Truth and Consequences
By CRAIG DELLA PENNA on October 26, 2009 at 11:00 PM in Current Affairs
I have been accused by some of my more radical colleagues, of being a ‘moral relativist’ ( trust me, they’re using the term pejoratively). Like most things in life that’s both right and wrong: some things are relative to time and circumstance, others are pretty much set in stone so far as I’m concerned. In philosophical tradition I come from the line of Heraclitus, Socrates, Spinoza, Hume, Kant and Nietzsche. Moral relativism is more subtle, more nuanced, more open, more transparent – and a much more difficult space to keep your head on straight, after all, in the end, Sartre was just a selfish prick.
That said, there must be consequences for our actions or the foundation of any society disappears. It’s always been a black amusement to me that the neocon Republicans have blown so hard for so long about ‘personal responsibility’ and yet have managed to evade any such responsibility for any of their actions.
In a bleakly funny offering that illustrates my point, a recent Frontline episode aired on PBS, called “The Warning” here . This program went over the career of Brooksley Born, especially her time in the Clinton administration heading the agency principally responsible for overseeing the derivatives market. Everyone should see this as part of a belated course in contemporary history. Disregard the sententious ‘approaching doom’ tone and you will be amazed by the breathtaking stupidity, arrogance and sheer brazenness of the neocon agenda, even then. The highlight ( or perhaps lowlight) of the hour was the interview snippet of Ayn Rand blatantly spewing forth her astonishingly idiotic credo: “Completely unfettered laissez faire capitalism, ungoverned, unregulated in any way.” (I paraphrase here, I don’t remember the exact quote). How anyone with two brain cells to rub together could swallow this crap is beyond me, and yet, as Frontline alludes, this corrupt, corrosive creed has been the underlying philosophy of almost every significant economic regulator, policy maker and advisor in our country for almost three decades now. No wonder we’re in the toilet. The show goes on to explicate, step by step, how a quietly brilliant lawyer/economist (Born), who absolutely identified the danger, knew it for what it was and devised a real-world solution for the problem; was excoriated, ostracized, hysterically attacked and quite literally forced out of her office. The chilling part of this all is that the very people who did this to her are the selfsame people who created the economic debacle we are now experiencing and who, unbelievably, are now in charge of fixing it.
In an unintended coincidence (I’m pretty sure) Turner Classic Movies recently aired a wonderful old chestnut: “Gabriel Over the White House” . Released in 1933 – just after FDR’s 1st inauguration, the movie plot revolves around a corrupt political hack being elected President, having an accident and waking from his coma with the Archangel Gabriel looking over his shoulder (and writing his speeches). Walter Huston chews the scenery with relish as the hapless President Judd Hammond. The movie joyously descends into a fascist dictatorship, falling, nay – leaping - over the cliff as President Hammond/Archangel Gabriel successively: creates an ‘Army of the Unemployed’, foils a plot by the Vice President to depose him, has impeachment proceedings begun against him, dissolves Congress, declares martial law and threatens the world with destruction unless world leaders accede to his demands to disarm.
The point the movie makes, without meaning to, is that the distance between democracy and dictatorship is very small, oh, so easy to cross and apparent only in the rear view mirror. The point the Frontline piece makes is that there is a history to the Great Recession, a set of causal actions that can be identified, now, and evaluated …and, there are people, who can be identified, who very deliberately made this happen.
There is another facet to this: I call it The Great Conflation. You’ve probably heard this before but it bears repeating: Capitalism and Democracy are blood enemies. Capitalists hate democracy and will do everything they can to destroy it. Like the Terminator: they don’t feel pain, or pity or remorse and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until democracy is dead (this is where the Moral Relativist stuff comes in). Where we, as a democracy, make our mistake is that we think of Capitalism as just an economic infrastructure and subject to our democratic rule of law. This kind of thinking is muddled and foolish and it is, in large part, why we are in the fix we are in. Capitalism certainly is an economic infrastructure but integral and inherent to capitalism is its power structure: pure feudalism. Hierarchical, decentralized, dependent upon reciprocal agreements between competing nobility and warrior classes; all characterized by two overarching principles: “Might makes right” and “The ends justifies the means”.
There is nothing wrong with this in the context of the Marketplace – you can be as Darwinian as you want with each other, I don’t really care, but… there’s an interface between the Marketplace and the rest of the world (just for the sake of the argument let’s call that the “Commons”). The Commons represents the mundane working of the world: family, community, food production, kids, shelter, etc. and the Commons, at its best, is run by the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is, essentially, a commonly arrived at recognition of boundaries, in Lenny Bruce’s classic reduction: “We agree to eat in Area A, crap in Area B and sleep in Area C”. The Commons doesn’t really give damn about the Marketplace, the problem is that the Marketplace doesn’t recognize any boundaries so it’s constantly leaking over everything and everyone else… crapping in Area C.
There is and must be a response to this state of affairs (here’s where the Moral Absolutist stuff comes in). We have to recognize the external reality of our world and figure out a way to deal with that reality.
Actually, we already know how to deal with the problem – we just don’t want to do it because it involves an unpleasant recognition of the nature of power. It’s one of our weaknesses and the capitalists count on it: we don’t want confrontation and we don’t want to use force. The reality is that we must set the boundaries for the Marketplace because the Marketplace will never do it. We must vigilantly protect our Commons from the never-ending attack of Capitalism on the foundations of our society.
How do we fix this?, you may ask. Well, curiously, we already have all the tools we need to do so and we also have a convenient list of the perpetrators of the crimes wrought against our Commons.
