June 30, 2010

New Feudal War Part 3: “Austerity”

Filed under: Globalization, Neo-feudalism — Tags: , — Russ @ 1:21 am
By now all the major activities of big corporations and government combine in a nexus of organized crime.
In principle the finance sector’s activity is meant to help corporations and governments cover up for the fact that all sectors are mature, that it’s been many years since there’s been any real growth, and that most large entities are in the red if not insolvent. This covered up as long as it could for the structural collapse of the debt economy, resource depletion, and the fact that much of what wealth is still being produced is simply embezzled from society by a handful of gangsters. The criminals, in corporations and governments, engage in this control fraud to pretend the money is still there and growing. That’s the nominal fraud mode.
When the ponzi scheme blows up, as with American mortgages, everything shifts into disaster capitalist mode. The system pretends the blowup is some kind of act of god, force majeure which is nobody’s fault. It’s also the implicit will of god that the rich who benefited from the bubble don’t have to divest themselves to cover the losses now that all those “profits” are proven to have been fictional.
The fact that these profits and other extractions are not restituted is proof that the fiction was really an intentional fraud, and that every cent taken out was conscious stealing. Obviously, if they had taken profits in good faith, now that the paper wealth has been destroyed they’d feel compelled to return what they now admit was improperly extracted. And if someone didn’t feel so compelled, the government, if it were acting in good faith, would compel him. So that’s proof: The money was intentionally stolen, and the government was intentionally complicit.
So the Temple of Robbery decrees that all prior looting is untouchable, sacrosanct. Rather, all the pain must fall on the same people who were looted the first time around. They must undergo “austerity”, be “adjusted”.
All this is in order to prop up the fiction of the original fraud, and to enable that looting to continue.
I discussed the Bailout in Part 2 (and in many other posts). This was the next evolution of neoliberalism. Once the bubble, the bank balance sheets, and the whole corporate welfare economy which radiated out from it reached a critical mass, it became impossible for the corporate system to sustain crashes, get up and dust itself off, and continue. Either the insolvent zombie banks had to be propped up and the bubble reflated, or the whole system would collapse, vaporizing the kleptocracy’s power along with the wealth it stole. Now the government had to turn the economy into a command economy. Economically if not yet politically, Bailout America and Bailout Eurozone are no longer anything but fascist corporate states.
But now the Bailout is running up against the same limits the prior bubble economy did. Structurally it changed nothing, and thus has all the same problems as before, and faces the same crisis. The banks and governments are just as bankrupt, the ponzi economy is just as baseless, only the fraud is even bigger. The Tower of Babel is just as unstable and doomed, it’s now only higher and more top-heavy. So governments know they’re reaching the end of the Bailout’s rope. The people have dangled and thrashed for long enough at the end of the noose, the rope must break. So they’re looking to set the corpse on fire instead.
The last big juicy plums are public pensions and other existing public property. The banksters want to have their government thugs directly steal this property the people already paid for with their taxes or in contract negotiations. In Greece the target is public worker pensions and other elements of duly negotiated compensation. France, Germany, and now Britain are under the assault of specific robbery plans. Ireland and Latvia have already been torched and are nothing but writhing piles of smoking ash.
In the US Obama, acting as flunkey stooge for Pete Peterson, has taken the lead in preparing the assault. He wanted to have members of Congress set up an unconstitutional commission which would dictate legislation to be rubber-stamped, but for once Congress stuck up for itself and refused. So instead Obama convened his own Star Chamber, loaded with Republican, Democratic, and corporate thieves. They all have a special hatred for the people’s entitlement property, and the latter two were already targeting it back in the Clinton years.
The alleged rationale for this is that “deficits” are the big problem with the economy’s prospects. This is an obvious lie in three ways. 
1. We already know that the financialized economy is a giant ponzi scheme and that the dollar and the euro are bad jokes. Who can possibly take the economy seriously when as much as a quadrillion dollars nominal worth of toxic derivatives are waiting to collapse? Who can possibly take the dollar seriously when Bernanke is now saying the Fed’s going to run its own balance sheet up to $5 trillion to try to keep the Bailout going?
So while the buck’s definitely going to break, it ain’t gonna be the relatively solvent* Social Security, in itself just fine through the 2040s, which does it.
2. Both theory and the historical evidence demonstrate that when the economy is operating so far below capacity, and the government is the only possible spender, it must do so if the goal is jumping the economy’s battery. That’s the only thing which could bring recovery and restore growth. Otherwise you get Hoover, or 1937.
