Category Archives: Shared ArtImage
I’ve stored this here at the bottom of the page so people can refer to it at leisure and not have to scroll through the Facebook page to find it. Along about page 62 the talk turns to Don the Con. Skipping ahead to pg. 138 to talk about the Russian connection and it starts to get interesting:
Q. So after Mr. Steele had found out the information that he put in the very first of these memos, the one dated June 20, 2016, he approached you about taking this information to specifically the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A. That’s my recollection.
Q. So to the best of your recollection, that request or idea came directly from Mr. Steele, not anyone else?
A. That’s right. (p. 161)
. . .
Q. You said you had asked for some time to think it over. What in particular did he articulate to you was of significant national security concern to indicate that it should be taken to the FBI?
A. His concern, which is something that counterintelligence people deal with a lot, is whether or not there was blackmail going on, whether a political candidate was being blackmailed or had been compromised. And the whole problem of compromise of western businessmen and politicians by the Russians is an essential part of — it’s like disinformation, it’s something they worry about a lot and deal with a lot and are trained to respond to. So, you know, a trained intelligence officer can spot disinformation that you or I might not recognize, certainly that was Chris’s skill, and he honed in on this issue of blackmail as being a significant national security issue.
You know, my understanding was that they would have gotten into who his sources were, how he knew certain things, and, you know, other details based on their own intelligence. Essentially what he told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source and that — that they — my understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization. (p. 175)
Chris Steele disengages from the FBI after Comey reopens Hillary investigation:
Q. Now, with regard to — just to finish up on the interactions with FBI, do you know were there any additional interactions between Mr. Steele and the FBI?
A. There was some sort of interaction, I think it was probably telephonic that occurred after Director Comey sent his letter to Congress reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. That episode, you know, obviously created some concern that the FBI was intervening in a political campaign in contravention of long-standing Justice Department regulation. So it made a lot of people, including us, concerned about what the heck was going on at the FBI. So, you know, we began getting questions from the press about, you know, whether they were also investigating Trump and, you know, we encouraged them to ask the FBI that question. You know, I think — I’m not sure we’ve covered this fully, but, you know, we just encouraged them to ask the FBI that question. On October 31st the New York Times posed a story saying that the FBI is investigating Trump and found no connections to Russia and, you know, it was a real Halloween special. Sometime thereafter the FBI — I understand Chris severed his relationship with the FBI out of concern that he didn’t know what was happening inside the FBI and there was a concern that the FBI was being manipulated for political ends by the Trump people and that we didn’t really understand what was going on. So he stopped dealing with them. (p. 178)
After the election (p. 219):
So after the election obviously we were as surprised as everyone else and Chris and I were mutually concerned about whether the United States had just elected someone who was compromised by a hostile foreign power, more in my case whether the election had been tainted by an intervention by the Russian intelligence services, and we were, you know, unsure what to do. Initially we didn’t do anything other than to discuss our concerns, but we were gravely concerned.
At some point a few weeks after the election Chris called me and said that he had received an inquiry from David Kramer, who was a long-time advisor to Senator McCain, and that according to — Kramer told Chris that he had run into Sir Andrew Wood at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and that Kramer was accompanying Senator McCain to this conference and that the three of them had had an unscheduled or unplanned encounter where the issue of this research was discussed and the essence of it, I guess, was conveyed to Senator McCain and to David Kramer from Andrew Wood. I don’t remember whether Andrew Wood’s name was specifically given to me by Christopher Steele at that time. It was later given to me. It later became an accepted fact that Chris had mentioned him to me. I believe he probably mentioned it.
But anyway, he did say someone that he worked with in the past who was a former UK government official with experience in Russia had had this conversation with David Kramer and John McCain and that Senator McCain had followed up on it as to what more there was to know about these allegations, this information.
