Saturday, April 27, 2013

Critique of the notion of socialism as a science

Critique of the notion of socialism as a science

The philosophy of science basis of the claim of Marxism, and in the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism, to be a science is based its conceptions of dialectical materialism and historical materialism.[5] Although the influence of Marxist thought especially in the social sciences is great, there are no communities of theoretical or applied scientists or technicians based on Marxism. This contrasts with those for disciplines which do have established and credible claims to being theoretical sciences or engineering disciplines, the planning functions of the current communist states notwithstanding.
The most one could say is that socialism, e.g. Marxism, has, at least historically, been a current which finds expression in various scientific disciplines such as mathematical economicssociology, etc. Socialism and Marxism are thus better described as theoretical frameworks for understanding and analyzing the social, economic and political world.

Critique of scientific socialist methodology

The term also refers to an important philosophical difference between proponents of natural law, static human nature and static equilibrium (such as classical liberalslibertarianssocial liberals and some early socialist thought). Specifically, these philosophies are based on metaphysical conceptions of a "natural" order of liberty that exists irrespective of civilizations' material, technological and productive capabilities. While scientific socialists see economic laws and various forms of social arrangements as context-based (relative to their specific stage of human development), and thus relative to specific material conditions, these critics view them as static and absolute moral values.
Attempts to engineer a new society via methods for doing so such as those proposed by B.F. Skinner (1949), and others with scientifically informed and inspired creators such as the early Israeli Kibbutzim and others on a small scale are known but in practicecommunist states of the 20th century did not and do not use scientific methods in a substantive way for this purpose. The era slogan of the current CCP leader, Hu Jintao, "Scientific Development" does not so far appear to be an exception to this.[citation needed]Contributions such as those of Leontief and others were made at a high macroeconomic level or within fields such as Operations Research on a microeconomic level but within a capitalist context.
The philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies characterized Scientific Socialism as a pseudoscience. He argues that its method is what he calls "historicism": the method of analyzing historical trends and deriving universal laws from them. He criticizes this approach as unscientific as its claims cannot be tested and, in particular, are not subject to being disproven.


...the most basic of which are ren, yi, and li. [4] Ren is an obligation of altruism and humaneness for other individuals within a community, yi is the upholding of righteousness and the moral disposition to do good, and li is a system of norms and propriety that determines how a person should properly act within a community. [4] Confucianism holds that one should give up one's life, if necessary, either passively or actively, for the sake of upholding the cardinal moral values of ren and yi. [


Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Left-Revolutionary Communism, Right-Revolutionary Socialism. This is where the labeling of Nazi Socialism as right wing" comes from.

Thus when the socialist movement returned to Britain in the 1880s there were two more or less clearly defined trends within Socialism—a right and a left: a reformist trend, which talked about the advance to Socialism in terms of social reform, as something gradual, piecemeal, peaceful, within the framework of capitalism; and a Marxist revolutionary trend, which understood the class struggle and saw that Socialism could be achieved only if the working people, led by the working class, won political power.
In this period, 1880-1914, the working class again began to develop the struggle to form their own independent political parties. The MarxistSocial Democratic Federation was formed in 1883, and the Socialist League led by William Morris, in 1884. The Independent Labour Party was founded in 1893, and the Labour Party (at first the Labour Representation Committee) in 1900. Why was it that these political parties and groupings were not adequate to lead the British people to the victory of Socialism?
In essence this was the position. The trade unions were great mass organisations, the greatest in the world. But the role of the unions was to defend and improve the living conditions of the workers; they were not socialist bodies. Vital though they were, they could not lead the political struggle for the defeat of the capitalist system.

Corded Ware culture

It encompassed most of continental northern Europe from the Rhine River on the west, to the Volga River in the east, including most of modern-day Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, northwestern Romania, northern Ukraine, and the European part of Russia, as well as coastal Norway and the southern portions of Sweden and Finland.

