Politics & The CIC/Prez

[kanakaris]

It should be required of every US citizen that they watch that George Carlin HBO special from the early Nineties. He was right about so many topics such as war, politicians and the stupidity of the voting public.

And some Bill Hicks too.

 

[Wade]

As for myself i will just again mention something that has been brought up by others...noteably Sue..here and elsewhere. it is what Trump brings out in our society ON BOTH SIDES that concerns me. He encourages and enables and completes the disenfranchised... mostly the Tea party type members ...more on that later...and threatens those on the other as an existential threat to the point that they may try doing something very stupid and ill concieved.


You've seen here and there rumors and conspiraies theories about secret "concetration camps' and railroad cars and Jade Helm exercises about the government being ready to rein in any internal threat to the country. i have to seriously wonder if there was indeed any event that could trigger a crackdown on our freedoms it would come as a result of the increasing divide and polarization in our country in an election such as this but not necessarily immediately.


There are two quotes from Lincoln come to mind, and although i have it on good authority he wasn't talking bout 2016 and the context he used them in wasn't exactly what we face today (or was it?) the statements themselves still carry weight today.


"A house divided against itself can not stand"


"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."


revolution ain't pretty and I wonder how many of us can really say we will have the stomach for it when it comes.


And as far as those angry frustrated Americans whose favor Trump if there is anybody that has the right as a society to feel angry and frustrated it's the native Americans. it might be very unfair of me and have no real moral authority to say so, but as i see the crowds at Trump rallies i have to wonder how many of them are really all that bad off as they were in the past, certainly compared to our native american population, they are a lot better off and i wouldn't bother to give them the shoulder to cry on. i have to also wonder "are you really mad at the way things are or are you mad because you are being told that you should be mad ?" I want to ask them "what exactly are your parameters". Whether it's that the rich got richer under Bush and the middle class got the rug pulled out from under their feet during Obama's two terms but I don't see it as so much about his policies, or rather it was his policy to sit on his ass and not do anything about it.


As far as Obama's legacy let's face it whatever downfall has happened during his reign the conditions for that downfall were set up in place long before he became CinC and will continue on after he's gone. Trump isn't going to change or roll back on anything . My biggest gripe against Obama was that hope and change that was promised never really materailized he didn't set back any of the presidential privileges and other conditions that were started by previous presidents and why should he (or whomever gets in ) Perhaps he tried and ran up against the mother of all brick walls or maybe he didn't care because he and his family are set, they belong to that most exclusive of clubs after all. i wonder if being able to bypass congress when and if it came to declaring war or some military action doesn't fall in the military's favor.


Here's a conspiracy theory for you maybe those that would rather not have us enjoy the freedoms we had in the past are licking their chops and jumped at the opportinity to meddle in a lose-lose presidential campaign and fire up the masses , not that we would need the push.


I am less concerned about a rogue CinC than I am a rogue society, although one can begat the other I would suppose and given that the CURRENT Democratic leader is only a little less CURRENTLY polarizing, depending on who you consulted I don't know if sociatal conditions would be any better, policies be damned. This election regardless of the turnover could go down in history as one that set in forth or changed the underpinnings of our society.


Or maybe I'm just being a drama queen. But seriously just for sh**s & giggles try a hand at reading Paul Levy and Jack D Forbes. I don't much care for the delivery of either author but their message is worth hearing and considering.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Hope and change was defeated when the Republicans decided to, at a well-known planning session, block almost everything Obama did. Even when he came up with plans developed by Republicans, such as the Affordable Care Act (same as RomneyCare), they said no.

 

[kanakaris]

Hope and change was defeated when the Republicans decided to, at a well-known planning session, to block almost everything Obama did. Even when he came up with plans developed by Republicans, such as the Affordable Care Act (same as RomneyCare), they said no.

Spot on !

 

[Wade]

And they will continue to do so as far as vetting a supreme court judge until next administration even though the nominee is well respected from both sides and we will have a slew of 4-4 votes in the Supreme Court and if the situation were reversed and we had a Republican president and a Democrat dominated congress we'd be at the same loggerheads.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And they better pray Hillary isn't elected, for the new nominee will actually be liberal, rather than a cautious, deliberate middle-of-the-road judge.