(Now we know “recovery” and “growth” are shams. But all these deficit terrorists claim to be seeking those. So how odd that they’re demanding a course of action which has already been proven to fail, and rejecting the course of action, stimulus, which has been proven to work, in attaining what they claim to want to attain?)
3. Obviously, anyone who sincerely was concerned about deficits and the integrity of the dollar would want to start with all the dead weight in the budget (not to mention the vast bailout and war spending which has been frauded off the budget). He’d want to end the Bailout and the war, slash bloated Pentagon budgets, institute single payer (which is far less expensive for the government and society than maintaining the insurance racket parasite), end subsidies for Big Oil, Big Ag, and simply eradicate all corporate welfare. Then we’d see how the deficit looked, before we thought about a government default on debts owed to the people, who have already paid for their Social Security and Medicare, and which Obama and the banks now want simply to steal.
That’s very clearly what any sincere budget conservative would advocate. He’d start by wanting to purge the bank rackets, insurance rackets, weapons rackets.
As I said in a comment somewhere, if you think you may be overweight and may need to go on a diet, but you also have a giant leech gouging into your throat to suck out all your blood, you better burn the leech off first.
So it’s very clear that the deficit terrorists calling for “austerity” and gutting programs like Social Security are lying about the reason they allege. On the other hand the proximate cause we keep hearing, that it’s necessary for the morale of “the markets”, while moronic (since the markets show no signs of being particularly concerned about the dollar, the pound, or the euro right now, nor did Ireland’s self-immolation do anything for the market’s confidence in its bonds), comes closer to the truth in spite of itself.
The market is a terrorist holding a detonator, and its message at every point is, “Meet my demands or I’ll blow us all up.” We’ve seen this play out many times, from the collapse of Lehman to the TARP first being voted down through many other confidence pressure points through the negotiations over a Fed audit. And the threats are always there too. How often do we see someone on Wall Street or in government say, “Such and such should be done, while this and that shouldn’t, otherwise the markets won’t like it”?
So since the banks view austerity as the next stage of kleptocracy, it follows that they’re ready to deploy the market terrorist tactic to force compliance. Dissenters like Krugman who complain that the threat makes no sense are missing the point, perhaps being willfully obtuse. The threat doesn’t need to make sense on rational or evidence-based grounds; it’s better if it doesn’t. As long as the hostages understand the underlying demands, the more irrational terrorism is, the better. So I have no doubt if Obama’s Robbery Commission can’t get the ball rolling fast in Congress, we’ll be seeing market “demonstrations”.
So there’s the austerity assault. It’s meant to free up extra loot for the Bailout and delay the destruction of the dollar for a little while. It’s also meant to further plunge the people into impoverishment, misery, demoralization, and debt servitude. That’ll be the subject of Part 4.
But it’s the Bailout itself, and the finance sector itself, which are really destroying the dollar and all other global currencies. If we really wanted to stabilize the economy, we’d start by wiping out the gangsters and restituting everything they stole which hasn’t already been destroyed. We would not let them continue to steal what little we have left.
[*From time to time I try to remind readers that while we do know that in fact everything about this economy is insolvent on account of Peak Oil and the unsustainability of exponential debt, nevertheless the time frame for the unwind, how exactly it will happen (hyperinflation, deflation, dollar default, or most likely all of the above), how precipitous the descent will be, are all still up for grabs.
So there’s still be a real question of what’s sacrificed sooner and what later, and how painful the whole descent has to be. I’d say things like Social Security or single payer, while ultimately unsustainable, could be sustained for a greater or lesser periods depending upon the political choices we make as a people, and this in turn could make a significant difference mitigating suffering, or increasing it.
Dmitri Orlov has written extensively on how residual Soviet infrastructure greatly lessened the blow of the collapse of the USSR for the Russian people. Unfortunately, it looks like we idiot Americans are intent on destroying what little buffers we have left just before the collapse. We really want to make it as hard on ourselves as possible, and for no reason at all than so that a few vermin thugs can luxuriate a few days longer.
The kleptocracy and everyone who shills for austerity are vicious sadists who want to increase the pain in order for the Blankfeins and Obamas to get to hang on a little longer in the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.
So I hope it doesn’t sound inconsistent if I say in one place the system must radically decentralize while in another I call upon people the fight for their Social Security. The difference is just a matter of chronology, short/mid range vs. long range.
I’m going to devote a post to specifically that topic, boondoggles vs. bridges vs. what’s really sustainable, sometime soon.]