The contemporary Beaker culture overlapped with the western extremity of this culture, west of the Elbe, and may have contributed to the pan-European spread of that culture. Although a similar social organization and settlement pattern to the Beaker were adopted, the Corded Ware group lacked the new refinements made possible[
Corded Ware culture

Ancient DNA reveals Europe's dynamic genetic history

Ancient DNA reveals Europe's dynamic genetic history:

'via Blog this'

Why did European DNA suddenly change 4,000 years ago? Why did European DNA suddenly change 4,000 years ago? Experts reveal evolutionary mystery - and say ... #MailOnline Try the interactive map that reveals Britain's most popular surnames - and Twitter usernames ... #MailOnline

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Muslims take over Paris streets

'via Blog this'

'via Blog this'

Rules for Radicals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Purpose

The first chapter of Rules for Radicals states the exact purpose of the book. Alinsky began with the statement "what follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be." He continued by breaking down the class structures in America during that time and introduced the three main socioeconomic levels of society. First are the “Haves” or upper class who want to preserve the status quo, under which they possess the money and power in society. The “Haves” are the smallest group in Alinsky’s social structure, but despite this, they remain the most powerful due to the vast amount of resources available to them. The second group is the “Have-little, Want-mores” which represent the middle class, the largest class of people in America at the time. Alinsky believed this group to have the greatest potential power in the current social climate but were also the hardest to sway to a cause due to their overall contentment compared to the poorer classes. Last are the “Have-nots” or those in poverty. Alinsky saw this class as the most volatile and easy to organize and spent the majority of his career working with the “Have-nots” to implement change in communities across the United States. The discontent and general lack of resources within this class of people made presenting a common issue for them to change simpler for Alinsky because all people within a community would be unhappy with issues detrimentally affecting the entirety of the community. After introducing his socioeconomic class structure, Alinsky finished the chapter with a lesson on morality, in which he warned community organizers of the peril of wealth and material distractions from achieving greater welfare for society as a whole. The first chapter acts as a history lesson. It sets up the scenario organizers will be dealing with and explains to them the various characteristics of it.

Rules for Radicals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

'via Blog this'

Monday, April 22, 2013

The Next Bank Meltdown Won't Be an "Accident" - Money Morning

The result was catastrophic.
Under the old net-capital rules, broker-dealers' leverage ratios got as high as 12 times their capital. But under the new arrangement, leverage soared as high as 40-to-1.
Investment banks used internal models to reduce the capital they needed to set aside. They then passed along that freed-up capital to their BHC parents, who applied more leverage to that capital.
In the end, they all collapsed. All of them.
Bear Stearns went first, then Lehman Bros., then Merrill Lynch. And then on a Sunday in 2008, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley ran to the Fed to beg to become commercial banks so they could feed at the Fed's discount window and its other liquidity troughs.
And this is where we still are.
Only it's worse now.
Okay, so if you've read this far, we might as well dissect this all the way.
You want the truth about where banks are now and how they're lying? I'll give it to you in my next article and you will need an airsick bag... trust me.

The Next Bank Meltdown Won't Be an "Accident" - Money Morning:

'via Blog this'

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Americans ‘snapping’ by the millions

Just reading a few pages into Saul Alinsky’s notorious “Rules for Radicals,” one encounters repeated confirmation that the very key to radical “change” is keeping the populace angry, encouraging their grievances, stoking their resentments and making sure they are continually upset. That is the primary psychological dynamic of “community organizing” – and America today is led by community-organizer-in-chief Barack Obama, a long-time master practitioner and instructor in Alinsky’s neo-Marxist agitation methods.

Top radio talker Rush Limbaugh recently picked up on this normally unspoken aspect of Obama’s modus operandi: “I think he wants people to snap,” opined Rush. “I think Obama is challenging everybody’s sanity. Obama [is] literally pushing people to snap, attacking the very sanity of the country.”

Commenting on Obama’s sudden obsession with employing every means possible to deny law-abiding Americans their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, Limbaugh exclaimed: “All of this is so in our face. Everything that people hold dear is under assault. Deliberately making people upset! This is not what presidents do.”

It’s not what presidents do – unless they happen to be leftist revolutionaries, in which case “deliberately making people upset” is precisely what they do to accomplish their intended “fundamental transformation.”