So Chris asked me do you know David Kramer, and I said yes, I’ve known David Kramer for a long time. David Kramer is part of a small group of people that I’m sort of loosely affiliated with. We’ve all worked on Russia and are very concerned about kleptocracy and human rights and the police state that Russia has become, in particular the efforts of the Russians to corrupt and mess with our political system. So we shared this concern going back to when I was at the Wall Street Journal and that’s how I met David. He was working at the State Department as assistant secretary for human rights, and I was reporting on human rights and corruption in Russia. So I told Chris he’s legit. David is someone I’ve known for a long time and he knows a lot about these issues and he’s very concerned about Putin and the Kremlin and the rise of the new Russia and criminality and kleptocracy.
So he said, well, can we trust him? And I said yes, I think we can trust him. He says he wants information to give to Senator McCain so that Senator McCain can ask questions about it at the FBI, with the leadership of the FBI. That was essentially — all we sort of wanted was for the government to do its job and we were concerned about whether the information that we provided previously had ever, you know, risen to the leadership level of the FBI. We simply just didn’t know. It was our belief that Director Comey if he was aware — if he was made aware of this information would treat it seriously.
Jared Kushner is currently taking a victory lap, crowin’ about his “Stealth Data Machine” that put Donald Trump over the top in the 2016 race. Let’s pry off the lid and peer into the inner-workings of this “Data Machine.”
The Signal in the Noise
Building on the work of @LouiseMensch and data analysis by @Conspirator0 on Twitter, Tea Pain has stumbled onto a possible “signal in the noise” that opens a window into the data-swappin’ shenanigans going on between Trump Tower, Spectrum Health and Russia’s Alfa Bank during the election.
Spectrum Health, owned by Michigan’s powerful Devos family, attempted to explain the IP activity as “Voice over IP traffic”, whereas Alfa Bank offered an even more exotic explanation that “hackers attempted to make it look like we contacted Trump Tower.”
The data traffic, when analyzed, tells a very different story, a story of automated, orchestrated data sharing among multiple sites for a…
View original post 1,028 more words
Yves here. This Real News Network interview is from a multi-part series about Michael Hudson’s new book, J is for Junk Economics. And after a lively discussion by readers of the economic necessity of many to become expats to get their living costs down to a viable level, a discussion of the disingenuous political messaging around retirement seemed likely. Among the people in my age cohort, the ones that managed to attach themselves to capital (being in finance long enough at a senior enough level, working in Corporate America and stock or stock options) are generally set to have an adequate to very comfortable retirement. The ones who didn’t (and these include people I know who are very well paid professionals but for various reasons, like health problems or periods of unemployment that drained savings, haven’t put much away) will either have to continue working well past a normal retirement age (even charitably assuming they can find adequately compensated work) or face a struggle or even poverty.
SHARMINI PERIES: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore. I’m speaking with Michael Hudson about his new book J Is For Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in the Age of Deception.
Thanks for joining me again, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here.
SHARMINI PERIES: So, Michael, on page 260 of your book you deal with the issue of Social Security and it’s a myth that Social Security should be pre-funded by its beneficiaries, or that progressive taxes should be abolished in favor of a flat tax. Just one tax rate for everyone you criticize. We talked about this earlier, but let’s apply what this actually means when it comes to Social Security.
MICHAEL HUDSON: The mythology aims to convince people that if they’re the beneficiaries of Social Security, they should be responsible for saving up to pre-fund it. That’s like saying that you’re the beneficiary of public education, so you have to pay for the schooling. You’re the beneficiary of healthcare, you have to save up to pay for that. You’re the beneficiary of America’s military spending that keeps us from being invaded next week by Russia, you have to spend for all that – in advance, and lend the money to the government for when it’s needed.
Where do you draw the line? Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement. That was viewed as an obligation of society. You had the first public pension (social security) program in Germany under Bismarck. The whole idea is that this is a public obligation. There are certain rights of citizens, and among these rights is that after your working life you deserve to live in retirement. That means that you have to be able to afford this retirement, and not have to beg in the street for money. The wool that’s been pulled over people’s eyes is to imagine that because they’re the beneficiaries of Social Security, they have to actually pay for it.
