The Tacit Counter-Revolution: Why Conservatives Would Kill the USA
This whole thread is a propaganda farce, courtesy our neighborhood shill.
There are three important aspects to consider:
To consider that in each part:
In May, Ezra Klein considered the Republican jobs agenda, describing it to the one as "old ideas, fancy new clip art", and to the other as what economist, presidential advisor, and foot-in-mouth survivor Lawrence Summers describes as "Now More Than Everism".
So we ask ourselves a simple question: When is regulation not the problem, according to the GOP?
That is, on what occasions does the Republican Party actually oppose regulatory reductions?
Let us recall for a moment the long complaint of the GOP against unions. And even worse than unions, according to conservatives, are unions representing public employees. Government, say Republicans, is too big. We need to cut government spending, eliminate government jobs.
Keep that in mind as you consider the image below:
Killing the Recovery: In case anyone was wondering where the jobs are.
To say it is an "open secret" that American private enterprise is sitting on, quite literally, trillions of dollars in cash reserves, but not hiring, is inappropriate. There is no secret about it. The point has worked its way into the political discourse recently, but only because it must. A year after cartoonist John Darkow made the point, it is only in more liberal quarters that the issue is receiving any serious consideration. While Republicans might argue about red tape and regulation, those of more liberal inclination are looking at questions of supply and demand.
Strengthening Communities: Remember that private business makes your community stronger.
(John Darkow, August 21, 2010; via Cagle)
And here we need to look at two kinds of demand. First, the demand for products, which simply isn't there. While private enterprise might be sitting on trillions in cash, what reason have they to hire if nobody is buying? Second, though, is a more complex consideration of demand, the demand for jobs. From the workers' standpoint, the demand is obvious. Regardless of whether we use the common unemployment number, or decide that since a Democrat is in office, we ought to use a "real" unemployment number, it's a miserable number.
Workers need work. But as the EPI graph above reminds, demand is actually suffering as conservative economic policies force public employees into unemployment.
This is something to remember the next time a conservative asks, "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?" Because the answer is, "In the gutter, Mr. Conservative, right where you put them."
A more complicated idea of demand, though, is the private sector's need for employees. With profits so high, what need have these companies for additional employees? That is, if they can achieve such profits and profit margins without adding workers to their rolls, why would they hire additional workers?
Many major players in the private sector—indeed, many with enough influence to set the tone—have no demand for more workers. They have no need to hire in large numbers.
Thus it comes down to cajoling and, perhaps, open bribery. The private sector now finds itself in a position in which they might prove a few things about their long-running rhetoric. Private industry creates jobs, stabilizes and improves communities, brings all sorts of public benefit. Instead of proving that point, they're asking for more handouts. Cut the regulations, or else they won't hire. Lower taxes, or else they won't hire. Businessmen to their very souls, the leading voices of the private sector refuse to be held to the altruistic rhetoric by which they justify their machinations.
What is really going on is that the right wing and its private sector allies are strangling the economy, hoping to win a ransom from the government.
We are in the midst of a Galtian revolution. Even those business leaders not inclined toward such an endeavor find themselves largely committed to it by necessity.
At some level, for many of the non-identifying revolutionaries, it is an accident. So much of the economy is psychological that any number of factors affect their outlooks. The racism of the Tea Party is actually a relatively minor influence in this, but cannot be overlooked since it includes "Kenyan anti-colonialism", which dovetails nicely with the constant denunciations of President Obama's socialism, communism, and Naziism.
For the accidental revolutionaries, it is simply a matter of a worrying climate. That President Obama has conceded virtually every major policy initiative to business interests—abandoning the public option, signing a weakened financial services reform bill, withdrawing Elizabeth Warren, extending tax cuts, negotiating a ransom for the debt ceiling, &c.—doesn't make much difference to a businessman who reads the headlines and ledes, but not the details; to a businessman who reads from the Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily. The average voter does not explore the issues in depth; the average voter includes the average businessman. If you attend CNBC every day, you hear news specifically tailored to the business world, and this serves its purpose outside politics. But what is the context of that business-tailored news compared to anything else? What a CNBC talking head, or WSJ columnist, might call bad news for business could, in the end, otherwise be good news for people. If everybody you know and trust tells you it's going to rain, you pack your umbrella.