We need to realize that Americans could not have twice elected a leader as transcendentally unworthy of the presidency as Barack Obama without first having had their minds and hearts captured. Through constant leftist indoctrination, emotional manipulation, ruthless intimidation – and then being rewarded once they have “converted” – perhaps half of the American electorate has been programmed over the course of decades by a subversive school system and equally perverse “news” establishment. Truth be told, both institutions have become full-blown abominations, occupying as they do near-sacred stations of public trust in American civilization.

Of course, at the nuclear core of the myriad assaults on traditional America is the rejection (at least by society’s elites) of God and repudiation of the Judeo-Christian values that underpin Western civilization. This in turn has led to pervasive societal disintegration and a Pandora’s Box of almost unimaginable problems.

Unfortunately, despite our nation’s growing number of seriously troubled people, psychiatry provides little help. It has evolved in our secular, mechanistic culture to see virtually all mental, emotional and spiritual problems as genetic or physiological in origin. No longer is there any such thing as sin. Nothing is moral or spiritual. Good character, introspection, understanding, repentance and forgiveness, so vital to genuine healing, are now irrelevant. Just write a prescription.

Since the current research fad is to conclude (as the National Institute of Mental Health puts it) that “depressive illnesses are disorders of the brain,” psychiatry has come to rely heavily on altering our brain chemistry by (in the case of depression) tricking it into producing higher levels of neurotransmitters like serotonin and norepinephrine. But this forces us to ask an obvious question: What are you talking about? Do you really believe that the 23 percent of American women ages 40 through 59 currently on antidepressants ALL have defective or diseased brains?


Americans ‘snapping’ by the millions:

'via Blog this'

Boston bombs: Obama lulled America into false confidence over terror threat - Telegraph

Boston bombs: Obama lulled America into false confidence over terror threat - Telegraph:

'via Blog this'

Articles: Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?

Articles: Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?: "Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?
By Victor Sharpe"