This was Alan Greenspan’s trick that he pulled in the 1980s as head of the Greenspan Commission. He said that what was needed in America was to traumatize the workers – to squeeze them so much that they won’t have the courage to strike. Not have the courage to ask for better working conditions. He recognized that the best way to really squeeze wage earners is to sharply increase their taxes. He didn’t call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is. His trick was to say that it’s not really a tax, but a contribution to Social Security. And now it siphons off 15.4% of everybody’s pay check, right off the top.
The effect of what Greenspan did was more than just to make wage earners pay this FICA rake-off out of their paycheck every month. The charge was set so high that the Social Security fund lent its surplus to the government. Now, with all this huge surplus that we’re squeezing out of the wage earners, there’s a cut-off point: around $120,000. The richest people don’t have to pay for Social Security funding, only the wage-earner class has to. Their forced savings are lent to the government to enable it to claim that it has so much extra money in the budget pouring in from social security that now it can afford to cut taxes on the rich.
So the sharp increase in Social Security tax for wage earners went hand-in-hand with sharp reductions in taxes on real estate, finance for the top One Percent – the people who live on economic rent, not by working, not by producing goods and services but by making money on their real estate, stocks and bonds “in their sleep.” That’s how the five percent have basically been able to make their money.
The idea that Social Security has to be funded by its beneficiaries has been a setup for the wealthy to claim that the government budget doesn’t have enough money to keep paying. Social Security may begin to run a budget deficit. After having run a surplus since 1933, for 70 years, now we have to begin paying some of this savings out. That’s called a deficit, as if it’s a disaster and we have to begin cutting back Social Security. The implication is that wage earners will have to starve in the street after they retire.
The Federal Reserve has just published statistics saying the average American family, 55 and 60 years old, only has about $14,000 worth of savings. This isn’t nearly enough to retire on. There’s also been a vast looting of pension funds, largely by Wall Street. That’s why the investment banks have had to pay tens of billions of dollars of penalties for cheating pension funds and other investors. The current risk-free rate of return is 0.1% on government bonds, so the pension funds don’t have enough money to pay pensions at the rate that their junk economics advisors forecast. The money that people thought was going to be available for their retirement, all of a sudden isn’t. The pretense is that nobody could have forecast this!
There are so many corporate pension funds that are going bankrupt that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation doesn’t have enough money to bail them out. The PBGC is in deficit. If you’re going to be a corporate raider, if you’re going to be a Governor Romney or whatever and you take over a company, you do what Sam Zell did with the Chicago Tribune: You loot the pension fund, you empty it out to pay the bondholders that have lent you the money to buy out the company. You then tell the workers, “I’m sorry there is nothing there. It’s wiped out.” Half of the employee stock ownership programs go bankrupt. That was already a critique made in the 1950s and ‘60s.
In Chile, the Chicago Boys really developed this strategy. University of Chicago economists made it possible, by privatizing and corporatizing the Social Security system. Their ploy was to set aside a pension fund managed by the company, mostly to invest in its own stock. The company would then set up an affiliate that would actually own the company under an umbrella, and then leave the company with its pension fund to go bankrupt – having already emptied out the pension fund by loaning it to the corporate shell.
So it’s become a shell game. There’s really no Social Security problem. Of course the government has enough tax revenue to pay Social Security. That’s what the tax system is all about. Just look at our military spending. But if you do what Donald Trump does, and say that you’re not going to tax the rich; and if you do what Alan Greenspan did and not make higher-income individuals contribute to the Social Security system, then of course it’s going to show a deficit. It’s supposed to show a deficit when more people retire. It was always intended to show a deficit. But now that the government actually isn’t using Social Security surpluses to pretend that it can afford to cut taxes on the rich, they’re baiting and switching. This is basically part of the shell game. Explaining its myth is partly what I try to do in my book.
SHARMINI PERIES: If the rich people don’t have to contribute to the Social Security base, are they able to draw on it?
