made a half billion on his own. When we were room mates we we're both broke, driving clunkers, and paying $200 a month to CalTrans renting a house along with 3 other people in NorCal. So yes you can.
You clearly don't understand monetary history or the free market and it's obvious you'll make up just about anything to convince yourself you are right. I have provided countless links for people to do their own research on this site again and again, but you are not interested in that. You just want to snivel over how unfair the world is and how the greedy need to stop being greedy. Good luck with that, by 2016 what I said I above will have occurred regardless if you like it or not.
I'm fully prepared to wait that period of time and come back here to point out just how wrong you have been in all of your posts. You probably will still try to argue you were some how right despite everything unfolding exactly as I said it would, or rather those I study said it would happen. So far I'm dead on correct, thanks for playing.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
"You say "It is impossible to "earn" a billion dollars with your own hands", maybe for you it is, but my old roommate with 20 years of hard and "smart" work has made a half billion on his own."
What nonsense. Explain what your roommate does. If we is involved in finance he doesn't earn a god damn thing. Playing around with currencies on a computer screen is parasitic. Explain exactly what your roommate does, you lying bastard.
"You clearly don't understand monetary history or the free market and it's obvious you'll make up just about anything to convince yourself you are right."
Vegas, how in the world have you countered a damn thing about what I have said? You haven't shown that you know a god damn thing about economics. You've shown that you know something about monetary policy, although you repeat the same ideas and concepts over and over and over again, so I have to deduce that your knowledge is pretty shallow. You talk about our fiat currency and gold and that is it. You haven't addressed ANYTHING I said directly. You simply respond with what little you seem to know. When I talk about economic historians like Ha Joon Chang, E.K. Hunt, Michael Hudson and Karl Polanyi (and I have talked about and referenced them in posts with you in the past, you never respond because you can't) you don't respond directly to anything, then you say that you did and that I am ignorant of "free market and monetary history". I have shown time and time again with you that that is nonsense. Those economists are economic historians, so obviously they talk at great length about "free markets", in theory and in practice. They talk about where capitalism came from and the different forms it has taken. Some of them have predicted the directions it would follow and were 100% correct. Hudson, Sweezy and others were correct that it would be a disaster and it has been.
Was the US "free market" from the early 19th century until about WWII, when it was by far the most protectionist country in the world? What does the "free market" have to do with the technologies that have come out of the largest socialist institution in the world, the US military (the internet, computers, civilian air craft, satellites that we use for cell phones and TV, amongst other things), the US government covering more domestic R & D costs than any other country in the world, our highly subsidized agricultural system? Could you even begin to respond to Ha Joon Chang's findings (no), that every country (with two partial exceptions), has developed directly violating "free market" principles? Could you begin to respond to the disaster that the "free market" policies of the last 40 years have been, especially in relation to the social democratic period (the first 25 years of so following WWII)? No, you never do and can't. Yet you'll pretend that you have by saying nothing of substance and repeating the same talking points time and time again. Fiat currency, gold, the Fed, blah blah blah.
You are a scum bag. What you are in favor of is immoral and despite the fact that your policies have been a 40 year in the making failure, despite the fact that your policies are destroying economy after economy in front of our eyes, you're calling for more of it. Like I said, you are probably relatively well off, you were probably born rich. I wouldn't believe you if you said otherwise. Reality hasn't touched you, which is why you believe in such nonsense.
"I'm fully prepared to wait that period of time and come back here to point out just how wrong you have been in all of your posts. You probably will still try to argue you were some how right despite everything unfolding exactly as I said it would, or rather those I study said it would happen. So far I'm dead on correct"
Spell out exactly what you have been predicting. Were you predicting more financial stress? Wow, what a genius you are! Have you been predicting that the dollar might lose more value, even collapse? Economists across the political spectrum haven't been saying as much. Who has argued against that? I have simply pointed out that what you want moving forward has been the exact policies that have gotten us to this point. They have, you can't argue against that, you have no capacity to argue against that.