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted in his book, Gandhi: The Power of Pacifism, by Catherine Clement, as follows:
While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.
Gandhi was referring to the experience during his lifetime in the Indian sub-continent, but the growth of Wahhabism and the current resurgence in Islamic triumphalism since Gandhi's death in January 1948 now poses an increasingly existential threat to the West, to Judeo-Christian civilization, as well as to Hindus, Buddhists, and members other faiths.
The question repeatedly posed by the talking heads on the TV networks and cable television is how and why so many Muslims, young and old, are living in the West and enjoying all the material and educational benefits bestowed upon them -- and also committing hideous acts of terror and perpetrating atrocities upon innocent civilians, even against their very own neighbors.
The Times Square bombing attempt on May 1, 2010 by Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad and the 2009 Fort Hood massacre of unarmed members of the military by Major Nidal Hasan (still described by the problematic U.S. administration as "workplace violence") are well-known.  So too is the attempt at terrorism by a Somali immigrant, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who had come to America at the age of five with his family as a refugee from the hell that is Somalia, and who attempted to kill thousands during a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.  But until the Chechen Muslim brothers succeeded in their massacre at the Boston Marathon, most terror attacks had been thwarted since the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon by the 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers, in which 3,000 people were murdered.  This time, however, the Muslim miscreants succeeded.
It was the baleful President Carter who undercut the shah of Iran, an autocrat who jailed and restricted the jihadists and Islamic groups but who was nevertheless a supporter and ally of America.  Just like President Obama, who equally undercut Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the subsequent void was quickly and gleefully filled by Islamic fundamentalists and the Muslim Brotherhood who imposed sharia law and raised the banner of Islamic supremacy.
With the shah's fall came the Ayatollah Khomeini from his exile in France, and almost immediately Carter's foolish act resulted in a seemingly endless and most definitely humiliating imprisonment of American Embassy staff in Tehran.  Since then Iran has fed the flames of Islamic terror around the globe, arming, and funding terror organizations such as Hamas and Hezb'allah.  Ayatollah Khomeini preached violence to ultimately conquer "the land of the infidel."  By that he meant Israel, Christian European states and Britain, the United States, and the entire non-Muslim world.  His followers throughout the Muslim and Arab world have all endorsed the legitimacy of jihad against what they call the "enemies of Islam."  Islamic martyrdom operations -- specifically blowing up soft targets like the spectators at sporting events -- are guarantees to paradise even if the victims are children.
So the answer to those talking heads in the media who endlessly ask why so many Muslims commit such atrocities can be seen both in Koranic passages and in, for instance, the sickening hate indoctrination found in the government-controlled Palestinian TV and radio broadcasts.   
Here are some of the grisly passages from the Koran:
"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." Koran 2:191
"Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood." Koran 9:123
"When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them." Koran 9:5
"Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable." Koran 3:85
"The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them."... Koran 9:30
"Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam" Koran 5:33
"Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies." Koran 22:19
"The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them." Koran 8:65
"Muslims must not take the infidels as friends." Koran 3:28
"Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur'an." Koran 8:12
"Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels." Koran 8:60
And here are some examples of the Palestinian broadcasts that sow hate among children as young as three years of age, spawning yet another generation of terrorists and destroying hope of any true and lasting peace with the embattled State of Israel.
For example, the children's show, The Best Home, included a scene in which a young girl recited a poem filled with messages of hate and other libels demonizing Jews.  The poem made the vile and fantastic assertion that Jews, "Allah's enemies, the sons of pigs," defiled the Quran and Jerusalem, "murdered children," "cut off their limbs," and "raped the women in the city squares."
This message of vitriol -- aimed at the future generation of Palestinians -- not only serves to foster hatred and violence, but undermines the very essence of coexistence and peace.  It poisons the minds of innocent young children instead of promoting respect for one another, which is a cornerstone for true peace.
In our politically correct world, members of the media and commentators often seek to distance Islam from so many acts of horrific violence, using terms of alleged distinction such as "radical Islam" or "moderate Islam" and so on.  But let us reflect on the words of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the close friend of Iran's genocidal president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In reply to the term "moderate Islam," which was apparently quoted to him by a Western journalist, Erdoğan said: "These descriptions are very ugly; it is offensive and an insult to our religion.  There is no moderate or immoderate Islam.  Islam is Islam, and that's it."
Certainly, attempting to constantly give, as liberals do, a free pass to Islamic abuses; to play down its violent ambitions of world conquest; to ignore the evident threat to Judeo-Christian civilization from sharia law and imposed dhimmitude merely encourages the violent tendencies of the followers of what has been called "an ideology wrapped in a religion."
The two Chechen brothers thus almost certainly succumbed to the hatred towards non-Muslims which proliferate in Islamic texts, on Islamic websites, and in Islamic social media.  And they are not alone.
Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of the trilogy Politicide; The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

'via Blog this'

Mayor changes tune on black violence discussion

Mayor changes tune on black violence discussion: "Today, blacks are 42 percent of Philadelphia’s population and 83 percent of known murder offenders. Whites are now 37 percent of the population and 4 percent of known murder offenders.

The chart comes from a report titled “Murder Is No Mystery: An Analysis of Philadelphia Homicide, 1996-1999,” which was released in 2001 and provocatively asked:

If this went on in your own neighborhood, would you stay? Would you go out at night? Would you consider leaving the neighborhood, or even the city, if you could? Of course you would.

A quarter of a million whites did indeed leave."

'via Blog this'

Friday, April 19, 2013

Simon Evans | Comedian etc.

Simon Evans | Comedian etc.:

'via Blog this'

Are We Being Compromised by Barack Obama's Murky Past?