  1. I have commented elsewhere that the power struggle involved concerns the future of the POWER of the nation state vs the next possible power structure : the supra national corporation, where “the people” quite simply… will not be represented at all, because they are nameless and faceless numbers to be pressed like lemons, and discarded when no further use can be made of them.
    Along the lines of… realizing Adolf’s “dream” in the world, vs realizing it… in the death/WORK camps.
    I disagree, however with your constant harping on “stealing”, etc, for the reason that I am not sure that much of what is going on is motivated by… lack of empathy/identification, and the BELIEF in the economic paradigm that is behind the markets.
    And the reasons given for austerity are rationalizations… WE must be punished because WE have been profligate… TOO MUCH must now become… TOO LITTLE.
    The social body moves from one extreme to the other, in my opinion. Only.. individuals are capable of showing (a limited amount of) reason.
    Our leaders are trying to reinject meaning into “money” by worshipping the slogan “balancing the budget”.
    Indeed, perhaps our political leaders realize that we have been on a binge, and they want to return US to a BALANCE, you see..
    Balance is not a bad thing, you know.
    But…REDUCING, well, putting your economy on a diet is about the quickest way to starve it to death that I know, right ??
    By the way… WHO OWNS the corporations ?
    WHO DO THEY BELONG TO ? If there are shareholders, WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO SAY about the way the corporations act ?
    I’m not convinced by the constant harping on about the rich.
    I favor seeing things in terms of an intricate SYSTEM where many actors share the responsibility for what’s going on.

    Comment by Debra — June 30, 2010 @ 3:52 am

  2. Correct above : I believe that what is going on is motivated by lack of empathy/identification, etc.
    A lot of where we are now stems from our belief IN science, in reason to the exclusion of any other type of thinking.
    Your post shows that, to me, Americans have always had a hard time understanding that people do things for COMPLICATED reasons that often escape their knowledge and consciousness.
    They are not all lying, our leaders.
    They are not all corrupt.
    And, our money is in the end stages of the development of the logic set into motion with… taking interest on it.
    The banks are in crisis because THE IDEA OF INTEREST is in crisis. And our leaders, they are rather ignorant about the history of our civilization, on a whole.
    (It would take.. an enlightened despot to get the U.S. out of this mess right now.
    I have NO FAITH in the capacity of “the people” to do it.. “The people”… is an abstraction, anyway.)
    Because WHAT MONEY MEANS for us is in crisis too.
    I don’t know if we will manage to return to.. business as usual.
    Interesting times.

    Comment by Debra — June 30, 2010 @ 4:01 am

    • You make good points Debra… but being a guy with a ‘scientific’ orientation… I’d actually suggest a bit MORE attention to the science of human nature leads to some avenues for solution.

      In fact, I’m convinced that my conclusions regarding the limitations of ‘biological altruism’ and connections to ‘natural-human-community’ size’ (Dunbar’s Number) because of its foundations in hunter-gatherer society is a major source of the problem is scaling human governance and economics.

      And that this can lead to systems and mechanisms of decision and interaction for improvement.

