CastLewP:
Good watch!
excellent video!
A few more thoughts:
Wiki says: "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy."
I think that’s a fair summation, and I think it is thus impossible to separate policy from politics. Had Chris said "separate partisanship from policy," I could agree completely. Especially as the bipartisan system has failed us, and turned into a kleptocracy. We are going to have to "make a lot of decisions," and the "methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy" are going to be the battle ground of the next few decades. We have just about "lost our republic," as Franklin warned against. It remains to be seen if we can regain it.
Easily understand that Chris wants to stay apolitical, since so many walks of life are drawn to the important matters presented and discussed here - and his own sincere position is that the clarity of his message outweighs them being political sidetracked into an emotional abyss of non-communication (what some call political discourse - hehe)
That said, in the end ‘the discussion’ will clearly become a very politicized matter, in my opinion.
The Obama administration has done the calculus - that there will ne no pleasant outcome to this financial crisis (end of a business cycle, or super-cycle wave 5 for Elliot Wavers), and that they might as well dovetail a Keynseian solution to their clearly stated political objectives; to create a more goverment dependendant society — spreading the wealth, and as a byproduct; pitting the productive v the non productive.
Rather than go on, I’ll just quote as best I can Dennis Miller; I’m all for giving assistance to the helpless, just not to the clueless". ---- It seems the ‘clueless’ have been moved tot he front of the line by the Obama administration, and somehow we’re all just supposed to say ‘that’s cool’
TW
CastLewP:
Good watch! We need to refresh our memories from time to time & not forget. Look around at any Supper Center & what does one see these days that I never saw as a young boy with my parents. We see way to many extremely obese people of all ages on no less scooters because they can’t walk now??? These are ominous signs of a glutenous society that wants the Govt to fix it all for them & provide things that they precieve as free…
When I was a kid it was cool to be strong but things have completely changed where excuses of weakness are common place anymore & more than accepted. Teachers can’t discipline children today like in the one room school house(much more effective than attention deficit drugs) . We now have a multi billion dollar educational system that seems to teach down to the lowest common denominator (Public school). Kids are now put on Attention deficit drugs (most forms of amphetamine) to veg them out in the class room at the least sign of any problem. Wonder why many grow up to have a drug problem later???
Our management today lacks any-form of common sense.
I feel we are in the last stages of the Roman Empire.
I agree that being close & relying on our own communities is a good idea but I for one am not pushing these fat self inflicted lazy people around on their scooters when their batteries go down. Let them call Dan Weston (the guy on CNBC adds all day that says he can get them for absolutely "FREE" for them)LOL…
It looks to me if as a society we would have kept ourselves strong, educated & informed (proper parenting) we would not have allowed ourselves to become what we are now. There has to be a big disconnect when scientist mean little in a society but a movie star or rock star (that can’t even sing & is covered in tattoo’s) is revered.
Stimulus, Bailouts & medicaid are just other words that sound better than welfare but non of these will work.
The $75B mortgage relief package is just another bit of the larger attempt to somehow maintain the status quo, that is, to maintain the current financial system. It does have a bit of a populist appeal, and so may forestall street demonstrations and social unrest. Getting ones back up about "help to the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible" is mis-directed resentment IMO. I tend to agree that until the powers that be accept that the international financial system has indeed collapsed there will be no fundamental change. This is not just a US problem - changing the rules of the game in an orderly manner will require international agreement. Lacking that, the change will be dis-orderly - more likely in my opinion.
It is not clear to me yet just where Obama’s thinking/understanding on the situation is. For those who say that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats I would point out that if Al Gore had been allowed to take office in 2000 there would have been no 9-11, no anthrax attack, no Iraq war, no patriot act, no state-sanctioned torture, no wholesale collection of personal and financial information via illegal wiretapping (information that no resides in private hands by the way). Remember the vicious political hardball that played out at that time and tell me there was nothing substantial at stake. YET, the financial powers that were instrumental in creating the current crisis WOULD still be calling the shots. Likely we would still be facing a similar situation - perhaps it would even have occurred sooner.
More to say but I am out of time at the minute… perhaps later
[quote=dbajba]
Chris,
I don’t know what prompted you to do this post, and I don’t really want to know. I just want to say "Hooray for you, for stating it so clearly."[/quote]
I believe that the thread below started this one:
<a 0=“href=/comment/19045#comment-19045"” rel=“nofollow”>
Not everyone is thrilled with Chris M.'s recent post "Obama Punishes Responsible Parties".
THE CRASH COURSE
Douglas Patton: “I’m sure surprised you touted this guy. He’s sure
not on board with Obama – or humanity for the matter. See this [recent
post of his, decrying Obama’s plan to help people stay in their homes].”