Again, what economic changes have happened over the last 40 years? Marginal tax rates have been majorly cut as have corporate tax rates (forget what is on the books, corporations pay about 7% in taxes now, all things considered), services privatized, unions attacked and not nearly as powerful as they once were, currencies are more freely convertible, trade and finance more liberalized and the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Central banks have given up caring about full employment and only care now about inflation. Governments are intervening now in the market to inflate the value of debt that creditors owe, not to save working people. What has been the result? Stagnating wages for decades, an explosion in wealth inequality, an explosion in private governmental and corporate debt (household debt is, for example, about 14 times higher than it was about 40 years ago, thanks in large party to stagnating wages) growth rates have progressively slowed, de-industrialization, the economy has been financialized, amongst other horrors. Across the board we have moved closer to what you want and here we are. You think you are a genius for pointing out that the economies are in horrible shape? That currencies and local governments might collapse. They're crumbling because of YOUR policies! "Free markets" and all that nonsense. East Asia a little over a decade ago was attacked by finance and faced many of the same problems, then Argentina, then Russia, Brazil, Ecuador. Now Ireland, Latvia, Iceland, Spain. Not a single one of them were moving to the left on economic policy, all were moving towards the "Washington Consensus" and all lost their ass as a result. As I said, reality doesn't concern you, trust fund boy.
in the Anglican church, or any church for that matter, but I must say, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Xmas message declared that the rich must shoulder their fair share of the burden, and I believe him...
Much better than the pope, who ticked off China over 'lack of religious freedom.' I nearly wet m'self over that one.
me-oww!
The rapidity with which this meme has taken hold in the national discussion is breathtaking...They really have created an alternate reality that seems to be "truth" for vast segments of our population.
It's no mystery that we saw the economics of destruction bring us to this point over 30+ years, but as Bush (well, really Cheney) put the final nail in our coffin through 2 wars, and the economic meltdown and resulting shift to corporate welfare, the damned right wing spin machine has been able to market this crap of government/public sector = evil to not only obfuscate the truth but to create the business case to continue destroying this country. And people are buying it...
This austerity meme, whether it's under the guise of morons like Friedman passing himself off as a global "thinker" or that reactionary fool Senator Coburn trumpeting his "truth" this morning "...that America will experience "apocalyptic pain" with 15-18 percent unemployment and the "middle class destroyed" if it didn't get its fiscal house in order by reducing spending..."
This is complete and utter crap, as we all know - the gall of any of these fools is beyond the pale.
This past two years has been unbelievably painful to watch - watch what happens in 2011/2012, especially at the local level.
Follow the money - that's all any of this is, suck every drop of money from the people in this country. The objective is to cripple the citizens of this country every conceivable way so that the corporations and plutocracy that now run this country can continue to steal big and steal little until there is nothing left.
There is so much potential money floating around now that I don't think the corporations (including Wall Street as their enablers) know whether to shit or go blind - where do we steal next and how do we get the politicians to help us solidify our position even further? To wit:
The $2 Trillion sitting on corporate balance sheets ready to be leveraged at 10 to 1, or 20 to 1, or 50 to 1 for mergers and acquisitions which will put more people out of work; the continued sucking from the Fed's discount window at virtually 0% interest to fuel proprietary trading and resulting profits for Wall Street; continued policy making from agencies like the FCC allowing ATT and Verizon to literally own wireless access to the Internet; and/or the acquisition of the vast pool of Social Security and public and private sector pension cash laying around that are part of the safety net for workers with help from state and local politicians.
This is larceny on an unprecedented scale, larger then at any time in our history - larger than even Reagan and his cronies could have imagined with and through Milton Friedman's guidance in 1982.
All of the wedge social issues and the rise of the manufactured spending/deficit outrage only serves to continue obfuscating the truth because the Repubs know and count on just enough of the population to be unenlightened, ala last month's election, and reinforced through fools like little Tommy Friedman.
See what George Lakoff has to say about all this spin.
Wait - we haven't seen the worst of it yet, because ultimately all politics is local and people like Christie in New Jersey, Scott in Florida, or the moron Walker in Wisconsin, who hasn't taken office yet, but managed to give back $810 million in federal aid that would have created a high-speed rail system between Milwaukee and Chicago and thousands upon thousands of great paying jobs, will destroy their states.
They are going to destroy this country from the bottom up and it appears that nobody will prevent them from doing this.
The problem is some people (albeit a very few) have enormously more than enought... they think they deserve the excess!
I don't think that we should begrudge anyone their wealth or success...
But those that have should also be expected to make a proportionate amount of sacrifice, and the Very Serious People in the traditional media are not suggesting that. The only people expected to sacrifice are those who have the least.
I'm only speaking for myself but I don't begrudge wealth or success. Extreme wealth use to be called greed. Couldn't they have better used that money giving raises to their employees for their hard work? Rewarding work, what a concept.
These people do believe in a flat tax. They'd be happen to see it go down for them to 25% and up for everyone else. That would be "proportionate."
Ah, yes. Apparently because we objected to being shipped off as canon fodder and refused to die in sufficient numbers 40 years ago, we must be punished now because we are, according to the very wealthy, very serious people, gobbling up too many resources. Never mind that the money they have siphoned off in the last 30 years was money that WE would have earned, as well as the money that we put aside only to have it disappear into a black hole a couple of years ago. No, no, it is our fault, and to add insult to injury, we insist on trying to get health care and other aspects of a decent life for our children and grandchildren, further depleting the pockets of the rich.
If we want to make Frirdman and his ilk happy, we really need to find those last remaining ice floes and sail away for the good of society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQeqmNbA2Hs
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I wrote my comment before I read the others because Friedman made me so angry. Turns out we all had the same reaction. I am encouraged to see people being able to articulate the theft of the last 30 years with increasing understanding, detail and passion. Now we need a way to get this truth out into the general population. Keep writing those letters to the editor and opinion pieces for your local paper, keep calling in to talk shows, keep showing up at public forums and speaking truth to power. Speaking as a boomer, we did this once before; to non-boomers, welcome aboard, glad to know you.
They live on planet earth of course. Pundits like Thomas Friedman just don't live with ordinary people. They live in gated communities with people that think like them. That is not a recipe for long term survival. History has shown that when people are pushed to the breaking point, they are willing to brave any hazard to survive. The rich in trying to take all of the spoils, are slowly creating such conditions. I hope that something will halt this progression to disaster, but if not then not all the money or hired guns will protect them.
Well, it's not hard to write the next chapter of this book. The money that directly benefits your average citizen must be cut. Social Darwinism will be the key.
Cuts in that money that is paid in copious amounts to corporations for materials and services..not so much.
They are so predictable.
50% of the jobs pay around 40 thousand or less. Many quite a bit less. What has Tom got in mind for those people? Is it all their fault? No matter how you cut it or who you do or don't include it is still 50% of the country. His economic acumen seems to be a bit lacking to me.
Thanks karoli. Someone has to read Friedman. Deep down, he is shallow, but also very rich.
I followed your links, dug up some data, and riffed on your theme on my blog, finishing with:
"Friedman, who no doubt belongs to that 1% coterie which siphoned off more than half of the income growth over the past decade and a half, has this advice for you, the other 99%:
Suck it up.
Suck it way up. We’ve got your money, we stole it fair and square, and let’s all talk calmly now. We don’t want to piss you off enough that you would resist our coup and try and get it back."
More, with a bit of data, at
http://thepondonome.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/...
The Pondonome
but sad stats. :(
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
a little less growth....
a little less war...
a little less oil...
a little less forest....
and a little less top soil....
a little more hair...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
and top soil.
Can we not talk about exploiting more of that?
about water too.....
Under the government of, for and by the Boomer generation, St. Greenspan began the loaning money from social security to the federal government. During that period, the boomers in power had the fiduciary responsibility to get the fiscal house in order. The wise and prudent thing to do would have been to keep taxes reasonably high, to pay down some debt, to maintain their infrastructure inheritance. Instead they have given huge tax breaks and personalized earmarked contracts to the ultra wealthy post-national grifter class.
Gen-xers have spent their entire working lives paying more than their fair share into social security, and now the Boomers who run things are trying to post date the gigantic cuts so as to protect their generation and screw those behind them in line. If gen-xers hadn't fallen for the social security fatalism spoon-fed them by the corporate media whores, they would be pissed.
Comments are closed on this entry