      It may be hard to follow and not immediately apparent…

      But one of those needed mechanisms is for the Commons-oriented transaction to be separated out via a Commons-owned network.

      For those who take the time to ponder it… there’ll be a realization that empowered association is the foundation for self-organization and self-governance.

      Our inability to compete on this ‘scaled’ playing field is whats kept we ‘small’ people down.

      I’m not religious… but consider this…

      When will the meek inherit the earth?

      When they take up the responsibility for it!

      Capability ENABLES Responsibility

      Demo http://www.Chagora.com

      LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/culturalengineer

      Personal Democracy: Disruption as an Enlightenment Essential

      The Commons-OWNED ‘Individually-controlled / Commons-dedicated Account is more than it at first appears to be… (which is quite a bit by itself).

      It can form naturally, without imposition from a very small and inexpensive seed.

      Should the network develop the way I believe it will… ultimately it itself becomes a sort of bank. But not built on debt. Further at such a point its users can self-organize to use it as a framework around which to design locally-oriented currencies.

      In fact, should such a network decide to, it could abandon the currencies upon which it had been founded and move to something else but that won’t happen immediately.

      And, of course, such a network can ultimately decide for itself what is or isn’t part of the ‘Commons’.

      But the concept is very scary for entrenched interests.

      Though its meant to be mechanism for a gentle revolution so as to avoid the alternative.

      How Would Hunter-gatherers Run the World? (Psst… They DO!)

      Credit Creation and the Building of Sustainable Economic Ecologies http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/02/credit-creation-and-building-of.html

      Comment by Tom Crowl — June 30, 2010 @ 8:46 am

      • Sorry it took me a day to moderate this comment. The filter’s bollixed again and didn’t notify me I had a comment pending moderation.

        Thanks for the ideas. We sure do need a currency alternative,

        Comment by Russ — July 1, 2010 @ 8:24 am

  3. Too much wailing about looting, stealing, kleptocrats, vermin, etc. The real problem is that our so called economy makes no sense. Too many paper shuffling jobs, finance jobs, personal service jobs, fast food jobs, grocery bagging, welcome shopper jobs, guard jobs, crime prevention jobs, well, you get the idea.

    Look around and ask yourself how much of what is characterized as ‘work’ is actually socially productive. Here in Florida, it pretty much comes down to doctors, dentists and nurses.

    For forty odd years, this economy has been ‘sustainable’ because productive foreigners remained willing to exchange their effort and their resources for our Treasury debt. Americans financed their individual life styles by taking on debt and embracing fantasies about the future which were capitalized by the stock market so long as nobody especially wanted to sell.

    As for ‘the people’ being robbed by all this, the people can only blame themselves for swallowing horseshit nonstop, electing one charlatan after another, turning their society upside down in fear of lunatics wielding xacto knives, insisting on their rights to drive trucks, smoke cigarettes, stockpile weapons, talk tough, get fat, stay entertained and remain blissfully ignorant of anything resembling reality.

    Comment by jake chase — June 30, 2010 @ 6:21 am

    • No jake, that’s wrong. They stopped wielding xacto knives long ago. Now they wield toothpaste and waterbottles.

      Comment by markov — July 6, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

  4. Well, lots of de facto sticking up for the rapists here.

    Are the people ultimately to blame for what they allow the gangsters to do? Of course they are.

    But those who want to put a stop to it aren’t to blame, and their task is to convince the rest to want and will to put a stop to it.

    So that’s all that matters: the Task.

    So I ask again, as I’ve asked before of the cooler-than-thou types: What’s the political utility of saying, “It’s the people’s fault”?

    I care only about what’s useful.

    Comment by Russ — June 30, 2010 @ 8:20 am

    • I somehow doubt the utility of voting the politicians a blank check in the name of ‘stimulus’.

      As always, the devil is in the details. The workers and end up with more debt, this time of the public variety which must be serviced by bigger and bigger taxes on (of course) the workers, the funds get siphoned off in shyster operations, leaf raking jobs, high speed trains to Las Vegas.