But the deliberate revolutionaries are playing for tremendous stakes. Each bone thrown to them by congressional Democrats and the president just emboldens their demands.
The Wisconsin fight was as clear a signal as could be. With the Koch brothers backing Republican candidates, and the Fitzgerald brothers running the state legislature, the Walker administration sought to address a projected $137m hole in the budget by taking it out of public employees, and simultaneously handing $117m in tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.
And yet, in looking back to the EPI graph, we see the fallacy of such an approach. While the tax breaks were allegedly to spur job growth, the strangling of the public sector has the effect of reducing demand, with the result that the private sector has fewer reasons to hire.
What the Galtian revolution aims for is nothing less than a return to feudalism. A business climate is only truly friendly and inviting when workers owe their thanks, devotion, and allegiance to the owners for whatever generosity the latest pittance offers. It is the private sector's expectation that the workers owe the companies, not the other way around.
The Art of Repetition: Doesn't matter if it's true; conservatives keep whining until people believe.
(Barry Deutsch, September 4, 2009)
Only when workers are stripped of their rights, wages and benefits plunge, and the standard of living for the working class tumbles into serfdom, will the conservatives be happy. This is an age-old fight for them. It is the key to understanding the Communist assertion that, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
This isn't just about the wealth of the wealthy. It is about proportions. That is, it is not enough that the wealthy be wealthy; they must achieve some abstract comparative wealth. If you have a dollar to their million, they are a million times more wealthy than you. But if you have a thousand dollars to their million, they are only a thousand times more wealthy than you. If you have a hundred thousand to their million, they are still wealthy, but you have become dangerous; they are not wealthy enough in comparison to you.
And that is what this is about.
The wealthy interests will not stop until they have returned the working classes to their "rightful" place: slave, plebian, serf, journeyman—oppressed.
And that is what this Galtian revolution is about. It is a tacit counter-revolution. Nothing moves forward until the would-be masters of society get everything they demand. And they will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish it.
Indeed, that is what this current discussion is about. Sleight of hand. Look over here, and the conservatives will tell you that the solution is what they always say is the solution. Now, more than ever.
Cut the red tape. Get rid of the excessive regulations. Indeed, as word comes in from across the Pond:
In the end, it is a simple question: What is the economy to you?
Is it a collective tool that can be used to improve the quality of life within human societies, i.e., economics? Or is it a pseudo-deity you exist to worship and serve, i.e., The Economy?
That is the real fight that conservatives are after. This bawling about red tape is just a red herring.
And it is time people recognized the willful advocates for what they are: Aspiring slavemasters willing to destroy the United States of America in order to get what they want.
____________________
Notes:
Klein, Ezra. "GOP jobs plan: Old ideas, fancy new clip art". The Washington Post. May 26, 2011. WashingtonPost.com. September 5, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...y-new-clip-art/2011/05/26/AG3XZKCH_story.html
Karimian, Arin. "Employment during the economic recovery". Economic Policy Institute. July 6, 2011. EPI.org. September 5, 2011. http://www.epi.org/publication/employment_during_the_recovery/
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. Marxists.org. September 5, 2011. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Steel, Mark. "When in doubt, blame red tape". The Independent. August 31, 2011. Independent.co.uk. September 5, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...eel-when-in-doubt-blame-red-tape-2346345.html
PJdude1219 said:
This whole thread is a propaganda farce, courtesy our neighborhood shill.
There are three important aspects to consider:
(1) This is another case of "Now More Than Ever".
(2) This is a diversion from what is really going on in the business community.
(3) This is just an attempt to cover for the Republican intention to destroy the United States of America.
(2) This is a diversion from what is really going on in the business community.
(3) This is just an attempt to cover for the Republican intention to destroy the United States of America.