If the situation were reversed, the Democrats would allow hearings to occur. They always have, even when there's posturing.

 

[Tyger]

'Bone up on economic theory?'

Here's some painless Econ101 - and history to boot. The video below is Part 1 of the discussion. (To explain, when you hear Hedges mention what sounds like 'rontiere', he is giving the French accent to the word 'rentiers' - those who create their wealth through 'rents'.

"...basically you have what the classical economists called the 'rentier class' - the class that lives on economic rents. Landlords, monopolists charging more, and the banks. If you have a pharmaceutical company that raises the price of a drug from $12 a shot to $200 all of a sudden, their profits go up. Their increased price for the drug is counted in the national income accounts as if the economy is producing more. So all this presumed economic growth that has all been taken by the One Percent in the last ten years, and people say the economy is growing. But the economy isn’t growing …"​

At 8:00 sec is the crucial distinction between earned and unearned income, and why we went with unearned income that led to the fraudulent idea of GNP.

"... the issue is whether Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and predatory pharmaceutical firms, actually add “product” or whether they’re just exploiting other people. That’s why I used the word parasitism in my book’s title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it’s much more complicated. The parasite can’t simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn’t realize the parasite’s there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host’s brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.

"That’s basically what Wall Street has done. It depicts itself as part of the economy. Not as a wrapping around it, not as external to it, but actually the part that’s helping the body grow, and that actually is responsible for most of the growth. But in fact it’s the parasite that is taking over the growth.

"The result is an inversion of classical economics. It turns Adam Smith upside down. It says what the classical economists said was unproductive – parasitism – actually is the real economy. And that the parasites are labor and industry that get in the way of what the parasite wants – which is to reproduce itself, not help the host, that is, labor and capital."​

How far it has gone -

HEDGES: I want to read this quote from your book, written by David Harvey, in A Brief History of Neoliberalism, and have you comment on it.

“The main substantive achievement of neoliberalism has been to redistribute rather than to generate wealth and income. [By] ‘accumulation by dispossession’ I mean … the commodification and privatization of land, and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; conversion of various forms of property rights (common collective state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights; suppression of rights to the commons; … colonial, neocolonial, and the imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources); … and usury, the national debt and, most devastating at all, the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. … To this list of mechanisms, we may now add a raft of techniques such as the extraction of rents from patents, and intellectual property rights (such as the diminution or erasure of various forms of common property rights, such as state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education, health care) one through a generation or more of class struggle. The proposal to privatize all state pension rights, pioneered in Chile under the dictatorship is, for example, one of the cherished objectives of the Republicans in the US.”
​

"This explains the denouement. The final end result you speak about in your book is, in essence, allowing what you call the rentier or the speculative class to cannibalize the entire society until it collapses.

HUDSON: A property right is not a factor of production. Look at what happened in Chicago, the city where I grew up. Chicago didn’t want to raise taxes on real estate, especially on its expensive commercial real estate. So its budget ran a deficit. They needed money to pay the bondholders, so they sold off the parking rights to have meters – you know, along the curbs. The result is that they sold to Goldman Sachs 75 years of the right to put up parking meters. So now the cost of living and doing business in Chicago is raised by having to pay the parking meters. If Chicago is going to have a parade and block off traffic, it has to pay Goldman Sachs what the firm would have made if the streets wouldn’t have been closed off for a parade. All of a sudden it’s much more expensive to live in Chicago because of this.

"But this added expense of having to pay parking rights to Goldman Sachs – to pay out interest to its bondholders – is counted as an increase in GDP, because you’ve created more product simply by charging more. If you sell off a road, a government or local road, and you put up a toll booth and make it into a toll road, all of a sudden GDP goes up.

"If you go to war abroad, and you spend more money on the military-industrial complex, all this is counted as increased production. None of this is really part of the production system of the capital and labor building more factories and producing more things that people need to live and do business. All of this is overhead. But there’s no distinction between wealth and overhead.

"Failing to draw that distinction means that the host doesn’t realize that there is a parasite there. The host economy, the industrial economy, doesn’t realize what the industrialists realized in the 19thcentury: If you want to be an efficient economy and be low-priced and under-sell competitors, you have to cut your prices by having the public sector provide roads freely. Medical care freely. Education freely.