      What, then, is the answer? I think Voltaire had it right: cultivate your own garden.

      Comment by jake chase — June 30, 2010 @ 8:52 am

      • I somehow doubt the utility of voting the politicians a blank check in the name of ‘stimulus’.

        I somehow doubt you could be serious about saying that here, after all the times I’ve said exactly that, that none of the theoretically worthwhile ideas can be constructively deployed by this criminal system.

        You’ve read these posts and comments.

        “Cultivate your own garden” – Yes. And by our own, I mean we must redeem communities on the basis of cooperative gardening.

        By gardening, I mean our entire economies.

        If we don’t do that, we’ll simply be enslaved, and anyone who gets uppity will be killed. And that’s that.

        I’m young enough that I can expect to live or die according to these things.

        Comment by Russ — June 30, 2010 @ 9:06 am

    • Think about those blinders.
      It’s not because I criticize what YOU say that I favor what the “rapists” are doing.
      Now… that kind of thinking is IRRATIONAL, and gets us all squaring off into corners.
      “If you’re not FOR me (dixit, if you don’t swallow hook line and sinker what I say, then you are AGAINST me, and you are sticking up for the “rapists”.”
      Reminds me of…
      the Dukakis run on the presidency when somebody asked him how he would react if his wife ? daughter were RAPED by a recidivist, and he stuck up for due process instead of calling for a lynching.
      Maybe, just maybe… that was the death knell for the appeal to reason in the political process.
      Just for fun, I have a suggestion WHICH HOLDS FOR ME TOO.
      Every time (lol) you/we post, proof read back to spot the words “all”, “every”, and EVERYTHING (lol) that resembles them.
      Then ask yourself if you aren’t on the black side of white.
      The… TASK with a capital letter ? Why a capital letter ? We could say that in a democracy, maybe NO WORDS should have initial capital letters.
      Sticking the capital in suggests that the task is more important than people.
      I don’t think so. Not at all.
      I see no way to justify breaking those eggs.
      You didn’t answer my question : WHO OWNS THE CORPORATIONS ? I’m still waiting and the answer is important, I think.
      Back to my garden (literally…).

      Comment by Debra — June 30, 2010 @ 9:08 am

      • 1. If you know anything about today’s rackets, you know that although the shareholders nominally “own” public corporations, in practice the shareholders are impotent, and the top executives are able to run the corporations for their own private looting ends.

        You know the government and the courts have done all they can to facilitate these gangsters. The rogue “supreme” court has issued several such “rulings”, really laundered corporate decrees.

        So stop either lying or being a willful ignoramus.

        2. I don’t care about the terminal cretins who have terminally submitted to their brainwashing, contradicting all the evidence, abjectly submitting to their own enslavement. No matter what happens, they get what they deserve. I’m writing for people who still have human dignity.

        3. I’ll cut right through the rest of the crap: Human beings have a right to freedom and the right to the fruits of their labor. We have a right to destroy anyone who assails these.

        It’s very simple: Do you believe you have a right to fight back against an individual intruder who breaks into your home?


        Then why do you object to the fact that we must resist systematic organized intruders breaking into all of our homes at once, as these have been?

        Is it just cowardice?

        I don’t claim to be a paragon of courage, but I’ll follow this path through to whatever end, because there’s no other way I could live with myself.

        Comment by Russ — June 30, 2010 @ 9:28 am

      • Ranting is not thinking rationally.
        Sometimes it’s important to not think rationally. But it’s also important to recognize what’s going on.
        We’re talking about the problems of 500 years of Western civilization, problems that are plaguing Western Europe too, and YOU are in “us” and “them” mode, pointing fingers at SOMEONE when the problems are systemic, and supraindividual.
        I am not a liar, and I am not an ignoramus either.
        So… just what AM I if I am not those ??
        Do you have another label handy ??

        Comment by Debra — June 30, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

      • Where there’s robbery, rape, and murder taking place, decent people would agree there’s robbers, rapists, murderers.