CB wrote
" I would point out that if Al Gore had been allowed to take office in 2000 there would have been no 9-11, no anthrax attack, no Iraq war, no patriot act, no state-sanctioned torture, no wholesale collection of personal and financial information via illegal wiretapping (information that no resides in private hands by the way"
You are correct. That is why TPTB made sure that no matter what George W win that election… Once again they were able to do things under the Republican brand name so what they did made sense. Now they are following the Democratic brand name to keep leading you down the primrose path.
Don’t be fooled, they are smarter than we give them credit for.
Re: "they might as well dovetail a Keynseian solution to their clearly stated political objectives; to create a more goverment dependendant society — spreading the wealth, and as a byproduct; pitting the productive v the non productive."
Good post! Is this not how those who seek a totalitarian regime (whether of the left or the right) accomplish their objectives? They take advantage of financial collapse & social unrest. They demonize the opposition, those who oppose are "enemies of the people." They argue, "We will provide for your needs for wealth or security, etc." They create a sense of urgency & panic among elected representatives. They control or coop the media. Poitical correctness is enforced by whatever means possible. I know this is fanciful but it would be good to somehow have a limus test for potential governmental leaders on whether they are absolutely committed to our constitutional republican form of government.
I think this is getting "partisan," fast. How can anyone state with any certainty that none of these bad things listed, especially the 9/11 attack, would NOT have happened if Bush had not been elected? That doesn’t make sense; those attacks were well underway (planning and preparation) during the Clinton administration. This kind of leap of faith/flight of fancy is, I think, exactly what we have to avoid if we are to somehow unite to throw off the yoke of the fatuous two-party system. No change happens, we just sink deeper into the boiling pot. People need to wake up and shed their "party" illusions. It’s ONE BIG PARTY, and they DO NOT have the interests of the people in mind.
[quote=downrange]I think that’s a fair summation, and I think it is thus impossible to separate policy from politics.[/quote]
Yep. It’s almost senseless to try doing so. We got in this situation because of politics. So while analysis is useful, assuming away politics makes the analysis almost irrelevant because you’re assuming away the HUGE key to the problem. One must be a student of politics, Machiavelli, Orwell, Marx, etc to make a difference in this situation. Political manipulators using 1984 tactics will crush you if you don’t understand how they work, the powers behind them, and their ability to determine reality. Seduction is far more important than facts.
[quote=CB]if Al Gore had been allowed to take office in 2000 there would have been no 9-11, no anthrax attack, no Iraq war, no patriot act, no state-sanctioned torture, no wholesale collection of personal and financial information via illegal wiretapping (information that no resides in private hands by the way). Remember the vicious political hardball that played out at that time and tell me there was nothing substantial at stake. YET, the financial powers that were instrumental in creating the current crisis WOULD still be calling the shots. Likely we would still be facing a similar situation - perhaps it would even have occurred sooner.[/quote]
LOL. The financial oligarchy aren’t just behind the financial crisis as if it’s somehow separate from the security mess around the world. They are behind all the security stuff as well. They use both parties to serve their purpose. You think the NSA, IRS, FBI, etc. weren’t tapping americans’ private info under Clinton? You think they wouldn’t have continued that under Gore? You think what you’re calling torture hasn’t happened under every president? You think "terrorist" attacks didn’t happen under every president since the 80’s? You think Bush is the reason we’re in Iraq? It’s called the power elite (way above presidents)…that’s the reason we’re in Iraq, that’s the reason our executive branch has become a monarchy regardless of party, that’s the reason private citizens are treated like property owned by bankers.
Chris,
It feels frustrating when people muddle issues and try to confuse situations. I have been reading your material for at least 6 months now and the qualities I have liked the most about your work have been its clarity, insights, always questioning everything including your own ideas and objective analysis transcending politics. So it is rather surprising that you had to write this piece, but then again it makes sense because most of us have a clouded, confused and delusional mind than the one with clarity and objectiveness.
I think so far Obama has NOT surrounded himself with the best team of people to deal with this economic crisis, but I feel better because he is a President, not McCain nor any one of demagogues. He is probably not well versed in economy and financial systems and he has to trust someone to wade through this. But Obama has intelligence, clarity in his mind and calmness in his temperament. If anyone will figure out this faster and make course corrections, I think we will have much better luck with him than any other so called leaders I’ve seen in a while. It seems to me that you and Obama have many qualities similar to each other in terms of how analytical part of your minds work.
Please keep up with a good work.
Presenmoment
.