To consider that in each part:
(1) Now More Than Ever
In May, Ezra Klein considered the Republican jobs agenda, describing it to the one as "old ideas, fancy new clip art", and to the other as what economist, presidential advisor, and foot-in-mouth survivor Lawrence Summers describes as "Now More Than Everism".
“Here’s how it works,” [MIT economist David] Autor wrote in an e-mail. “1. You have a set of policies that you favor at all times and under all circumstances, e.g., cut taxes, remove regulations, drill-baby-drill, etc. 2. You see a problem that needs fixing (e.g., the economy stinks). 3. You say, ‘We need to enact my favored policies now more than ever.’ I believe that every item in the GOP list that you sent derives from this three-step procedure.
“That’s not to say that there are no reasonable ideas on this list. But there is certainly no original thinking here directed at addressing the employment problem. Or, to put it differently, is there any set of economic circumstances under which the GOP would not actually want to enact every item on this agenda? If the answer is no, then this is clearly now-more-than-everism” ....
“That’s not to say that there are no reasonable ideas on this list. But there is certainly no original thinking here directed at addressing the employment problem. Or, to put it differently, is there any set of economic circumstances under which the GOP would not actually want to enact every item on this agenda? If the answer is no, then this is clearly now-more-than-everism” ....
So we ask ourselves a simple question: When is regulation not the problem, according to the GOP?
That is, on what occasions does the Republican Party actually oppose regulatory reductions?
(2) What's Really Going On
Let us recall for a moment the long complaint of the GOP against unions. And even worse than unions, according to conservatives, are unions representing public employees. Government, say Republicans, is too big. We need to cut government spending, eliminate government jobs.
Keep that in mind as you consider the image below:
Killing the Recovery: In case anyone was wondering where the jobs are.
To say it is an "open secret" that American private enterprise is sitting on, quite literally, trillions of dollars in cash reserves, but not hiring, is inappropriate. There is no secret about it. The point has worked its way into the political discourse recently, but only because it must. A year after cartoonist John Darkow made the point, it is only in more liberal quarters that the issue is receiving any serious consideration. While Republicans might argue about red tape and regulation, those of more liberal inclination are looking at questions of supply and demand.
Strengthening Communities: Remember that private business makes your community stronger.
(John Darkow, August 21, 2010; via Cagle)
And here we need to look at two kinds of demand. First, the demand for products, which simply isn't there. While private enterprise might be sitting on trillions in cash, what reason have they to hire if nobody is buying? Second, though, is a more complex consideration of demand, the demand for jobs. From the workers' standpoint, the demand is obvious. Regardless of whether we use the common unemployment number, or decide that since a Democrat is in office, we ought to use a "real" unemployment number, it's a miserable number.
Workers need work. But as the EPI graph above reminds, demand is actually suffering as conservative economic policies force public employees into unemployment.
This is something to remember the next time a conservative asks, "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?" Because the answer is, "In the gutter, Mr. Conservative, right where you put them."
A more complicated idea of demand, though, is the private sector's need for employees. With profits so high, what need have these companies for additional employees? That is, if they can achieve such profits and profit margins without adding workers to their rolls, why would they hire additional workers?
Many major players in the private sector—indeed, many with enough influence to set the tone—have no demand for more workers. They have no need to hire in large numbers.
Thus it comes down to cajoling and, perhaps, open bribery. The private sector now finds itself in a position in which they might prove a few things about their long-running rhetoric. Private industry creates jobs, stabilizes and improves communities, brings all sorts of public benefit. Instead of proving that point, they're asking for more handouts. Cut the regulations, or else they won't hire. Lower taxes, or else they won't hire. Businessmen to their very souls, the leading voices of the private sector refuse to be held to the altruistic rhetoric by which they justify their machinations.
What is really going on is that the right wing and its private sector allies are strangling the economy, hoping to win a ransom from the government.
(3) Republicans Destroying the Nation
We are in the midst of a Galtian revolution. Even those business leaders not inclined toward such an endeavor find themselves largely committed to it by necessity.