MICHAEL HUDSON: They will draw Social Security up to the given wage that they didn’t pay Social Security on, which is up to $120,000 these days. So yes, they will get that little bit. But what people make over $120,000 is completely exempt from the Social Security system. These are the rich people who run corporations and give themselves golden parachutes.
Even for companies that have engaged in massive financial fraud, the large banks, City Bank, Wells Fargo – all these have golden parachutes. They still are getting enormous pensions for the rest of their lives. And they’re talking as if, well, corporate pensions are in deficit, but for the leading officers, arrangements are quite different from the pensions to the blue collar workers and the wage earners as a whole. So there’s a whole array of fictitious economic statistics.
I describe this in my dictionary as “mathiness.” The idea that if you can put a number on something, it somehow is scientific. But the number really is the product of corporate accountants and lobbyists reclassifying income in a way that it doesn’t appear to be taxable income.
Taking money out and giving it to the richest 5%, while making it appear as if all this deficit is the problem of the 95%, is “blame the victim” economics. You could say that’s the way the economic accounts are being presented by Congress to the American people. The aim is to popularize a “blame the victim” economics. As if it’s your fault that Social Security’s going bankrupt. This is a mythology saying that we should not treat retirement as a public obligation. It’s becoming the same as treating healthcare as not being a public obligation.
We have the highest healthcare costs in the world, so out of your paycheck – which is not increasing – you’re going to have to pay more and more for FICA withholding for Social Security, more and more for healthcare, for the pharmaceutical monopoly and the health insurance monopoly. You’ll also have to pay more and more to use public services for transportation to get to work, because the state is not funding that anymore. We’re cutting taxes on the rich, so we don’t have the money to do what social democracies are supposed to do. You’re going to privatize the roads, so that now you’re going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don’t have public transportation.
You’re turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don’t have outright serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to this new hereditary “financial/real estate/public enterprise” class that is transforming the economy.
SHARMINI PERIES All right, Michael. Many, many, many things to learn from your great book, J Is For Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in the Age of Deception. Michael is actually on the road promoting the book. So if you have an opportunity to see him at one of the places he’s going to be speaking, you should check out his website, michael-hudson.com
So I thank you so much for joining us today, Michael. And as most of you know, Michael Hudson is a regular guest on The Real News Network. We’ll be unpacking his book and some of the concepts in it on an ongoing basis. So please stay tuned for those interviews.
Thank you so much for joining us today, Michael.
By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat magazine, now the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics website. Cross posted from MacroBusiness
From the always essential Jeremy Grantham’s latest note:
An extraordinary, large exit poll run by Reuters/Ipsos in which 45,000 people participated took place in the early evening on election day in the US. To say this was a detailed poll is an understatement. The spreadsheet for each question in small print runs the length of a generous dining room table, 11 feet! It will tell you how the American Hindu sample of 172 voted. The poll’s early results of 9,0002 inputs also revealed on the night before the election, when the bookies’ odds 3 against Trump were 5 to 1, that the odds were wrong. The critical statement polled, in my opinion, was this: “America needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful.”
From my perspective, the pushback against the rich and powerful for several decades has been very unexpectedly wimpy. “Occupy Wall Street” aside, the average voter had sat still for a series of major tax cuts for the higher tax brackets and on capital – capital gains and dividends. The lowerincome workers had paid the cost of outsourcing and labor-saving technology but had received no material help, while corporations and corporate officers and owners were the beneficiaries. In fact, money spent on worker training and education declined relative to foreign competitors. This shows up clearly in declining educational standards where today the US global rank is, to be friendly, mediocre. Most scarily in this regard, the average Chinese 20-year-old now ranks 2 full years ahead of his American counterpart in math proficiency! So, all in all, we can say that global forces pushed wages down and politics pushed them deliberately lower. The combined result is shown in Exhibit 1: The share of GDP going to labor hit historical lows as recently as 2014 and the share going to corporate profits hit a simultaneous high. Similarly, Exhibit 2 shows that the share of all income going to the top 0.1% rose well beyond any previous record and approached 100% of all the recovery in total income since the lows of 2009!