I’ve written about this before here
But here’s the relevant part for our purposes:
1. Bring back Glass-Steagall. Let banks be banks, not financial supermarkets.
2. Clean up the derivatives market, derivatives should be tightly defined and closely controlled.
3. Enforce all extant anti-trust laws, enact new anti-trust laws to deal with the legal end runs developed since Teddy Roosevelt’s day - break up the media and banking conglomerates.
4. Mandate position limits in all commodities markets and force immediate disclosure of all positions over 5% in any market.
5. Put into immediate effect strict restrictions on naked short selling and price manipulation.
6. Institute reinstatement of the ‘uptick rule’. This rule requires that every short sale transaction be entered at a price that is higher than the price of the previous trade.
7. Prohibit regulated banks from engaging in any speculative markets either for themselves or as agents.
8. Reinstate usury laws and set up oversight and strict regulation of all interstate financial transactions at the national level.
9. Make the bad paper good: go back two years and guarantee all home loans.
10. Eliminate ARMs. All banks must hold all loans they make (ten years or longer) for at least ten years.
11. Reinstate 1932 tax rates, eliminate loopholes.
12. Corporations with headquarters outside the US cannot get US government contracts.
The first eight are pretty much the steps you take if you actually want to get the markets under control again.
Nine and ten are simple ways to redress the balance in the home loan arena and at a far less cost than TARPs I & II. And please don’t talk to me about those evil people who ‘forced’ the poor lenders into giving them loans when they had no ability to pay – I’ll listen to those expressions of outrage when the Guild of Thieves has given back all the obscene profits they made off those loans.
Eleven deals with the ‘redistribution of the wealth’ issue. The tax rate on incomes of $1 million or more in 1932 was: 63%. Y’know how the right wingnuts always get hysterical about this? They keep saying “Soak the rich and they’ll stop producing jobs!”. What a crock! Let me tell you something about rich people: they’re like gerbils in a running wheel - you take away their money, they’ll just go out and make more, it’s what they love, it’s what they do. You couldn’t stop them with a herd of bulldozers. Go look up what percentage of US wealth is held by the richest 5% of US citizens, then go look up those statistics for 1980 when Ronald Reagan started taking care of his friends. If you still want to talk about this, I’ll be here.
Twelve addresses (in a very minor way) the responsibility I feel that corporations owe to the country that made them possible. Halliburton – want to move your HQ to Dubai to avoid paying US corporate taxes? No problem: no more US government contracts for you – have a nice life!
And we have the cast of perpetrators, courtesy of Frontline and some other investigations:
For example: Bill Moyers’ interview with Simon Johnson about what happened in Sept 15, 2008. here
And Mike Taibbi’s article in Rolling Stone “Inside The Great American Bubble Machine”, here
The cast of characters is large, long and ancient. The clash of civilizations is ongoing. This isn’t really a conspiracy only because it’s both too large and too old. What it is, is an undeclared war, made more deadly by the fact that only one side knows it’s at war.
We know the names of some of our contemporary enemies, they’ve masqueraded quite successfully as our economic and political advisors for decades now.
Alan Greenspan
Newt Gingrich
Ronald Reagan
Larry Summers
Tim Geithner
Phil Gramm
Grover Norquist
These are just a few of the men who have successfully sabotaged our society. Some may have been dupes – I have trouble believing that Reagan was anything other than a ‘useful fool’. Others are, in my opinion, traitors to our country and should be arrested, jailed, tried and, when found guilty, shot.
So long as we fail to understand that we are in a war, fail to understand who our enemies are – they will prevail, and we will continue to suffer the kind of economic debacle we are undergoing right now.
The larger truth here is about consequences or the lack thereof. We see an ongoing parade of liars, hacks, thieves, swindlers and conmen go by in perpwalk mode. None of them gets more than a slap on the wrist. So far as we can tell by example – there are no consequences for bad action. No one ever gets punished so no one even cares about taking responsibility. This is where Moral Relativism hits the wall. We cosset, enable and forgive our celebrities over and over again until they lose the concept of being responsible for their actions. Now they just shrug and go to the next party. Worse, we celebrate and even adulate individuals who are transparently unworthy of the praise they engender. In a sense they are not guilty because no one has ever told them “No.”
The Moral Absolutists have the point here: we need to set boundaries, make clear rules and enforce punishment for transgressors. Impartially, justly and consistently – that’s our job as the Commons.
The point to remember about taking responsibility is that’s it’s not enough to say the words or even to genuinely express your sorrow for the actions that hurt your victims. You must take recompensatory action and you must atone for your transgression. This means you must find a way to make your victims whole again in some measure, restitution if theft is involved, other remedies for other harms. You must also atone, that is: perform some meaningful action or actions that demonstrates your understanding of the harm you have caused and your willingness to redress the balance. This is where jail time and death are involved.
In some societies, such as Rome and ‘modern’ Japan, the sense of shame over acts inimical to the Commons can be strong enough to result in suicide – this is accepted as proper atonement for some extreme acts. We used to have a similar sense of shame: individuals who had committed crimes thought to be ‘beyond the pale’ were left in a room with a loaded gun and encouraged to ‘do the right thing’, often they did.
I’m not suggesting that we arbitrarily impose death sentences on the Capitalist crowd for their antisocial behavior (although I wouldn’t automatically rule it out either) but I am saying that we need to identify these threats for what they are, clearly draw the lines for them and say: “At your peril, go no further.”
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
No it has not.
Good lord.
I noticed that first one, too, Constance. The underlying philosophy of our rulers has been to regulate and legislate up the you know what. That is NOT ‘unfettering’ something.
These two comments seem instructive to me. I frequently read NQ even though (because?) I think most of the posters/commenters here have an irrational hatred/fear of Obama and I can’t figure out why. But the anxiety underlying the fear is often recognizable to me.