Among all the foreign intelligence agencies, Russian intelligence (SVR) has a long history and has made a science of studying the backgrounds of American presidents.  Therefore, we must assume that since Russian intelligence is particularly skilled and a persistent practitioner of this art, it is possible to the point of certainty that, using all their resources and "black-bag" tactics, they have long had the biographical background data that President Obama and his team of lawyers have been so diligent in concealing from the American public.
The Russians most likely would have started collecting data during Obama's university years, when he professed radical Marxist views.  They were certainly focusing on him by the time of his celebrated speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
By that time, Russian intelligence had easy access to the true facts concerning Obama's birth, parentage, and childhood; his mentor (communist Frank Marshall Davis); and his college performance, as well as who provided his finances.  They also would have obtained the information on his passport history and his complete political career and associates.
It is recognized that among all the intelligence agencies, Russian intelligence is the most skillful in looking for information and points of leverage -- which are then exploited cleverly and "gently" by Russian statecraft.
By now, the Russians have most likely have told Obama discreetly that they have such information.  How would they use it?  As one old Soviet KGB operator said, "Kompromat [compromising information] is the most powerful tool of espionage."
Following this thought process, take the issue of how strongly the Russians objected to our ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans for NATO Europe to defend against an Iranian nuclear missile threat.  Now ponder why President Obama told Russian President Medvedev in the fall of 2012 that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with the BMD issue in his second term which he has now basically canceled.  Coincidence?
The current world situation is presenting many complicating challenges to current and future U.S. objectives.  With the Obama administration presiding over the hollowing out of our military forces and prepared to further weaken our strategic nuclear posture, our adversaries are being emboldened to challenge us in a number of areas.  The Middle East is in a continued state of turmoil, with no end in sight.  Iran continues to ignore U.N. sanctions and proceeds with its drive to achieve nuclear weapon capability.  It dismisses the possibility of a U.S. military strike.
In the Pacific, we have to deal with an erratic, unpredictable nuclear-armed North Korea, who has been making outrageous threats to the U.S. and our allies.  China continues flexing its military muscle, trying to enforce its illegal claims in the South and East China Seas.  Closer to home, according to Ambassador Roger Noriega, we have an operational Iranian missile base in Venezuela which can threaten a number of our cities.  We also are witnessing Russia reviving Soviet Cold war tactics in areas of our strategic interest.  Clearly, we are headed into an exceptionally crucial and dangerous round of geo-strategic confrontations which could have a profound impact on our future objectives and way of life.
These challenges cannot be ignored.  We are led by a man who does not believe in American exceptionalism or our capitalist foundation.  His lead-from-behind strategy has forfeited the initiative to our adversaries.  Under such circumstances, we cannot afford to be in a position where our leadership is subject to compromise.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Articles: Are We Being Compromised by Barack Obama's Murky Past?:

'via Blog this'

Greek IQ

Monday, April 15, 2013

German 'Wise Men' push for wealth seizure to fund EMU bail-outs - Telegraph

Two top advisers to German Chancellor Angela Merkel have called for a tax on private wealth and property in eurozone debtor states to force the rich to fund rescue costs, marking a radical new departure for EMU crisis strategy.

Professors Lars Feld and Peter Bofinger said states in trouble must pay more for their own salvation, arguing that there is enough wealth in homes and private assets across the Mediterranean to cover bail-out costs. “The rich must give up part of their wealth over the next ten years,” said Prof Bofinger.

The two economist are members of Germany’s Council of Economic Experts or “Five Wise Men”, a body that advises the Chancellor on major issues. There is no formal plan to launch a wealth tax but the council is often used to fly kites for new policies.

German 'Wise Men' push for wealth seizure to fund EMU bail-outs - Telegraph

Saturday, April 13, 2013

» Obligatory — Krystal Ball uses daughter as prop - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Why listening to music is as good as sex: Scientists say Why listening to music is as good as sex: Scientists say listening to tunes stimulates * ... #MailOnline

Seen Yet Unseen Nancy Cantor: Actual Mother Of United States President Barack Obama Appears With Him At D.C. Verizon Center | Terrible Truth

No resurrected “Stanley Ann Dunham” sat there. No. The real-life, biological mother of “President Obama” was she who sat there with her son, chumming around, as together they watched the NCAA playoffs between Syracuse and Marquette.
Known in the late 1950’s through at least November 1965 as Jo Ann Newman of New York City, this time when she publicly joined her famous son, Mom was not disguised by a wig. Or eyeglasses. Or sunglasses. Or heavy makeup.

Seen Yet Unseen: Actual Mother Of United States President Barack Obama Appears With Him At D.C. Verizon Center | Terrible Truth: "Seen Yet Unseen: Actual Mother Of United States President Barack Obama Appears With Him At D.C. Verizon Center
by Martha Trowbridge"

'via Blog this'

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Actual Mother Of United States President Barack Obama Appears With Him At DC Verizon Center

Skip to comments.