The “rich and powerful” not only increased their share of income and capital at an unprecedented rate in recent decades, but they also increased their grip on politics through a rising tide of political spending, including lobbying and the new Super PACs, courtesy of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United. Even before this ruling, Princeton University Professors Gilens and Page had reported4 on the complete lack of influence that voter opinion had on the probabilities of any bill passing through Congress. If favored by the public the average 31% chance of passing rose to a dizzying 32%. If not favored, it fell to 30%, justifying the nickname given to the influence of the average citizen: “Gilens’ Flatline.” When favored by the richest 10%, bills passed at a 65% rate – there is inertia after all. But when opposed by the wealthier and supported by inertia, the passing rate was essentially nil. Those hoping that there is any life at all left in representative democracy have to hope that some critics of this work are right when they claim that the data is complicated to sort out and the conclusions may be overstated. Anecdotal evidence on such issues as the minimum wage and gun laws, though, suggests that majority opinion is, shall we say, easily offset. Scarily, Gilens’ work does not include the post Citizens United data on political spending that is shown in Exhibit 3. I could not resist throwing in political contributions from unions, which are often cited by right-wingers as somehow balancing the books. And once upon a time they did. But, as unions have been severely weakened by the same combination of global forces and politics previously described, political contributions from unions have become a rounding error, offsettable by a mere handful or less of billionaires.
The Citizens United ruling reminds me of what a good ally of the “rich and powerful” and corporatism the Supreme Court’s majority has recently been, particularly in its strange assumption that corporations are human and deserve the same constitutional protections as we humans. It turns out, though, that humans are quite often cooperative and altruistic for no apparent self-advantage. Corporations, tied as they are these days to the single-minded goal of profit maximizing, seem to be close to saying that altruism, or the common good, when it compromises profitability, is a dereliction of their duty. In a human this would be considered pathological. (I wonder what the Founding Fathers would really have thought of this odd idea of corporate humanity. Or the equally odd idea that unlimited spending by corporations on elections is the moral equivalent of free speech.)
It is data like this that has led me over the last 10 years to believe that this country does indeed need to be saved from “the rich and powerful”; to believe that corporate interests were coming to dominate the public good; to believe that when in conflict corporations would, perhaps under the usual career risk pressure we all know so well, choose short-term profit maximizing over the well-being of workers. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than in their dispensing with the jewel in the crown of the old social contract, the defined benefit plan. This was done on the stated grounds of unaffordability even as corporate profits hit unprecedented high levels of GDP. Pensions that guaranteed a share of final salary were always going to be expensive and in hindsight we should perhaps consider it remarkable that it was ever voluntarily done at all…a testimonial to the old days when labor, cities, and countries of origin were also considered to be stakeholders of corporations. Worse yet, when deciding between their grandchildren’s well-being in a climate-controlled world or maximizing profits in a climatedamaging world, so far at least, they have collectively chosen short-term profits. In fact, the erosion of democracy began in earnest in the mid 70s when Senator Lawton Chiles (D. Florida) began his successful crusade to shine light in the dark places of government. His “Government in the Sunshine” legislation opened the door to vastly more effective lobbying by those with the means to pay, because the spotlight his legislation cast on government work, such as Committee mark-ups of Congressional bills, enabled lobbyists to pay fully only for loyalty they could actually observe.
The data on rising inequality also led me to check what others had thought and written on this issue and made me realize that a self-destructive streak in capitalism had been well-noted in the past. A particular surprise to me was Schumpeter – he of “creative destruction fame” – who believed capitalism in its current form would eventually fail through overreaching, using its increasing power to dispense with regulations designed to protect the public good (that has a painful echo today doesn’t it?) until pushback FDR style (or Teddy Roosevelt style) results in a more controlled mix, which Schumpeter called socialism. There was also a suggestion in his work and that of Keynes that excessive corporate power would weaken the demand from ordinary workers and hence weaken the economy. This last point is also emphasized more recently by Mancur Olson, who argued that “Parochial cartels and lobbies tend to accumulate over time until they begin to sap a country’s vitality. A war or some other catastrophe sweeps away the choking undergrowth of pressure groups,” as The Economist rather eloquently summarized his thinking in his obituary of March 1998.