        You’re saying I’m not the perfect perceptor of the “rational” level on how to respond to being raped?

        It seems to me my thoughts are relatively rational, given the circumstances.

        So you’re saying you’re not lying and not ignorant in sticking up for the killers? Well then, sorry, No, I don’t have other labels.

        I think complaisance and servility are not only morally and aesthetically contemptible but practically counterproductive. You act as a slave, allegedly to avert becoming a slave, but in reality guaranteeing your own slavery.

        Slavery is what anyone who would argue in such a way deserves. But not me and not anyone who’s active on behalf of freedom.

        Yes, I’ll bestow the label of collaborator upon anyone who, where I see the mugger before me, tries to lie and say, “don’t blame him, blame someone else! blame someone weaker!”

        What possible legitimate motivation could anyone have for ever thinking and expressing that way? On its face it’s pro-bankster. Period.

        As far as justice goes, I only have the categories we had at Nuremburg.

        Comment by Russ — June 30, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

  5. You write: “human beings have a right to freedom and the right to the fruits of their labor. We have a right to destroy anyone who assails these.”

    Well, who is now assailing them? Rand and Hayek would tell you that your principal enemy is the collective, the government, which continually asserts more power and more control, all in the name of the amorphous common good (as defined by whom).

    Back in the Sixties, I realized my only serious enemy was my own government, which was determined to send me off to Southeast Asia for target practice (as a target).
    For the past forty years I have watched that government steal forty percent of my earnings, year after year after year. On the other hand, my major damage at the hands of your predatory corporate titans is a monthly electric bill, which I admit is a trifle high.

    Of course, all our political institutions are coopted by monopolistic corporations and plutocrats. The only way to undermine this process is to make the political institutions weaker rather than stronger. We seem determined to increase government power to the point that coopting it will simply require a single telephone call.

    Imagine how the financial crisis might have been resolved in the absence of a Fed. There could not have been a bailout. Goldman, AIG, Citi, et. al. would have simply gone bust.

    The bigger and stronger government becomes the more necessary it is for individuals to find shelter inside that government.

    If you hope to solve the problem you must first understand what the problem is.

    Comment by jake chase — June 30, 2010 @ 11:15 am

    • One can appreciate Rand’s respect for an Objective, rational approach.

      I’m sure you agree.

      What are your thoughts on implications of research since:

      Ayn Rand & Alan Greenspan: The Altruism Fly in the Objectivist Ointment

      And I’m no collectivist. Adam Smith was very clear on the importance of the “Commons” and the need for a level playing field.

      And corporations are doing plenty of control fraud in denying people their rights and property along with government.

      Its not just government and its not just business that is the problem.

      It’s unaddressed issues related to scale that corrupt both.

      Purist ideology may be fun. But the world is more complicated than any political formula can accomodate.

      Comment by Tom Crowl — June 30, 2010 @ 11:37 am

      • As for the Altruism Fly, one man’s research is another man’s nonsense. Greenspan was always a charlatan and I suspect he still is.

        Can you imagine Ayn Rand running the Fed? Greenspan spoke nonsense from the day he was appointed. It was fun to watch the eyes of the Senators and Congressmen glaze over.

        Freedom for individuals is not the same thing as free money for selected banks and approved bond dealers.

        Comment by jake chase — June 30, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

    • Jake, I already presented you with quotes expressing Ayn Rand’s real attitude about Vietnam and the military-industrial complex. As I recall, you replied with typical cultist exculpatory nonsense. (You said she was past her prime or in a bad mood or something.)

      So if you’re going to keep sticking up for her, I’ll have to refrain from caring about your draft worries, since it sounds like you’re still arguing with yourself from a safe distance. I know for a fact Ayn Rand would happily have drafted me and you and have had us killed that way. You seem to be in teabagger mode regarding that fact.

      I confess a complete incomprehension regarding your fetish of someone who was mediocre and nasty on every level.

      I’ll have to point out now that Ayn Rand was a lousy writer, a snivelling thinker, and by all accounts a terrible human being.