Actual Mother Of United States President Barack Obama Appears With Him At DC Verizon Center
TERRIBLE TRUTH ^ | April 8, 2013 | Martha Trowbridge
Posted on Mon Apr 08 2013 20:51:36 GMT+0100 (BST) by ABrit

[Jo] Ann Newman, the actual, biological, living mother of the man who presents as United States President “Barack Hussein Obama II” physically, publicly appeared with him.... Was appearing with his mother publicly, Holy Saturday afternoon, the act of a repetitively reckless man?
Or was Malcolm X’s boy weary of playing the role of another man’s son?
Did [Jo] Ann Newman sit with her son, United States President “Barack Hussein Obama II”, for all the world to see, as testament to Malcolm X? As his lover and hugest fan, as mother to his famous heir? Who, facing the end of her days, emerges, unmistakably, to take her public place in their son’s history?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...
TOPICS: Cheese, Moose, Sister; Conspiracy; Weird Stuff; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: amiloggedin; awjeeznotthisagain; billayers; birftards; birtherbs; birtherssgonewild; bobbauer; bravebravesirrobin; bs; cia; conspiracy; cowardlyblogger; cuckoo; cuckooforcocoapuffs; cutandrunblogger; fakebc; hawaiicorruption; joannnewman; liarcic; malcolmx; moosetoecheesesister; nuts; obama; obamafraud; recordoverup; runrunawy; series; stanleyanndunham; Click to Add Keyword
Support Free Republic.
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-109 next last
Read all about it. Obama doesn't care about reelection any more, he knows the truth is coming out. Martha seems to have been right all along.
He hid (lied about) his mother Jo Ann Newman, from a Communist family, and his father Malcolm X. The USA has been conned and taken over by agents of a foreign power.
1 posted on Mon Apr 08 2013 20:51:36 GMT+0100 (BST) by ABrit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Actual Mother Of United States President Barack Obama Appears With Him At DC Verizon Center

Sunday, April 07, 2013

'Why Germany has had enough of the euro'

Bernd Lucke interview: 'Why Germany has had enough of the euro' - Telegraph
As such, Mr Lucke advocates a progressive “dissolution” of the eurozone, with southern European nations – Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain, Italy –leaving forthwith. Even more controversially, he also recommends the same fate for France, leaving a rump eurozone of financially prudent Nordic nations that would likewise eventually dissolve as well.

“They (France) should leave and then we would be left with a much smaller eurozone, which could then perhaps exist for a longer period of time,” he said. “It could live on, or it could perhaps be dissolved after the southern European countries have left.”

Monday, April 01, 2013

State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America

Over the last 13 years, the stock market has twice crashed and touched off a recession: American households lost $5 trillion in the 2000 dot-com bust and more than $7 trillion in the 2007 housing crash. Sooner or later — within a few years, I predict — this latest Wall Street bubble, inflated by an egregious flood of phony money from the Federal Reserve rather than real economic gains, will explode, too.

Since the S.&P. 500 first reached its current level, in March 2000, the mad money printers at the Federal Reserve have expanded their balance sheet sixfold (to $3.2 trillion from $500 billion). Yet during that stretch, economic output has grown by an average of 1.7 percent a year (the slowest since the Civil War); real business investment has crawled forward at only 0.8 percent per year; and the payroll job count has crept up at a negligible 0.1 percent annually. Real median family income growth has dropped 8 percent, and the number of full-time middle class jobs, 6 percent. The real net worth of the “bottom” 90 percent has dropped by one-fourth. The number of food stamp and disability aid recipients has more than doubled, to 59 million, about one in five Americans.

So the Main Street economy is failing while Washington is piling a soaring debt burden on our descendants, unable to rein in either the warfare state or the welfare state or raise the taxes needed to pay the nation’s bills. By default, the Fed has resorted to a radical, uncharted spree of money printing. But the flood of liquidity, instead of spurring banks to lend and corporations to spend, has stayed trapped in the canyons of Wall Street, where it is inflating yet another unsustainable bubble.

When it bursts, there will be no new round of bailouts like the ones the banks got in 2008. Instead, America will descend into an era of zero-sum austerity and virulent political conflict, extinguishing even today’s feeble remnants of economic growth.