To promote a pushback against excessive corporatism (and elements of oligarchy) one needs first of all to recognize the problem. Given the rather apathetic response from what used to be called “the workers” to the last 30 years of relative slide, there appears to have been no such recognition. But then on the eve of the election I realized that the point had finally been made. For an astonishing 75% of those first 9,000 polled agreed that, yes, we did indeed need to be saved from the rich and powerful. From now on, in my opinion, we live in a different world from the one we grew up in. A world in which a degree of economic struggle between the financial elite, perhaps 10% but more likely 1%, and all the rest is finally recognized. The wimpy phase is probably over. The question now is which path will this struggle take? Will it be a broad societal effort through established political means to move things back to the 1950s to 1960s when a CEO’s pay was 40x his average employee’s pay and not today’s over 300x; when corporations never dreamt of leaving the US merely to save money; when investment banks set the standard (and a very high one) of ethical behavior? Or do we try to do it through the other historically well-used method, and a much more dangerous one – that of resorting to a “strong leader?” Strong leaders work out just fine if we end up with a Marcus Aurelius, the mostly benevolent and wisest of Roman Emperors. But when things go wrong, as they often do, we could more easily end up with Caligula.
As I read the poll on election night, “recapturing the country from the rich and powerful” seemed a long overdue cry from the broad public. The kick in the stomach, however, was the “strong leader” bit. On feeling that kick, a more dynamic betting man than I would have realized how wrong the 5 to 1 odds against Trump were and would have made a big wager on him. He not only would have scored higher on the “strong leader” bit than his rival, but despite his personal wealth, the words “rich and powerful” were much more closely aligned with “establishment” for candidate Clinton, almost a “Ms. Establishment 2016” in the minds of supporters and opponents alike.
I felt the pain from the “strong leader” bit because, like almost all in my age cohort, I am fanatically well-disposed to democracy. We were born, after all, at a time that overlapped the trio of nightmarish, strong leaders of the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. But I believe this fanaticism has weakened in other age cohorts born less close to these three as they have receded steadily into history. A recent report5 captured this decline: Of those born, as I was, in the 1930s, fully 75% gave a 10 out of 10 for extreme support for democracy. But each younger cohort felt less enthusiastic: 62%, 57%, 50%, and 43% for each younger cohort by decade until by the time we get to those born in the 1970s, the 40-year-olds, extreme support is down to 32%! And this is not the worst of it. The same report listed those who were actually against democracy as a “bad” or “very bad” way to “run this country.” Shockingly, in the period from 1995 to 2011, the percent of each age group agreeing to that proposition doubled. From 5.5% to 12% for those over 65 rising to a frightening 24%, up from 12.5% for the 16- to 24-year-olds.
By this time some readers may be asking for a profile of the 74% of the final 45,000 who voted against the rich and powerful. Who are these people? Well, they are us. All of us. I have never heard of a vote so uniform: whether Republican 72% or Democrat 77%; Male 74% or Female 75%; White 75% or Black 74%; Rich 70% or Poor 79%; Christian 74% or Muslim 72%; Graduates 68% or not 76%; they all agreed. They have all had it with the rich and powerful. And as for me, I don’t blame them. I think capitalism has lost its way. And has badly diluted the value of democracy along the way. We can only hope it is very temporary.