At some level, for many of the non-identifying revolutionaries, it is an accident. So much of the economy is psychological that any number of factors affect their outlooks. The racism of the Tea Party is actually a relatively minor influence in this, but cannot be overlooked since it includes "Kenyan anti-colonialism", which dovetails nicely with the constant denunciations of President Obama's socialism, communism, and Naziism.
For the accidental revolutionaries, it is simply a matter of a worrying climate. That President Obama has conceded virtually every major policy initiative to business interests—abandoning the public option, signing a weakened financial services reform bill, withdrawing Elizabeth Warren, extending tax cuts, negotiating a ransom for the debt ceiling, &c.—doesn't make much difference to a businessman who reads the headlines and ledes, but not the details; to a businessman who reads from the Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily. The average voter does not explore the issues in depth; the average voter includes the average businessman. If you attend CNBC every day, you hear news specifically tailored to the business world, and this serves its purpose outside politics. But what is the context of that business-tailored news compared to anything else? What a CNBC talking head, or WSJ columnist, might call bad news for business could, in the end, otherwise be good news for people. If everybody you know and trust tells you it's going to rain, you pack your umbrella.
But the deliberate revolutionaries are playing for tremendous stakes. Each bone thrown to them by congressional Democrats and the president just emboldens their demands.
The Wisconsin fight was as clear a signal as could be. With the Koch brothers backing Republican candidates, and the Fitzgerald brothers running the state legislature, the Walker administration sought to address a projected $137m hole in the budget by taking it out of public employees, and simultaneously handing $117m in tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.
And yet, in looking back to the EPI graph, we see the fallacy of such an approach. While the tax breaks were allegedly to spur job growth, the strangling of the public sector has the effect of reducing demand, with the result that the private sector has fewer reasons to hire.
What the Galtian revolution aims for is nothing less than a return to feudalism. A business climate is only truly friendly and inviting when workers owe their thanks, devotion, and allegiance to the owners for whatever generosity the latest pittance offers. It is the private sector's expectation that the workers owe the companies, not the other way around.
The Art of Repetition: Doesn't matter if it's true; conservatives keep whining until people believe.
(Barry Deutsch, September 4, 2009)
Only when workers are stripped of their rights, wages and benefits plunge, and the standard of living for the working class tumbles into serfdom, will the conservatives be happy. This is an age-old fight for them. It is the key to understanding the Communist assertion that, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
This isn't just about the wealth of the wealthy. It is about proportions. That is, it is not enough that the wealthy be wealthy; they must achieve some abstract comparative wealth. If you have a dollar to their million, they are a million times more wealthy than you. But if you have a thousand dollars to their million, they are only a thousand times more wealthy than you. If you have a hundred thousand to their million, they are still wealthy, but you have become dangerous; they are not wealthy enough in comparison to you.
And that is what this is about.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
(Marx and Engels)
(Marx and Engels)
The wealthy interests will not stop until they have returned the working classes to their "rightful" place: slave, plebian, serf, journeyman—oppressed.
And that is what this Galtian revolution is about. It is a tacit counter-revolution. Nothing moves forward until the would-be masters of society get everything they demand. And they will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish it.
Indeed, that is what this current discussion is about. Sleight of hand. Look over here, and the conservatives will tell you that the solution is what they always say is the solution. Now, more than ever.
Cut the red tape. Get rid of the excessive regulations. Indeed, as word comes in from across the Pond:
The problem, apparently, is red tape. It's stifling business and preventing growth, because red tape is evil, and you can no more argue in favour of red tape than say, "I don't wish to contribute to the fight against cancer as I think we should have more of it".
For example, Tory MEP Julie Girling wrote yesterday that red tape is preventing businesses from making agency staff work more than 48 hours a week, which "costs companies £2bn a year". And maybe it does, in the same way that red tape insisting businesses pay their staff five pounds an hour costs companies five pounds an hour, or red tape forbidding slavery costs business £450bn a year and has led to the demise of Britain's pyramid industry. It's no wonder we're in a recession.