THIS dyspeptic prospect results from the fact that we are now state-wrecked. With only brief interruptions, we’ve had eight decades of increasingly frenetic fiscal and monetary policy activism intended to counter the cyclical bumps and grinds of the free market and its purported tendency to underproduce jobs and economic output. The toll has been heavy.

As the federal government and its central-bank sidekick, the Fed, have groped for one goal after another — smoothing out the business cycle, minimizing inflation and unemployment at the same time, rolling out a giant social insurance blanket, promoting homeownership, subsidizing medical care, propping up old industries (agriculture, automobiles) and fostering new ones (“clean” energy, biotechnology) and, above all, bailing out Wall Street — they have now succumbed to overload, overreach and outside capture by powerful interests. The modern Keynesian state is broke, paralyzed and mired in empty ritual incantations about stimulating “demand,” even as it fosters a mutant crony capitalism that periodically lavishes the top 1 percent with speculative windfalls.

The culprits are bipartisan, though you’d never guess that from the blather that passes for political discourse these days. The state-wreck originated in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt opted for fiat money (currency not fundamentally backed by gold), economic nationalism and capitalist cartels in agriculture and industry.

Under the exigencies of World War II (which did far more to end the Depression than the New Deal did), the state got hugely bloated, but remarkably, the bloat was put into brief remission during a midcentury golden era of sound money and fiscal rectitude with Dwight D. Eisenhower in the White House and William McChesney Martin Jr. at the Fed.

Then came Lyndon B. Johnson’s “guns and butter” excesses, which were intensified over one perfidious weekend at Camp David, Md., in 1971, when Richard M. Nixon essentially defaulted on the nation’s debt obligations by finally ending the convertibility of gold to the dollar. That one act — arguably a sin graver than Watergate — meant the end of national financial discipline and the start of a four-decade spree during which we have lived high on the hog, running a cumulative $8 trillion current-account deficit. In effect, America underwent an internal leveraged buyout, raising our ratio of total debt (public and private) to economic output to about 3.6 from its historic level of about 1.6. Hence the $30 trillion in excess debt (more than half the total debt, $56 trillion) that hangs over the American economy today.

This explosion of borrowing was the stepchild of the floating-money contraption deposited in the Nixon White House by Milton Friedman, the supposed hero of free-market economics who in fact sowed the seed for a never-ending expansion of the money supply. The Fed, which celebrates its centenary this year, fueled a roaring inflation in goods and commodities during the 1970s that was brought under control only by the iron resolve of Paul A. Volcker, its chairman from 1979 to 1987.

Under his successor, the lapsed hero Alan Greenspan, the Fed dropped Friedman’s penurious rules for monetary expansion, keeping interest rates too low for too long and flooding Wall Street with freshly minted cash. What became known as the “Greenspan put” — the implicit assumption that the Fed would step in if asset prices dropped, as they did after the 1987 stock-market crash — was reinforced by the Fed’s unforgivable 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management.

That Mr. Greenspan’s loose monetary policies didn’t set off inflation was only because domestic prices for goods and labor were crushed by the huge flow of imports from the factories of Asia. By offshoring America’s tradable-goods sector, the Fed kept the Consumer Price Index contained, but also permitted the excess liquidity to foster a roaring inflation in financial assets. Mr. Greenspan’s pandering incited the greatest equity boom in history, with the stock market rising fivefold between the 1987 crash and the 2000 dot-com bust.

Soon Americans stopped saving and consumed everything they earned and all they could borrow. The Asians, burned by their own 1997 financial crisis, were happy to oblige us. They — China and Japan above all — accumulated huge dollar reserves, transforming their central banks into a string of monetary roach motels where sovereign debt goes in but never comes out. We’ve been living on borrowed time — and spending Asians’ borrowed dimes.

This dynamic reinforced the Reaganite shibboleth that “deficits don’t matter” and the fact that nearly $5 trillion of the nation’s $12 trillion in “publicly held” debt is actually sequestered in the vaults of central banks. The destruction of fiscal rectitude under Ronald Reagan — one reason I resigned as his budget chief in 1985 — was the greatest of his many dramatic acts. It created a template for the Republicans’ utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge and allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy. In effect, the G.O.P. embraced Keynesianism — for the wealthy.