Here, the poster and the two commenters seem to agree that something is broken. There is a general anxiety about the direction of the country and on that SO MANY people agree. But the dramatic, and sometimes dangerous, disagreements seem to come in the questions of causality and the solutions.
Craig seems to think we need more regulation and more progressive taxation (things I think Obama would agree on). SNK, however, maybe thinks that we need to return to some kind of ‘true free market,’ without fetters. But both think that things have gone awry. They can’t both be right about the causation and the solution, even if they both rightly recognize the effects of the problem.
My only point, I think, is that it could help to recognize the underlying agreement on our anxieties instead of confusing people who have different ideas about the solutions with those who caused/are causing the problems.
Mostly because nobody knows what Obama’s plan is and he has never once presented it as consisely as Craig has just done. There is a lot here to think about. But, you know that is was well thought out to a degree not often seen. What we get from Obama is marketing drivel. “Bend down the curve” What the heck does that even mean? Obama never presents a plan in as much detail as this. I think it is because no plan exists. Or if it does, Obama isn’t privy to the workings of it and is just the front man for whoever or whatever is actually running this country right now. The alternative to this wild conspiracy is actually worse… being that Obama really is in charge and he still has no concrete plan. This is why Obama scares me. Mostly, I am scared for my kids. I feel America and the dream of a better life is being lost for them. Meanwhile, Obama has half million dollar pizza nights and plays golf and basketball while the world marvels that a black man can be President. Sure he can, but that isn’t the question. The question is can this man… melanin aside… can he actally do anything useful?
I’m sorry, but if you think that Obama doesn’t have any plans, you’re not trying very hard (and you’re not credible). He passed a stimulus. He has proposed financial regulatory changes. He has proposed healthcare reforms. All of these things need to be passed through Congress (b/c Obama is not, much to y’all’s surprise, a dictator) so if you’re looking for the ultimate details — look there.
And this is brought on by Obama alone? This is my point. I understand the anxiety, but why is it so easy for some people to immediately throw all of it on Obama. Real wages have been declining and inequality growing for a long time. Even Bush didn’t start it and Clinton didn’t do enough to stop it. Obama’s trying to fight off a great recession and if you haven’t noticed, parts of the economy are now stabilizing. When you ask unreasonable things, your bias is far too evident.
And Bush bore us a TARP and Nancy wants another stimulus… so what? Is there a plan in any of that. Not hardly. If he has a plan aside from “bend down the curve” and “yes we can” then I would like to see it. All I have seen so far is speech. I suspect that is all there is. He has some novelty value to him and that is about it so far.
you say “bend down the curve” like it’s gibberish. it’s actually, “bend the cost curve.” it has nothing to do with the stimulus. it’s part of the healthcare reform debate. and what it means is that you can’t just pass a law to instantly change the cost of healthcare but there is a need to pass laws that will change the steep trajectory of rising healthcare costs (i.e., the current cost curve) so that we aren’t all bankrupt in 20 years, as projected by the current curve.
“is there a plan in any of that?” yes. you can’t criticize the stimulus as having no plan because it is, in fact, a whole giant mess of laws designed to try curb the recession and bring us into an economic recovery. you can disagree with the plan and say that you think you have a better plan, but you can’t just say that actual laws passed by congress are just a speech. it’s total nonsense.
Curves… hockey sticks what is the difference? The problem is we are misusing statistics and using bad data to make important decisions and to govern with. Decisions are no better than the information they are based upon. I don’t feel we are getting valid information right now.
but you said the problem was that he was only making speeches. what bad data and misused statistics are you talking about?
But you just sad that. What does bend the curve have to do with health care? It is just marketing drivel. Just like Gore’s hockey stick graph. Statistics to justify just about anything as we have handed over Providence to a gaggle of pseudo scientists. This is what I am saying, is there a plan at all or just an ad campaign? For any problem we face… is there nothing more than branding? So far, I don’t see it. So far he has a novelty skin tone and a large appetite for spending money. Big deal.
well, you see what you want to see. bending the cost curve is just a description of one of the goals of healthcare reform. there’s no marketing or statistics drivel in it, it’s just a description. just b/c you don’t understand the concept doesn’t mean it’s voo doo.
I don’t dislike Obama any more than I dislike the majority of Congress and much of the last administration. But face it, he is the figure head. He is out there making the speeches now. He put himself there so he gets to take the heat.
The stimulus was an extremely bad idea. You do not spend your way to prosperity. (It defies logic: if it was that easy, we’d all be billionaires by now.) The worst is yet to come for our economy.
uhhh, ever think that a country’s macroeconomy is dramatically different than our personal finances?
Do you know what a debt trap is?
sure i do. and i’m not saying infinite debt and deficits are a good thing for a government. but your comparison to personal finances is completely inapposite and useless.
The poster and I don’t even agree on the cause of the problem. I think it was too much government interference versus not being the right type of interference.
Without properly diagnosing the cause, how can one develop a solution? Putting more legislation on top of a basic structure that didn’t work will not help but make things worse.
The thing that worries me more than government ideology is the possibility that we are seeing some kind of corporatism evolving into some kind of pseudo government by proxy. I am with the writer for the first three points. There is no need for banks to be acting as insurers or insurers to be acting as banks… or owning each other. Where are we going with these conglomerates anyway? There is value in keeping walls between some of these types of companies. The derivatives markets are “blue sky” for the most part. The only people who can manage these markets are the same people who created and mismanaged them? This needs overhaul without question. Look at the media. The media helped decide the past Presidential election. This is way too much power for them. To me we are going to have to look past left-right ideology if we are to regain control. Not just control of the economy, but of government itself. It was once a government of the people… now it’s more of the corporations. People right now are irrelevant for the most part.