"If you charge for all of these, you get to the point that the U.S. economy is in today. What if American factory workers were to get allof their consumer goods for nothing. All their food, transportation, clothing, furniture, everything for nothing. They still couldn’t compete with Asians or other producers, because they have to pay up to 43% of their income for rent or mortgage interest, 10% or more of their income for student loans, credit card debt. 15% of their paycheck is automatic withholding to pay Social Security, to cut taxes on the rich or to pay for medical care.

"So Americans built into the economy all this overhead. There’s no distinction between growth and overhead. It’s all made America so high-priced that we’re priced out of the market, regardless of what trade policy we have.
​

Days of Revolt: How We Got to Junk Economics

TEXT: "Published on Mar 21, 2016: In this episode of teleSUR's Days of Revolt, Chris Hedges interviews economist Michael Hudson on the history of classical economics and explores Marx’s interpretation of capitalism as exploitation."

The following transcript is Part 2 of the above conversation. For some reason the video is not posted on YouTube.

The Lies of Neoliberal Economics (or How America Became a Nation of Sharecroppers)
LINK: FOCUS: The Lies of Neoliberal Economics (or How America Became a Nation of Sharecroppers)

Donald Trump is a 'rentier'. His understanding of economics is pretty thin - albeit he is a clever, intelligent man, and his self-serving MO makes him a very watchable 'reality star', but he is very much part of the system. "The secret of success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made." ~ Groucho Marx Trump is a confidence man.

The one candidate who sees the game - and understands it - is Bernie Sanders. Sanders is feared far more than Trump is - by the corporate establishment. It's why Sanders is ignored by the corporate media, and when given attention, it's never to acknowledge his consequence. It's interesting to watch - even the New York Times has engaged in the dissing of Sanders. Trump is the distraction - the clown out front, playing to the crowd that likes to see a bit of blood and brawl in their Roman Circus politics. It's Sanders who is the deadly threat to the corporate status quo.

 

[DaveM]

I don't read twenty paragraphs of a post and a video to boot. I suspect other member's eyes glaze over at that prospect as well.

 

[Tyger]

I don't read twenty paragraphs of a post and a video to boot. I suspect other member's eyes glaze over at that prospect as well.

Not sure what to make of this. Dismissive. Why? What's the animus about? Why should you be unkind?

Anyway, trying to be helpful. You said you and yours did not have the time to study economics, so I was supplying some easy bits to get a baseline. If ever there was an election that is about economics, it is this one.

How about this?
Marxism 101: How Capitalism is Killing Itself with Dr. Richard Wolff // Empire_File022

TEXT: "Published on Mar 22, 2016: Despite a concerted effort by the U.S. Empire to snuff out the ideology, a 2016 poll found young Americans have a much more favorable view of socialism than capitalism.

"Though he died 133 years ago, the analysis put forward by one of the world’s most influential thinkers, Karl Marx, remains extremely relevant today. The Empire’s recent rigged presidential election has been disrupted by the support of an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, by millions of voters.

"To find out why Marx’s popularity has stood the test of time, Abby Martin interviews renowned Marxist economist Richard Wolff, Professor Emeritus of Economics at UMass - Amherst, and visiting professor at the New School in New York.

"Prof. Wolff gives an introduction suited for both beginners and seasoned Marxists, with comprehensive explanations of key tenets of Marxism including dialectical and historical materialism, surplus value, crises of overproduction, capitalism's internal contradictions, and more."

 

[DaveM]

Tyger, you should analyze most of your posts. Particularly all the climate ones. These are endless paragraphs that I suspect no one reads except yourself. I looked at a few of them. Virtually no one replies to them. You are a party of one. My time is precious to me. I refuse to read such posts. Make your point and move on, is my suggestion.

 

[Bob Watson]

Not sure what to make of this. Dismissive. Why? What's the animus about? Why should you be unkind?

Anyway, trying to be helpful. You said you and yours did not have the time to study economics, so I was supplying some easy bits to get a baseline. If ever there was an election that is about economics, it is this one.