The explosion of the housing market, abetted by phony credit ratings, securitization shenanigans and willful malpractice by mortgage lenders, originators and brokers, has been well documented. Less known is the balance-sheet explosion among the top 10 Wall Street banks during the eight years ending in 2008. Though their tiny sliver of equity capital hardly grew, their dependence on unstable “hot money” soared as the regulatory harness the Glass-Steagall Act had wisely imposed during the Depression was totally dismantled.

Within weeks of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September 2008, Washington, with Wall Street’s gun to its head, propped up the remnants of this financial mess in a panic-stricken melee of bailouts and money-printing that is the single most shameful chapter in American financial history.

There was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter, contrary to the dire warnings of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman since 2006. The Great Fear — manifested by the stock market plunge when the House voted down the TARP bailout before caving and passing it — was purely another Wall Street concoction. Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved. The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy, ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding.

Instead, the White House, Congress and the Fed, under Mr. Bush and then President Obama, made a series of desperate, reckless maneuvers that were not only unnecessary but ruinous. The auto bailouts, for example, simply shifted jobs around — particularly to the aging, electorally vital Rust Belt — rather than saving them. The “green energy” component of Mr. Obama’s stimulus was mainly a nearly $1 billion giveaway to crony capitalists, like the venture capitalist John Doerr and the self-proclaimed outer-space visionary Elon Musk, to make new toys for the affluent.

Less than 5 percent of the $800 billion Obama stimulus went to the truly needy for food stamps, earned-income tax credits and other forms of poverty relief. The preponderant share ended up in money dumps to state and local governments, pork-barrel infrastructure projects, business tax loopholes and indiscriminate middle-class tax cuts. The Democratic Keynesians, as intellectually bankrupt as their Republican counterparts (though less hypocritical), had no solution beyond handing out borrowed money to consumers, hoping they would buy a lawn mower, a flat-screen TV or, at least, dinner at Red Lobster.

But even Mr. Obama’s hopelessly glib policies could not match the audacity of the Fed, which dropped interest rates to zero and then digitally printed new money at the astounding rate of $600 million per hour. Fast-money speculators have been “purchasing” giant piles of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, almost entirely by using short-term overnight money borrowed at essentially zero cost, thanks to the Fed. Uncle Ben has lined their pockets.

If and when the Fed — which now promises to get unemployment below 6.5 percent as long as inflation doesn’t exceed 2.5 percent — even hints at shrinking its balance sheet, it will elicit a tidal wave of sell orders, because even a modest drop in bond prices would destroy the arbitrageurs’ profits. Notwithstanding Mr. Bernanke’s assurances about eventually, gradually making a smooth exit, the Fed is domiciled in a monetary prison of its own making.

While the Fed fiddles, Congress burns. Self-titled fiscal hawks like Paul D. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, are terrified of telling the truth: that the 10-year deficit is actually $15 trillion to $20 trillion, far larger than the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of $7 trillion. Its latest forecast, which imagines 16.4 million new jobs in the next decade, compared with only 2.5 million in the last 10 years, is only one of the more extreme examples of Washington’s delusions.

Even a supposedly “bold” measure — linking the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security payments to a different kind of inflation index — would save just $200 billion over a decade, amounting to hardly 1 percent of the problem. Mr. Ryan’s latest budget shamelessly gives Social Security and Medicare a 10-year pass, notwithstanding that a fair portion of their nearly $19 trillion cost over that decade would go to the affluent elderly. At the same time, his proposal for draconian 30 percent cuts over a decade on the $7 trillion safety net — Medicaid, food stamps and the earned-income tax credit — is another front in the G.O.P.’s war against the 99 percent.

Without any changes, over the next decade or so, the gross federal debt, now nearly $17 trillion, will hurtle toward $30 trillion and soar to 150 percent of gross domestic product from around 105 percent today. Since our constitutional stasis rules out any prospect of a “grand bargain,” the nation’s fiscal collapse will play out incrementally, like a Greek/Cypriot tragedy, in carefully choreographed crises over debt ceilings, continuing resolutions and temporary budgetary patches.

Sundown in America - "State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America"

'via Blog this'