Trump recognized this streak of strong opinion and played to it, clearly stating his intention to look after the forgotten workers. Clinton diffused her message as looking after almost everyone and, I suppose, that includes you workers – as it were. To move the dial in the right direction is very important: Measures of income equality are correlated positively with everything valuable in a cohesive society. Exhibit 4 shows nine of these clear correlations, for which the US shows poorly in all! How far away this is from the widely-held belief that the US is best or nearly best at everything that matters. The way to improve this situation, though, is fortunately straightforward: Increase taxes on capital and on the very rich, perhaps slowly over a number of years, and increase the effort on worker training and education. These actions will by no means be a total cure for long-term job displacement but they would be a great and necessary improvement.
The real challenge in promoting less inequality is to increase the share of GDP going to labor. Almost certainly, for any given increase in their share of GDP there must be a decline in the share going to corporate profits. How does the program of the new strong leader stack up on this one? He is surrounded by capitalists and billionaires who, to further advantage corporations and the super rich, are apparently prepared to wage war on the already sadly diminished regulations that defend ordinary people (and, yes, with no regulations corporations would make more money). The war would also include direct tax cuts for the rich and corporations, which would further increase the share of the pie going to corporations. This is a strategy that if successful in the long-run – despite its current market appeal – could not possibly be worse for the workers if he tried. Perhaps they, the workers, will feel betrayed as their share drops in order to further fatten corporations. Perhaps they will be bamboozled enough not to notice the betrayal. For bamboozlement of the working poor has become an art form in the last 30 years, with bamboozlement defined as an ability to persuade people to vote against their own economic interest for one reason or another. For example, 62% of voters do not like the sound of “death tax,” which in the form of estate tax is paid by only 1-2% of American families. An astonishing 35% of those earning less than $10,000 a year do not approve of increasing taxes on the rich. Does it get any richer than that? It has been called the Homer Simpson effect,6 whereby the poor voter reacts negatively to the idea of tax, which like death has little appeal, but does not get the point that a tax decrease for the rich has unpleasant implications for them. But, the gods willing, you probably can’t bamboozle enough of the people enough of the time. And the Reuters/Ipsos poll clearly shows that the worms have turned. The lack of class war or economic war in the US has always been a fiction, but it has been mostly hidden, and deliberately so, by the side so completely winning the undeclared war. Perhaps the 74% vote was indeed a public declaration that the war is now official.
The Republican Administration seems to feel that it received a broad mandate and perhaps it did. But my guess is that this poll provides the real mandate that waits to be addressed. And it is a narrow, focused one: Save me, oh leaders, from the rich and powerful! It looks so far as if this point has been largely missed. If it has been, there will likely be powerful and sustained pushback from the poor and not yet quite powerless.
Spot on, as usual.
Some of the collected thoughts of writer Charles D. Hayes:
The really scary thing about hard-right Christian fundamentalists is not just their fervent belief in a prophesized Apocalypse to come, but in their eagerness to help bring it about. In their view, it’s a vengeful comeuppance overdue nonbelievers.
This is why having Steve Bannon at the helm in the Trump Administration represents a clear and present danger to this country. Steve Bannon is bat-shit crazy.
So, we have a mentally unstable president and his chief adviser is an admitted apocalypticist and Trump supporters just want us to give these people a chance. If irony were water, we would all drown.
* * *
During the 2016 campaign, recall that Donald Trump said he was beholden to no one, he couldn’t be influenced by contributions, then why are his Cabinet appointees big campaign contributors?
Remember how he was going to hire only the very best people? Then, why does he appoint a Secretary of Education, who has demonstrated that she is clueless about the major philosophical issues facing public education? She is, however, a major contributor, so this is glaring proof of a Trump lie.
Political propagandists advocate telling the same lies repeatedly, until they are accepted as truth. Trump says one thing and does another, so often, that any objective analysis shows clearly that he is the most dishonest person in the history of presidential politics and that’s really saying something.
We know that telling lies repeatedly convinces gullible citizens. So, in this case the best defense may be an overwhelming offense with the antidote to Donald Trump being an endless repetition of the truth.
Trump supporters need to be the target of an unrelenting barrage of facts, it may not breach their partisan gullibility, but it may impede their ability to promote a Kellyanne Conway version of reality.
* * *
Citizens who genuflect approval when executives earn hundreds of times more than workers, but who balk at raising the minimum wage have been rendered ethically incapacitated from having swallowed whole, the psychological power of hierarchical authority, overriding their own ability to offer judgments about ideas as morally intuitive as the concept of justice.
* * *
I’m confident I’m having an experience like millions of other folks as we keep trying to resume something akin to life before the election, but nothing is working. I keep going over and over the fact that this is unlike any election that anyone alive has ever experienced, since we now have a President of the United States who could not pass a citizenship test with an online tutorial. Every new day when you turn on a television or computer for the day’s news, it’s like listening for breaking glass. Each day you think, well we are still here, no nukes, no war, so far, not yet anyway, and still it doesn’t help all that much, because tomorrow is another day and a president with a serious personality disorder who is mentally unfit is like a fuse in search of a match.
The extreme right-wing ideologues that Trump surrounds himself with are despicable people with contemptible ideas, but for the most part we are relying on them, because they aren’t completely bat-shit crazy, so we must depend on them to keep the bull subdued, when in the china shop, or talking to China, or North Korea, or Iran, or Mexico. So, onward we cope, hoping it will get easier while not believing it for a minute.
* * *
I’ve read several posts lately in which conservatives have argued that liberalism is a mental disease. Just think, if only that were the case we could spread the germs and infect those who lack the common decency to support the need for universal healthcare.
Thank goodness for the pandemics in 1935, 1938, 1964, 1965 and the more recent one’s that have given us Social Security, Medicare, The Civil Rights Act, the 8-hour workday and overtime pay, the minimum wage, the GI Bill of Rights, The Clean Water Act, The Family and Medical Leave Act, The Consumer Protection Agency, The Rural Electrification Act, The Affordable Healthcare Act, and many other examples.
But, as I keep pointing out, that we have had service men and women die on the battlefield, only to have some members of their own family die from a lack of health insurance is only something that could occur in a society that is still very sick.
* * *
The 2016 election was unique, in that, our media, in effect, normalized the bizarrely abnormal by reporting a “this versus that” campaign, while giving billions of dollars of free air time to one candidate simply because of his hot button appeal—an appeal driven by racism, misogyny, ethnocentrism and the fear and insecurity of people facing an unjust economic future.
The press should have brought the full force of investigative journalism to bear on Donald Trump’s business practices, and his foreign debt, and they should have been insistent on him releasing his tax returns. One candidate experienced extreme vetting, one simply refused vetting.
That our media helped to normalize the abnormal is unfortunately something that’s going to be very hard to fix because now the buffoon is in-charge and his abnormal behavior finally seems to be awakening the press to the monster they helped win the White House. But what is to be done now is an open question.
The emphasis on bringing back manufacturing jobs is good, but short sighted. Even, if this effort proved very successful, it would still not come close to fixing what is broken in America’s workplace. Automation, via robotics and digital app technology, means a future with an exponential decrease in traditional manufacturing jobs.
We are on track to experience a metaphorically dead middle class, unless, we can contrive a living wage economy, for all full-time employment. We have no shortage of things that need to be done in America. Things that really need to be accomplished, but that no one wants to pay for.
We hear a continuous incessant cry about the need for free markets, which, ignores the reality than nothing we do, is free. For example, we don’t pay the ecological tax that our busyness exacts on the environment. Costs that at some point future generations are going to have to pay for in a reduction in quality of life.
The problem, is that until we stop the looting at the top tiers in our economy, we can’t allot equity, at the foundation level. When it comes to fair compensation, we are like the frog in a pot of water on a hot stove that boils before realizing it should have jumped out when the water was still warm.
We have gone from living wages at a minimum wage and reasonable compensation for executive pay, to blatant inequality for minimum wages and outright open looting at the executive level. In a sane and just society, this is simply untenable and in the long term unacceptable.
The financialization of our economy long ago severed the link with which labor keeps pace with productivity via compensation. This is not rocket science, but for America’s future, it’s just as important.