How about this?
Marxism 101: How Capitalism is Killing Itself with Dr. Richard Wolff // Empire_File022

TEXT: "Published on Mar 22, 2016: Despite a concerted effort by the U.S. Empire to snuff out the ideology, a 2016 poll found young Americans have a much more favorable view of socialism than capitalism.

"Though he died 133 years ago, the analysis put forward by one of the world’s most influential thinkers, Karl Marx, remains extremely relevant today. The Empire’s recent rigged presidential election has been disrupted by the support of an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, by millions of voters.

"To find out why Marx’s popularity has stood the test of time, Abby Martin interviews renowned Marxist economist Richard Wolff, Professor Emeritus of Economics at UMass - Amherst, and visiting professor at the New School in New York.

"Prof. Wolff gives an introduction suited for both beginners and seasoned Marxists, with comprehensive explanations of key tenets of Marxism including dialectical and historical materialism, surplus value, crises of overproduction, capitalism's internal contradictions, and more."

Intresting and insightful

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Does not matter who wins the US leader has already been selected going on the money.

 

[Tyger]

Interesting and insightful.

Isn't it, though.

I am a keen advocate of the Basic Income Grant. We do it partially already. There are places that have already started implementing the concept. It requires a different way of looking at an economy - certainly on the emphasis.

We are already in a time when we do not have enough 'work' - in the accepted sense - for the entire population - due to mechanization. robotic labor, and now 3D replication, etc. Interesting future coming.

 

[Tyger]

Does not matter who wins the US leader has already been selected going on the money.

No question that this election is going to be tough to win by the likes of someone like Bernie Sanders - the one candidate who really would change the game. The level of dirty politics moving against Sanders has only just begun - consider the Daily News interview arranged by Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman, who Trump has something on (we now know).

Trump is a mistake. He never intended to be a serious candidate - he was a spoiler put into the game. It pleased his vanity - and would improve his 'brand' (he thought). There are some who speculate that he was a set-up by the Clintons to 'take out' Jeb Bush. The ploy - if so - has been beyond successful. The other reality is the 'cozy' Trump has going with certain aspects of the press - in particular Zuckerman - but it goes beyond that.

The tale of this election is going to be legend - akin to the shameful 2000 election. We can only hope that the American electorate stands up to the money. A clearer choice has never been.

 

[Tyger]

For those interested (in the US) the economist (and Marxist) Dr Richard Wolff gives a sterling, detailed summation of US economic history - that goes a long way to explain why the general US voting public is so uninformed about economics - and why they persistently vote against their own best interests. It's really like there was a religious war following the unionization and social activism of the 1930's - with one religion gaining absolute control and authority after the ideological purge of the late 1940's into the 1950's (McCarthy Era - 'Red Scare'). We've pretty much been in intellectual lock-step (around economics) since then. Only now as the whole edifice is collapsing is there daylight.

At any rate, for those interested in the long view, here's Wolff, who is an excellent lecturer -

TEXT: "Published on Mar 14, 2013: After five years of deepening crisis, failed "solutions," and aborted "recoveries," millions see a capitalist system no longer serving most Americans. It's time to demand a cure big and bold enough to work. Richard Wolff spoke on to hear that cure presented, explained, and justified. Instead of resignation to economic decline, come and help build real and positive change."

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think those of you who are regularly watching Fox News — and take it as a legitimate news organization — need to read the linked study. It is comprehensive, and it was prepared by a conservative Republican who worked as an adviser to President Reagan and a Treasury official under George H.W. Bush. In other words, if he is biased, it would be in favor of Fox News, not against it. Read and weep:

How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics by Bruce Bartlett :: SSRN

Note: This report contains links to other reports to buttress its findings, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation reporting beliefs in falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). For example, there ARE NO death panels, but many Fox News viewers believe there are.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I could be wrong of course, but I have a feeling the next commander in chief/President of the U.S. is going to be Donald Trump. Time will tell.

There it is. My prediction on Feb 1st, 2016 came true.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

it is likely trump will be our republican nominee.. but Clinton/ sanders will beat him...

Really? Clinton & Sanders will be him? LOL.

 

[Randall]

Trump Biden Debate

 

[Jim_A]

Thankfully, all legitimate polls have Biden in the lead. I, for one, would not want an unethical person like Trump to hold that much power for 8 years. Go Biden!