Yes, exactly.
I am not anti-capitalist (actually I am because it never works the way people think it does) but I see a consistent pattern of abuse by individuals who have nothing but larceny in their hearts.
Give them a marketplace sandbox to play in, fine - but put up a high electric fence and post dire warning signs and don’t ever let them near public money.
I guess we shouldn’t let government officials near public money either. THEY are the ones perpetrating–or at minimum allowing–much of the fraud. THEY should be the watchdogs, but they are participants.
End the Fed!
Oh, and prosecute the criminals, and stop making special rules for special interests!
Golly, economics should sail right over my head for all I know. But Craig did a wonderful Wikipedia study and brought some esoteric points into bas-relief for me.
I am not a PhD., just curious. I loved Craig’s reasoning and his many solutions.
(Wiki seems to strive for clarity for
undergrads
Why is this current mess so difficult for the layman to digest, or even nibble on?
Because it is “black box” gamesmanship for
members only. Brooksly Born knew that. I
watched her entire Moyers’ interview. Was
hardly shocked at the antics of the chosen.
Once I did a short theme paper in college
on Ayn Rand–a comparison piece juxtaposing
her philosophy with Maurice Cornforth, a
noted leftist of the Socialist mode. Like
Mr. Della Pena, I was struck by her apparent lack of a consistant moral compass.
Rand, cold war product of the Communist v.
Capitalist systems, took her thesis to extremes, elevating free enterprise to a religious experience, IMO. Naturally, the
greedy among entrepreneurs were enthralled.
At last they could run enmasse from the hated encumbrances of the New Deal. FDR
not only saved the world from fascism, he saved the world for capitalism by picking up the pieces and attempting to resurrect sane fiscal policy.
There was a short rekindling of common purpose under Kennedy/Johnson. But it was sadly interrupted by Vietnam and Richard Nixon. Ah, then Ronald Reagan galloped into D.C. on his high horse promising free markets, less regulation–therapy for big government.
What were his famous words oft repeated fervently by the faithful? “The nine most
frightening words in the English language
are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Something like that…
It’s all smoke and mirrors. Meant to deceive, cajole and divert attention from the men behind the curtain. Our presidents are low on the totem pole. Get used to it.
All 12 points seem to be good ideas. Considering that the only “constituents” that CongressCriminals (that means all of them, see Mark Twain’s observation) represent faithfully ar the “contributors”, the chances of getting any of it passed are the two classic ones: slim and snowball in ****.
Great to hear from you again, Craig. As usual, I agree with you on everything.
Yesterday my husband and I were discussing the lost “Commons” concept as we passed a large sign in Encino California that declares a stretch of boulevard filled with privately owned shops as “The Encino Commons”. The next block is a public park.
Excuse me, Encino council, you don’t seem to understand the concept.
Rule 4 must include the “dark pools”. Rule 11 just SUCKS!. Rule 11 is where you come off the tracks & ramble into ObamaLand. Guess you figure if someone has a stellar year they continue to have stellar years…
How much is enough? When do you give something back to the society that made you rich, never?
“In some societies, such as Rome and ‘modern’ Japan, the sense of shame over acts inimical to the Commons can be strong enough to result in suicide – this is accepted as proper atonement for some extreme acts.”
That Madoff guy who was just found dead in his pool, probably a suicide…
That said, your clearly murderous outrage is a bit disconcerting. I don’t like robber barons that much either but I don’t think they need to be lined up and shot.
Not the robber barons (although that’s not necessarily a bad idea).
The people I’m furious at are the ones who knew they were doing something utterly evil, that would hurt and even destroy millions of families for the benefit of their tiny circle of uber-wealthy friends - and went ahead and did it anyway.
Phil Gramm, for example, who championed and got passed, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act.
He’s a traitor to America who deliberately and actively set out to harm us and accomplished exactly what he set out to do.
What do you want to do with people like that?
Put them in jail….like Madoff, serving his 150 year sentence.
Craig, have you considered immigrating to Denmark? That’s the only country I could find that taxes at 63% but it’s doubtful they’d contend with your vitriol, I’m sure they’d call it hate speech. Get real. The death penalty for bad economic policy? Even if you lost a lot of money in the crash try not to unwind, according to your theory you’ll just make more.
The death penalty would not be for the policy. It would be for the pillage, rape, theft, and murder of the people who live and work in the common; sometimes known as the poor and middle class. A lot of the middle class has already been killed off.
Yes, Sparky, exactly right.
Elaine, please see my comment above and, no, I didn’t make or lose any money in the crash - had none to begin with.
BTW, what’s wrong with Denmark? Lovely place, lovely people, peaceful, prosperous, open-minded, tolerant (remember the flap over cartoons of Mohammed?). They’re a constitutional monarchy with a semi-socialist government who ride bicycles a lot and have a recent history of fierce resistance to oppression - what’s not to like?
Oh, and they are smart enough to have single payer health care.
Hmmm…
Denmark is also credited with being the happiest country in the world.
They are lucky they mostly agree on what they all want done with the public money because they are small. This is the idea behind our own Constitutional Republic: the federal government is supposed to be small and cede most powers to state governments. In that manner, people would have better local control over how their representatives allocate the peoples’ money.
Unfortunately, most people do not know enough of the history of economics nor its motivations. Thank you for distilling this down. It’s interesting that you cite the Glass-Steagall Act. Marcy Kaptur (and I believe it was Paul Ryan) tried to get legislation to the the floor in order to turn the tide on bank bailouts, ala G-S, but were unsuccessful. It hasn’t been a century passed since laws to protect us from the river of capitalism spilling its banks were enacted. We look on in amazement and alarm that our legislators and policy makers apparently slept through that class.
One would think recent events in the economy would have been a wake-up call. Yet there’s still tremendous resistance even to something so obvious as the need for regulation of derivatives trading.
Strange……but I have never worked for a poor man.I am opposed to millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position.
Those of us who lived through the savings and loans debacle thought it couldn’t happen again - but it did in an even worse manner - at least we let the S&L’s fail and got rid of the toxic wastes. Now the government just keeps everything under cover -ignore it and it will go away.
I hated when the government began to appove all the mergers that allowed the banking system to swallow up small banks and change the fabric of deposits and loans in communities.
The deficit is truly terrifying to anyone who realizes that the money acutualy does need to come from somewhere. The cost of healthcare does not worry me as much as knowing that it is not offset by dollars taken from somewhere. Stop the waste and end the military complex spending first. I have to budget my money based on what I have now - not what I will have in the future. Why can’t the federal government figure that out. Thank goodness most state governments are required to have a balanced budget.
so tell me again the difference between you and Obama? You rail against the evil republicans but seems to me the dems haven’t done much better. Case in point the past 10 months. And the 2 years prior to that. Can we stop pointing fingers? The partisanship has got to stop. We’re all in this together. Oh before you say: evil capitalist. I’m a hard working mother of 2 who makes less than 30k a year. One takes the work that is out there to support one’s family. We had 8 years of out of control spending. Obama promised to put a stop to that and he has not. So sure, let’s take from the wealthy and give to the poor and continue down that path to socialism. I thought you all were for a free America. Boy was I wrong.
Actually, several people listed as those responsible for the mess he describes, are Democrats.
You speak of moving past partisanship and then resurrect the idiot “socialist” charge? Not to mention the fact that you are hard working, make only 30k/yr and apparently *still* don’t recognize that you are a victim of the massive inequality in this country (no real wage increase in decades for the middle class on down). a little progressive taxation would be fair and would be in your best interest. why are you blind to that?
Somebody living here and making 30K would be wealthy by the world standards. You would be well to remember that. Especially when we seem to be headed toward some lofty world government utopia. 30K will buy a lot more rice and beans than a person can eat by himself. But, if you spread the wealth around…
this is what i’m saying. Maggie seems to think that we need to protect the wealthy from any kind of redistribution. and i’m saying to her: what about the redistribution of wealth TO THE MOST AFFLUENT over the last 30 years? i don’t think what you’re saying disagrees with what i’m saying…in fact, i’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
“The point the movie makes, without meaning to, is that the distance between democracy and dictatorship is very small, oh, so easy to cross and apparent only in the rear view mirror.”
so true. good thing we aren’t (and never have been) a democracy. we are a republic, with a constitution that sets clear limits for what the government can & cannot do. the rally cry for democracy has been a favorite of tyrants perhaps because giving power to the people sounds like a good & noble thing - and generally hard to argue against. but the major problem is the public can be easily manipulated into ceding power to the wrong people with very few (if any) checks.
people often criticize this country that we are “not a true democracy”. what man don’t seem to grasp is people like ben franklin, george washington, and thomas jefferson were very much against democracies. franklin once quipped that the lives of democracies were as short lived as their deaths were violent, and when asked what they had given us (after ratification of the constitution) he said “a republic, if you can keep it.” jefferson, while being an advocate of states rights & the people in general (especially supportive of a free press), he was once said that “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” george washington is also known to have felt similarly.
i especially like ben franklin’s assertion that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
and there are many more!! i just don’t remember who said ‘em (i don’t want to put down anything im unsure of or can’t back up). with so many key founders so against it, why in the world would so many people - our elected officials included - try to push the illusion of “democracy”? when i think of this, i am reminded of that small difference, that very fine line between democracy & dictatorship.
it is also worth noting karl marx’s view that “democracy is the road to socialism”.
Well said, I stand corrected. And I’m getting more Jeffersonian every day… I’m tired of stupid people running things.
I think Pelosi and Reid are those two wolves. Our republic is that lamb. If we let that lamb be sacrificed… sacrificed as a single meal to those two hungry wolves… there may never be another like it. If that happens then the day after that the two wolves will be just as hungry. Eating the lamb is not an option.
this simplistic bullshit about “we are not a democracy” has to stop. yes, we are a republic. is that a full definition of our system of government? NO. because it doesn’t define how our government is formed and our laws made. there’s no rule that you can’t have a limited democratic republic. it doesn’t make one a socialist to say that the majority should rule with some constitutional exceptions.
i don’t get it. what do you even think you’re achieving with this “republic, not a democracy” mantra. it’s a bullshit semantic distinction that doesn’t even hold up.
It is a path to socialism. I feel we are already there. Look at how some congressional districts have been gerrymandered to the point that representatives no longer respect the voters at all. Look at the town hall meetings. Representatives that held them for the most part did so to “inform” the voters… not to “listen” to them. We are going toward having a statutory representation, but no effective real representation in Washington.
how? you don’t even know what you’re talking about. you just said that our current system of government (democratic elections, majority rule, but with a constitutional protection of minority rights) is a path to socialism.
i agree that gerrymandering is problematic. but what in the world does it have to do with socialism? you are woefully misinformed and, for some reason, hell bent on using that misinformation in a war against Obama.
Majority rule is a path to the majority imposing their will on everybody else. We have seen the fruits of this. Obama knows this well… this why be butters the bread with the wealth of others. He promises old folks $250. He throws the doctors a bone. This isn’t even disguised. He is making a mockery of the republic. Buy off enough people with the goodies of everybody else… and call it democracy? No… it is the path to socialism. Marx knew that much.
but majority rule is in fact how we make laws in this country. you are still saying that our current system of government is a path to socialism. which is stupid.
and, yes, majority rule can lead to majority tyranny, which is why we have the minority protections of the Constitution. but none of this has anything to do with socialism. you’ve been watching too much glenn beck.
“Socialism” the new bogeyman perjorative now that “Liberal” has been exhausted.
Forget the names lets just judge on the merits of the arguments.
i heartily agree with this.
i agree with the over use of simplistic terms, and by all means lets try to judge on the merits of arguments.
there isn’t anything wrong with individual social programs. they can be quite helpful (when done right). the problem is when we have too many that are too large, that become ever intrusive to our daily lives. at some point they are taking more from our checks then they should to support the “many”. at this point one could argue that we would be crossing the threshold into socialism. its also worth pointing out that socialism is the root of both fascism & communism.
the problem with socialism is its a proven failure. even before cuba, n. korea, or the USSR, the pilgrims unknowingly gave it a shot. when they were almost wiped out in the first year, bradford decided to change things a little - he let them own their property and keep the food they produced, instead of putting it in a common store as they had been doing. production increased so dramatically that not only did they thrive, but they also produced enough surplus that they were selling it to europe. even before the time of karl marx, joseph stalin, or fidel castro, socialism had lost to capitalism on basic principles before either had a chance to be packaged as ideologies and marketed to the world.
1. the initial problem is that Docelder was equating pure democracy with socialism. so your relatively reasonable discussion of socialism is fine but it begs the question: “why are we even talking about socialism?”
2. it’s communism that is a proven failure. there are several problems with the direct line between that and obama’s vision: a) those were dictatorships. b) they were attempts at pure communism. c) there are some very successful examples of socialism (not pure socialism) at work in europe today. you may think of europe as a bogeyman, but in fact many countries have a very high standard of living, including health care, longevity, and vacation. doesn’t sound all bad does it?
w/r/t to the pilgrims’ example (the accuracy of which i won’t comment on): obviously a) does not apply.
as far as the argument for socialism - which invariably infringes on our civil liberties in its quest to support society as a whole - i am reminded of another great quote by benjamin franklin:
“anyone who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will lose both, and deserve neither.”
the transition is slow but i believe it is intentional. when i was in elementary school, i remember being taught that we lived in a republic (or a “constitutional republic”). when i was in middle school, i was taught that we lived in a “democratic republic”. by the time i was in collage, it was simply that we lived in a democracy, or “western-style democracy”.
here’s the problem. its not just a label, its a belief - not just with the general population, but with our elected officials as well. if everyone agrees that the will of the people over-ride any written rule, its simply a matter of conditioning the populace to support your agenda. its an end-around of the laws that have governed us so well for so long. and its not just the democrats that have been doing this, its a game that has been played out for several decades now.
we as americans must put our foot down and forcefully declare “no more”!
where does it say that a democracy means that the “will of the people over-ride any written rule?” that is only true if the people, democratically and through their representatives, make a NEW rule. which happens all the time; it’s how things work.
by what mechanism would the people override the rule of law in your fantasy world? more to the point, why would they NEED to if they can just rewrite the laws according to rule of law?
its an important distinction. with a democracy ultimate power rests in a majority vote of the populace, but with a republic it is the rule of law that governs all - even those at the highest echelons of power.
yes, we have a democratic mechanism in the hiring/firing of our officials, but that is the extent of it. people need to realize our true rule in US government - we are essentially the HR department, and for some time we have been neglecting our responsibilities!
but this lone democratic mechanism dosen’t conflate us into “democracy” - its just a common sense way to decide who will represent us in our federal government. one must really admire the shear genius of those who so carefully crafted this nation - we are a republic, not a single state (like rome) but a federation of independent states. our officials do not inherit titles, but must be chosen by their constituents (or at least, thats how its SUPPOSED to work). even at it core it is divided into three branches that offset each other, each holding power equal to the other in its own right that keeps the whole thing in check & preventing either entity from becoming too powerful…. so long as the rules are adhered to, and the people (aka “HR department”) do their job. it isn’t our place to clamor in the streets to demand the frivolous or force the hand of washington to suit our local special interests, its our job to watch them vigilantly, and throw out the bums that aren’t up to snuff.
wrong again.
1. the dictionary defn of republic is: “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” which is just what you seem to saying a democracy is. ‘people’ is in the word, after all.
2. what you’re describing (mostly) is a constitutional system. we can have a constitutional democracy or a constitutional republic (or both, actually).
3. where do you think the law that is the rule comes from? from democratic institutions–we elect representatives who get together to vote on the laws. just b/c we use democratic means to create our laws doesn’t somehow demean the rule of law. there’s no connection.
most of your arguments pertain to a pure, direct democracy. which we don’t have. we have a limited democratic constitutional republic. these are just words, they DESCRIBE our system of government.
where did my comment go?!
Proof of Obama Derangement Syndrome
beautiful. thank you.
Craig,
Thank you for this thought-provoking post. And thanks also for all you who commented above.
I am such a moron when it comes to economics and finances. I have lived frugally, most of my early years in the lower middle clas. My only goal has always been to raise my boys to be good people, to live well, hurting as few people as possible. I should add, also, that my major enjoyment has been being able to feed and house as many pets as I could with my circumstance and play with them as much as possible to keep sane.
But, with my humanities background, one thing you wrote was something I could relate to:
In my academic field, believe it or not, many of the “accepted” philosophers actually, if you read what they write, do NOT believe there is an external reality. It’s this type of thinking that has twisted academia to something I no longer recognize as worthwhile.
But at least neuroscience, neurobiology, neuropsychology–these fields and the attendant fields have clearly come to the conclusion that there IS an external truth that needs to be addressed. Mind is not something “out there.” It depends on reality.
I happen, at least, to believe as you do about the danger capitalism poses for democracies. We do need to figure out how to contain and neutralize the dangers capitalism posses for democracies–but to do it somehow without going socialist or communist. It’s a hard line to hold.
My comment is somehow caught in the maw of the Spam filter. Please save it.
[...] info by NO QUARTER « Three guilty in racehorse tax scheme that snared Portlanders - OregonLive.com Why [...]
This has got to be one of the most insightful and lucid articles I’ve read on No Quarter. It ignores the partisan divide and speaks directly to America common sense.
Wow Craig, with your essay and most of the comments here, capitalism sure is taking an unfair pounding. This sort of strawman attack on capitalism constantly reminds me that few people actually know what capitalism is, the fairness of it, the efficiency of it, and the morality of it. This is probably due for the most part to the misconception that our econmy is a capitalistic one, and as such, the great problems that we’re dealing with are CAUSED by a breakdown or flaws in basic capitalistic principles. This is like blaming your lack of eggs on the chickens for allowing the fox in the henhouse. We have a mixed economy, not a capitalistic one, and the huge intrusion of our government into all sectors of our economy is the cancer that is causing our current malaise.
For the first time, a woman has recieved the Nobel Prize in economics. Through her research she came to the profound conclusion that consumers, if left alone, are far more efficient by simply addressing their needs, in directing and distributing commodities and resources than corporations and governments. Without stating so, she just described the ideal of true capitalism. It’s an ideal that few have experienced BECAUSE of government intrusion, and BECAUSE of unholy alliances between government and many (not all) large corporations.
Let’s face it, to the average American, the concept of a monopoly is evil. They picture a company that has cornered the market on a commodity so that it will charge exorbitant prices for it’s goods. Here’s where an important distinction needs to be made. The kind of company I’ve just described is a COERCIVE monopoly, and yes, they are bad. There have been monopolies that have been a great blessing to consumers, like Standard Oil and Alcoa, and more recently Microsoft could fall into this catagory, and they achieved their prominence because they did NOT gouge customers, and they did NOT have backdoor deals with corrupt politicians. On the other hand, from it’s inception, ATT was a coercive monopoly that kept that status because of governmental protection, not despite it.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/01/antitrusts-greatest-hits/1
Bernie Madoff will hopefully spend the rest of his life behind bars for his creation of a malicious Ponzi scheme. But our government has created far greater and more destructive Ponzi schemes with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and is currently trying desperately to ram another one down our throats with this health care monstrosity. SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are constantly touted as very popular government programs, and why not? They have yet to hit the wall of insolvency as all Ponzi schemes eventually do. The start of the modern explosion of medical costs can be traced back to 1964 with the creation of Medicare, and increased involvement of government in the private medical/pharmaciutical industry has remakably paralleled the increase of medical costs. You might ask “Which is the cause and which is the effect?”, but the evidence overwhelmingly points to government being mostly to blame for outrageous medical costs. It follows some very basic economic rules.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/medicare-prescription-for-a-fools-paradise/
When you understand the basic and profound wisdom of capitalism, and the role of government to protect it, and not to mess with it, the reasons for our current problems can all be traced back to either governmental corruption, goverment sanction of corporate corruption, criminal behavior, or government mandated bread and circus programs that made the politicians look good when created, but stuck future generations on the hook. Madoff is REAL popular with his clients that enjoyed ridiculous returns on their investments and got out early with their pockets full, but he’s the devil for those unfortunate souls at the failed end of the Ponzi scheme. How popular will SS, Medicare, and the current healthcare legislation be when they all fail, and the people that invested all their lives in these programs are turned away? Who will the anger be focused on when it happens? Will you blame doctors, pharmaceuticals, and capitalism when our country slams into an econimic brick wall? Or will you focus your ire at the politicians and government programs like the CRA that are the real culprits?
OMG Onofre–where do you get your education– at Limbaugh Public School Wzzz? No system works l00 % all the time; but when it breaks down, there are reasons.
The government is indeed corrupt. Can you say lobbyists–about 30 per paid representative on the Hill? And guess which industry has the most? If you said the medical/pharmaceutical–bingo! I have heard many doctors who want single pay health insurance state that Medicare is the most efficient and effective of all health programs. You must be influenced by health insurance lobbyists and fellow travelers–such as die-hard Reaganites.
Are we talking global capital gains or saving our American economy and democracy? (Yes, democracy.
We are a democratic republic. We are allowed to
choose our representatives, thus a democratic process–ideally–is in effect, resulting in a
constitutional republic to answer that issue.
A constitutional republic implies democracy–freedom of choice.)
You don’t mind NAFTA and CAFTA stealing jobs? And
when the corporatists trolled for cheaper slave labor in China, decimating the tenuous Mexican economy, the starving, unemployable Latinos surged across the border to claim title to our social services and dwindling employment. That doesn’t compute with you? You actually think free market competition will solve off-shoring industries? Or a discussion of technical economics will pacify the jobless American workers? Will it put “food on your family”? The above is free-wheeling capitalism at its creative and destructive best.
Opponents of that system are automatically spoken of as Socialists; that will tamp down criticism and thwart rational debate. It’s a convenient put-down, like “conspiracy theorist.”
Yes, thinking globally instead of locally will certainly lead to a whole other perspective. And it will also lead to permanent dissolution of any hope of restoring our eroded civil liberties or aid
Third World aspirations for bettering their poverty-stricken lives.
Unless, of course, you agree with Obama that
rich countries must offer carbon credits to developing nations to balance the scales of wealth.
In the way of taxing all facets of modern Western life.
Talk about living in denial. Proponents must be from some other dimension. A place where blinders are a fashion statement.
GG, you’re a demented retard, and your pointless meandering ranting only serves to amplify my claims that the general public has a completely distorted and fundamentaly vacuous understanding of economics, capitalism, and the world in general. You’ve also proven that you didn’t read the articles that I linked to, because if you had, perhaps you might have learned a thing or two that would have logically destroyed most of your false premises. But that would have required some actual effort, which in your case might be an extremely valuable asset, owing to it’s obvious scarcity.
Too bad I just picked up on your retort, Onofre.
Ho hum…academic economic theory sounds soooo serious and intellectual. I have listened to embedded capitalist proponents drop the usual buzz words–derivatives, swaps, et al. As I
say, meant to confuse the public (the unwashed masses; the dreaded majority; the ignorant voter) and deter remedy.
You can ease out of your positions with gibberish but strip off the veneer and what residue remains is the essence of greed and corruption. It is difficult to address centuries of bad judgment in a few paragraphs.
That would take bound volumes; this forum is not set up for that. But it offers the opportunity to speak our minds and perhaps chip away at false premises.
We cannot solve our current crisis with more theorizing. Only government action can tackle that issue. And the U.S. Congress, the administration, courts and media are owned by foreign bankers. Helllloooo. They call the
shots. All else is wishful thinking and you cannot whitewash this mess with preapproved, pat rationale or rationalization.
Jump out of the controlling Matrix and regain
your intellectual freedom. It is frightening,
akin to your first day at Kindergarten, but also
quite liberating–the first step to becoming a fully-realized adult.
(Also, pray that Obama doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change. In fact,
do something other than chatter; contact your
representative–wouldn’t hoit.)
Except, they did. Bill Gates might be a better marketer than his competitors; but this does not make him or his company a better designer of computer software.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2000/0403msverdict.html
(Did he win on appeal?)
I have to disagree with you here, Craig. The problem is not with Capitalism per se. I can choose to get ahead based upon my ability (or not, as the case may be). Others can do the same. Where the conflict lies is with those who, either by greed, by envy, or by spite, try to climb up my back or the backs of those less fortunate to get to the top of the heap. It matters not whether it is a Democratic, oligarchic, or a despotic system–the same type of people will indulge in the same sort of morally and ethically corrupt practices.
What this country has, and that is IMO unique, is a nation based upon law. People come and go but the law remains. We should allow Capitalism to thrive and encourage it but when those same people I addressed above rear their ugly heads, we need to cut them off at the knees with no squeamishness. No country clubs, no plea bargains–just really hard time like any other miscreant felon would get.
We need strong regulation with ferocious teeth AND a free economy. By that I mean we encourage capitalists to get ahead on their ability and not by chicanery or criminal enterprise.
Ferd, thank you for essentially supporting my position on capitalism. As I, and now you, have stated, the flaws in our system that are now haunting us do not lie with capitalism per se, but with those that would criminally work to abuse it, i.e. politicians, corrupt businessmen, and quite often the unethical collusion of the two. Don’t blame the system because criminals have learned to profit from it, prosecute the criminals. How much clearer could it be? Are our laws against murder incorrect because people continue to murder? What nonsense!
Craig has given a passing insult to Ayn Rand by merely citing a very simplistic statement by her, and not giving her due consideration for her volumes of work where she fleashes out in great detail the fundamentals of capitalism, and how those principles are logically applied to all facets of our lives as consumers, producers, and spiritualistic individuals. Craig has simply cited a very limited stereotypically accepted version of Rand. He obviously has not read her works extensively, like most people that have been jaded by preconceived leftist notions of her.
Administrator: I lost an entire and completely on-topic comment. Can you extricate it, please.
Ferd:
Yes, that’s what I’m driving at. What most people (including you, Onofre’s Arm) don’t seem to get is that the scoundrels are always with us and capitalism, by its nature ans its internal structure, tends to accommodate, hide and reward them.
Right now they have taken over this country and are pillaging its wealth with absolute impunity. If we are to survive as a nation, this has to be stopped.
And just to make my point clear Ayn Rand is a intellectual pygmy whose absurd ‘philosophical’ rantings only served as cover for the the stupid, the selfish and the greedy. And, yes, I’ve read her ‘work’ including her astonishingly bad novels. No one who is serious about philosophy has any respect for her at all, only gullible fools and weasels looking for cover promote her drivel.
Onofre’s Arm: if you’re waiting for John Galt you might as well join the others under the Obama bus.
Great article, although I don’t find Craig a moral relativist at all! He’s more the ethical empiricist and Hume would be his uberhero. Immanuel Kant’s strict universal Categorical Imperative just wouldn’t be appealing…
Phil Gramm’s wife was heading Born’s FCTC before she was appointed by Clinton I believe. And she then went on to glory in Enron’s back rooms. And her husband Gramm wrote the deregulating Modernization of Commodities bill that destroyed any hope of regulating the markets..
Brooksley Born was the woman who was the only true HEROINE but, like Hillary Clinton after her, she was vilified and destroyed by the boys’ Club in Washington. Born was told by Greenspan that he didn’t mind about “Fraud” in the markets as it was not a problem. Talking about ethical relativism!
(p.s. Hillary tho has not and will never be destroyed. She knows how to play and beat them at their own game!)