      So why do you even bother sticking up for her? Can’t you do the same thing, but at a higher-quality level, sticking up for Hobbes, or Plato’s depiction of Callicles?

      Why this nasty, inferior scribbler? Even Mein Kampf was better written.

      (As for the proven fascist Hayek who supported the actual Nazi Pinochet regime, I’ve already said actions prove everything. Supporting fascists is also an action.

      It’s a simple fact: You support Hayek, you have to support Pinochet/Nazism.)

      On the other hand, if you really care about freedom, why aren’t your heroes people like Paine or Henry? (Those are suggestions; there are plenty of others.) They weren’t perfect, but they were on the right track.

      Comment by Russ — June 30, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

      • Cultist exculpatory nonsense? Is it too much to expect a citation? Perhaps you confuse me with another?

        First, I don’t have any heroes. I agree with what Hayek and Rand wrote in their books. In real life each may be a stinker, but that’s another issue.

        Rand opposed the draft and the Vietnam war, so at least she was right that one time.

        I assume you are writing this stuff in the expectation of generating comments. It seems counterproductive to launch ad hominem attacks on your correspondents.

        Perhaps you can explain why you disagree with what I say?

        Comment by jake chase — June 30, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

      • Sorry Jake, I didn’t mean to be insulting to you, but I don’t understand at all the concept of lauding e.g. Hayek in the “do as I say not as I do” sense any more than I understand it for Obama.

        My only measure of anyone, where he has the power to act, is actions.

        Hayek had the power to speak against the nazi mass murderer Pinochet, who would defintitely have killed me and probably you too, and he instead chose to support him. I take that as a murderous intent against me personally, and I don’t understand why you don’t do the same. Hayek was a liar, plain and simple. He wanted “serfdom”, for all of us. Obama is a disciple of his, whether he read him or not.

        As for Rand’s quotes at West Point, I don’t remember which thread it was where we discussed those, and my search engine couldn’t readily find it. But you must recall when I reproduced her telling the mercenaries what heroes they are and what traitors all war opponents are. Are you really claiming you don’t remember it? I can go look again if you want.

        I guess I just don’t get how these persons fit in with your general outlook, and especially why you want to stick up for them.

        Comment by Russ — July 1, 2010 @ 8:09 am

  6. Just like the bible, there are a few comments in Ayn Rands writing that made sense to me at one time, (primarily that an individual has the right to own their own intellectual property, as in Roark) but I am well past that now, and disgusted with the people who try to hod her up as an example to allow the rest of us to be raped and pillaged by corporatist masters.

    And the whores for the corporatist in congress, like:

    John Adler (D-NJ)- still on autopilot
    Brian Baird (D-WA)- willing to thumb his nose at voters since he’s retiring
    Melissa Bean (D-IL)- the Chamber of Commerce’s go-to person inside the Democratic caucus
    Marion Berry (Blue Dog-AR)
    Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
    Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
    Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
    Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
    Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD)
    Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)
    Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)
    Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO)
    Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA)
    Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)- only Democrat, in a manner of speaking, endorsed by both the U.S. Chamber and the Tea Party
    Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)- still on autopilot like Adler
    Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)

    These jerks deserve no more support ever.

    And I would support Russ, but watching these comments, he seems to take care of himself just fine…

    Comment by kcbill13 — June 30, 2010 @ 11:50 pm

    • Thanks kcbill. What a nasty list. I’d only emphasize that Blue Dogs are Establishment Democrats, not outliers in any way.

      Comment by Russ — July 1, 2010 @ 7:50 am

  7. I can only hope that people will fight like hell for their Social Security benefits, but the propagandists are already doing a decent job convincing Boxer to head for the glue factory.

    “Robbery Commission” is a great term for it.

    Comment by jimmy james — July 1, 2010 @ 12:19 am

    • It’s hard to remember how one of the few times the Dems stood up and resisted the Reps during the Bush years was on gutting Social Security.

      Now they want to do the job themselves.