There's no explanation as to how the figure of £2bn is arrived at. But as with the deficit, an assortment of statistics like that are thrown around, such as "The red tape in the building industry alone comes to more words than they had in the whole of the 19th century", or "If Jay-Z was to rap the regulations restricting small businesses it would take him to the year 4583" ....
.... One of the main areas singled out as a red tape burden is the world of health and safety. Because what sort of world have we come to where employers are obliged to be healthy and safe? No one would ever have built the Roman Empire if they'd had to worry about repetitive strain injury to galley slaves or the possible stress caused by being a gladiator.
Almost every mention of red tape, it seems, refers to a law. I could just as easily argue that red tape is costing me £200 a week by preventing me from robbing £200 a week from pensioners. The rioters could claim that red tape insisting windows mustn't be smashed without prior permission from the window-holder and demanding trainers have to be paid for at a visit to the trainer shop is costing them billions of pounds a year, so the time has come for deregulation of the looting industry. A group of senior arsonists could write a letter to The Times complaining that every time one of them burns something down, they're forced to pay a fine to comply with red tape, and this has caused some of the finest pyromaniacs in the country to move abroad.
It appears the definition of red tape is laws that businesses don't like, because if the poor are forced to fill in more forms than ever that doesn't seem to annoy the government quite as much.
(Steel)
For example, Tory MEP Julie Girling wrote yesterday that red tape is preventing businesses from making agency staff work more than 48 hours a week, which "costs companies £2bn a year". And maybe it does, in the same way that red tape insisting businesses pay their staff five pounds an hour costs companies five pounds an hour, or red tape forbidding slavery costs business £450bn a year and has led to the demise of Britain's pyramid industry. It's no wonder we're in a recession.
There's no explanation as to how the figure of £2bn is arrived at. But as with the deficit, an assortment of statistics like that are thrown around, such as "The red tape in the building industry alone comes to more words than they had in the whole of the 19th century", or "If Jay-Z was to rap the regulations restricting small businesses it would take him to the year 4583" ....
.... One of the main areas singled out as a red tape burden is the world of health and safety. Because what sort of world have we come to where employers are obliged to be healthy and safe? No one would ever have built the Roman Empire if they'd had to worry about repetitive strain injury to galley slaves or the possible stress caused by being a gladiator.
Almost every mention of red tape, it seems, refers to a law. I could just as easily argue that red tape is costing me £200 a week by preventing me from robbing £200 a week from pensioners. The rioters could claim that red tape insisting windows mustn't be smashed without prior permission from the window-holder and demanding trainers have to be paid for at a visit to the trainer shop is costing them billions of pounds a year, so the time has come for deregulation of the looting industry. A group of senior arsonists could write a letter to The Times complaining that every time one of them burns something down, they're forced to pay a fine to comply with red tape, and this has caused some of the finest pyromaniacs in the country to move abroad.
It appears the definition of red tape is laws that businesses don't like, because if the poor are forced to fill in more forms than ever that doesn't seem to annoy the government quite as much.
(Steel)
In the end, it is a simple question: What is the economy to you?
Is it a collective tool that can be used to improve the quality of life within human societies, i.e., economics? Or is it a pseudo-deity you exist to worship and serve, i.e., The Economy?
That is the real fight that conservatives are after. This bawling about red tape is just a red herring.
And it is time people recognized the willful advocates for what they are: Aspiring slavemasters willing to destroy the United States of America in order to get what they want.
____________________
Notes:
Klein, Ezra. "GOP jobs plan: Old ideas, fancy new clip art". The Washington Post. May 26, 2011. WashingtonPost.com. September 5, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...y-new-clip-art/2011/05/26/AG3XZKCH_story.html
Karimian, Arin. "Employment during the economic recovery". Economic Policy Institute. July 6, 2011. EPI.org. September 5, 2011. http://www.epi.org/publication/employment_during_the_recovery/
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. Marxists.org. September 5, 2011. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Steel, Mark. "When in doubt, blame red tape". The Independent. August 31, 2011. Independent.co.uk. September 5, 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...eel-when-in-doubt-blame-red-tape-2346345.html