[quote=presentmoment]But Obama has intelligence, clarity in his mind and calmness in his temperament[/quote]
Yeah, throwing $10 trillion at bankers just like Bush in the false attempt to reflate a bubble…so intelligent. Hiring the guy who ran NY financial community to run Treasury who’s no different from Paulson…brilliant. Engaging in policy that will permanently destroy our currency and the economic system and, therefore, our country…genius.
Except, I think it is quite genius. He knows this stuff doesn’t work to fix things. But what it does work for is further leveraging the system and sucking power up the chain to DC and Wall St. That’s exactly what he wants. He is brilliant, but not for the reason you think.
[quote=presentmoment]It seems to me that you and Obama have many qualities similar to each other in terms of how analytical part of your minds work. [/quote]
Uh. He is a political practitioner extraordinaire. Chris is an analyst who tries to avoid politics.
Ben, please contact me via my email link. Thx.
castlewp,
Great video. Explains a lot in 10.5 minutes. Good reminder of where we came from and where we’re going! Thanks for the reminder.
Chris, I think you yourself may have inadvertantly politicized the whole thing about the current bailout on this site by putting Obama’s name in the title of your 2/20 post. You in effect said "he did this". If you look at the very posts you cite, one can see how you carefully refrained from using names instead saying things like "US political and financial leadership". With the 2/20 post you are now addressing, you are handling the fallout from simply using the name in the title (I don’t think you did elsewhere in the article). People are scared & they need somebody to blame and you gave them somebody specific to blame which quickly deteriorated into us vs them.
You know how much I respect you, how grateful I am for what you are doing, and that I’m only now trying to be helpful.
What I’m worried about more at this point: as I read the comments above, I think there are too many people on this site who think that sombody or something can actually save our economy when you have so clearly demonstrated that our economy cannot rebound permanently. Is this a vestige of denial? Are we talking about how our economy devolves (or evolves, depending on your perspective)? How it will crash? How can that be orchestrated? I personally will not second guess anyone on what they know or how they go about it at this point, even our leadership, even those I’ve been at political odds with in the past. I’m guessing it’s probably all new experience from here on out. Except for the general fall of the empire, I mean. How that will happen is nothing any of us can begin to imagine.
Louisiana fared pretty well in the 1930’s and even in the 70’s because it is a land of plenty - climate and food and all that. We even have a surplus in our treasury at the moment that our boy-governor has managed to accrue. But we are home to the largest port in the Western Hemisphere (Port of South Louisiana), and I’m sure our economy will tank soon; our manufacturing has already deteriorated.
But the folks in the little village where I live now aren’t blaming anybody for the current state of things (if they even know about it), they’re just going about their business, growing their winter food crops, boiling their crawfish, butchering hogs and today, riding on homemade Mardi Gras floats throwing recycled beads, and of course playing chankachank music. Sometimes, I think it would be better not to know anything about government machinations or the economy and I sorely wish I could assuage my brain of its urbanite focus which I suspect is the result of basic brainwashing by the media I used to listen to.
If I could, I’d not be on this forum at all except out of curiosity, and be doing something really useful, too. And my stomach wouldn’t be tied up in knots about the future. I’d be like my neighbors, focused on their community, having fun and knowing that anything that comes, they can handle. And boy, have they had recent experience with that!
Rosemary
Chris,
I have a couple of questions for you.
- Why hasn’t American public riled up more when our government gave away hundreds of billion dollars to bankers, AIG, etc last fall? When the Congress made such a big deal out of giving some $20 billiion loan to car industry after giving away hundreds of billiion dollars to bankers and financial industry shortly before, it was hard to tell whether I was watching a comedy show or Congressional debates.
Out of all bailout money given away so far, this $75 billion package is the 1st one, whose aim is supposedly to reduce the number of home foreclosures, which affect people on the main street. Putting aside whether this will work or not, I am wondering why people seem to be more outraged against a smaller plan to help out individual home owners vs. the bigger bailout money given away to an oligarchy in financial industry? Why does it seem that American public don’t express outrage toward the bigger theft?
- If we have lost several trillion dollars due to deflated asset values and we have mountains of debts which we can’t service any more mathmatically, isn’t printing more money one of solutions as long as other currencies are printed with about the same rate, thereby making our debt more serviceable? If people’s wages are raised at the same rate as money printing - - I know this will not happen - -, can this money printing possibly work? If not, can you explain why this will not work? It seems FED, other governments and central banks are clearly following the same path of money printing strategy. If everybody can devalue their currencies simulatenously against "real assets" and people’s wages are increased at the speed of money printing, can money printing strategy work? I know I am kind of rambling here, but I’ve wanted to ask this question to you for some time.
WIth warm regards,
Presentmoment
Presntmoment, I know these questions are for Chris but I just was wondering if you remember Sept/Oct when TARP was running through Congress? There was a huge swell of anger, are you kidding? I dare say, the public was more riled up then than with the latest give-away.
As I have been saying to many of the people I communicate with regularly:
Welcome to George W Bush’s third term. He may not be in the White House, but what is happening is just what he prescribed at the end of his second term, only more so. These days, there isn’t a nickles worth of difference between the two parties except that one was in control and now another one is. The difference is invisible. How could the citizens of this country elect the same corrupt 20% approval rated congress that it had before and expect a different result?
I have been wondering if there is any way to create a new party and what to call it. Any suggestions anybody?
I’ve noticed this too. Notice how guys like Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Glenn Beck are the only ones kind of making sense this time(and I’m a Liberal), and it’s the Democratic party using the scare tactics and a cable network propaganda machine(MSNBC). It’s like the world is upside down. You couldn’t have paid me to agree with anything Glenn Beck said in 2005.
The same people who were for spending money like water in Iraq have all of a sudden turned into Austrian rationalists, and the ones who were against this war are the ones now encouraging the new administration to spend money like water, even though they cannot point to one Keynesian victory in our country, except the deluded concept that FDR brought us out of "The Great Depression", not WWII or Europe being flattened and us having to rebuild it.
It’s all a plan, I agree.
[quote=presentmoment]2. If we have lost several trillion dollars due to deflated asset values and we have mountains of debts which we can’t service any more mathmatically, isn’t printing more money one of solutions as long as other currencies are printed with about the same rate, thereby making our debt more serviceable? If people’s wages are raised at the same rate as money printing - - I know this will not happen - -, can this money printing possibly work? If not, can you explain why this will not work? It seems FED, other governments and central banks are clearly following the same path of money printing strategy. If everybody can devalue their currencies simulatenously against "real assets" and people’s wages are increased at the speed of money printing, can money printing strategy work? I know I am kind of rambling here, but I’ve wanted to ask this question to you for some time.[/quote]
First, reflating is the last thing we would want to do. The problem is too much inflation, too much leverage/debt/credit, too much derivative hocus pocus. Attempting to reflate that broken system would only make the next crash that much worse…just like how saving LTCM back in 99 made today’s crash the big systemic collapse that it is.
Now, even if we wanted to do it, it would be impossible because we live in a monetary system based on auctioned credit. We don’t live in a currency based system. Our government/Fed doesn’t "print money" despite how many times the Austrians say that phrase. That’s an old term from Friedman in the 60’s and the Austrian school before that. It was a very correct view of, say, Weimar. But it’s simply not correct anymore for the US.
In a monetary system with $60 trillion in credit collapsing (after 60 years of steady inflation that must deflate at this point), plus $500 trillion in derivatives, it is impossible to inflate by actually printing money (literally passing out dollar bills). Cranking out cash like that would create the endgame collapse on US treasuries and interest rates would soar into the high double digits, i.e. it would cause an even bigger collapse and loss of purchasing power. It is also impossible to inflate by what our media is currently calling "printing money" but is really the Fed leveraging its balance sheet, i.e. trying to increase available credit. It’s only done that by <$10 trillion (which is incomprehensibly HUGE, but still nothing compared to the size of the markets that are collapsing). That simply will not do anything to prevent the systemic collapse that must happen. And the more they do that it’s only making it more likely that the endgame scenario will still happen…a run on treasuries, interest rates rocketing up, the end of the dollar, a complete collapse in the economy. They’re walking a tightrope as they try to soften what’s inevitably going to be a crash landing while at the same time trying to avoid the endgame.
Unfortunately, anything they do is just preventing the credit deflation we need to happen from happening and the markets adjusting as fast as they otherwise would. So the Fed has pretty much guaranteed a depression. Had they just let Wall St institutions walk over to the bankruptcy courts and sell their assets (just like they expect little home mortgage customers to do…foreclose), it would’ve been a seriously severe and painful recession, but we would recover. Now we’re getting into a situation we might not recover from. Beyond the Fed, add what the insane Treasury/president is doing and we’re not just going to have a depression, but it’s going to be of immense proportions. Treasury is stealing so much from taxpayers and burdening future generations so much that people, the private sector, will have much less wealth with which to create and produce in the future. Moreover, they’re virtually bringing the private sector to a halt with so much interference that the market has no clue what to do…it’s paralyzed until government stops tinkering. So much systemic moral hazard has been created that the market cannot function.