      Comment by Russ — July 1, 2010 @ 7:53 am

  8. “3. Obviously, anyone who sincerely was concerned about deficits and the integrity of the dollar would want to start with all the dead weight in the budget (not to mention the vast bailout and war spending which has been frauded off the budget). He’d want to end the Bailout and the war, slash bloated Pentagon budgets, institute single payer (which is far less expensive for the government and society than maintaining the insurance racket parasite), end subsidies for Big Oil, Big Ag, and simply eradicate all corporate welfare. Then we’d see how the deficit looked, before we thought about a government default on debts owed to the people, who have already paid for their Social Security and Medicare, and which Obama and the banks now want simply to steal.

    That’s very clearly what any sincere budget conservative would advocate. He’d start by wanting to purge the bank rackets, insurance rackets, weapons rackets.”

    Yes! Why can’t we do this? Why won’t we do this? What is wrong with us? Why do we refuse to seize and make happen such a wonderful possible future?

    You see, Russ, this is where I get so discouraged. What is it going to take to get our fellow citizens to think and see and believe how truthful and important those words you wrote above are? If I start talking in a such a way, their eyes glaze over. If I post this on my facebook, it gets zero comments. I have no way of knowing if they come and read, but back at facebook, nothing is said in the comments – so the assumption has to be that no one bothers to click the link and read. Are you kidding me? I have hundreds of friends on my facebook and no one has a comment? Yet, if I post a video of crickets fucking, or of dancing bears with beach balls, I get a dozen comments.

    What’s it going to take?

    And yes, totally agree with “But those who want to put a stop to it aren’t to blame, and their task is to convince the rest to want and will to put a stop to it.

    So that’s all that matters: the Task.

    So I ask again, as I’ve asked before of the cooler-than-thou types: What’s the political utility of saying, “It’s the people’s fault”?

    I care only about what’s useful.”

    I’d like to hear the answer to that question myself.

    Comment by Bloodgroove — July 1, 2010 @ 8:25 am

    • It sure gets frustrating. For awhile I was optimisitc enough to think people were starting to learn a lesson. But now it looks more like things will have to get much worse.

      And by then it may be too late.

      But I do think I’ve done enough of just analyzing the problem. Going forward I need to write more in the way of trying to figure out what to do about it, however imperfect the ideas may be.

      Comment by Russ — July 1, 2010 @ 8:31 am

      • Perhaps, Russ. Solutions, or suggested solutions, or even solicitation for solutions, give and take over solutions – all would be good. My personal opinion is that you’re doing just fine as is. I think it is necessary to continually restate the problem (American attention spans require repetition), as well as continually offer, debate, restate, reinforce the best solutions you can come up with, while offering your readers the opportunity to debate the proposals and offer their own.

        Comment by Bloodgroove — July 1, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

      • Thanks, JD. I’ll keep trying, whatever I think is needful to write.

        Comment by Russ — July 2, 2010 @ 4:32 am

  9. […] Russ @ 6:07 am   In tracing the nightmare of the neoliberal development (parts one, two, and three, as well as many other posts), I’ve wondered, How do they plan to wrao this up in the end? […]

    Pingback by Part 4: The Full Fury of the New Feudal War, The Intended End State « Volatility — July 5, 2010 @ 6:07 am

  10. […] a few summary examples:   The New Feudal War – Part 1: Kleptocracy.   Part 2: The Bailout   Part 3: ”Austerity”   Part 4: The Intended End State   Beyond the Freedom Flotilla   So the only question left is […]

    Pingback by The Prize of the Venture « Volatility — September 1, 2010 @ 5:15 am

  11. […] […]

    Pingback by How Kleptocracy Congealed (The New Feudal War 1 of 4) « Volatility — September 1, 2010 @ 5:18 am

  12. […] by New Feudal War Part 3: “Austerity” « Volatility — June 30, 2010 @ 1:21 am […]

    Pingback by Bailout World, 2nd Stage of Kleptocracy (New Feudal War 2 of 4) « Volatility — September 1, 2010 @ 5:20 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: