Where is the US economy headed?

Interesting to go back to the beginning of this thread (2005) and read. The US voters appear to have very short term memories and prove themselves more and more gullible, IMO.

It's not even short term; it's nonexistent~!

Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival.

In Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992


During the early stages of the industrial revolution, as England was coming out of a feudal-type of society and into what's basically a state-capitalist system, the rising bourgeoisie there had a problem. In a traditional society like the feudal system, people had a certain place, and they had certain rights - in fact, they had what was called at the time a "right to live." I mean, under feudalism it may have been a lousy right, but nevertheless people were assumed to have some natural entitlement for survival. But with the rise of what we call capitalism, that right had to be destroyed: people had to have it knocked out of their heads that they had any automatic "right to live" beyond what they could win for themselves on the labor market. And that was the main point of classical economics. Remember the context in which all of this was taking place: classical economics developed after a period in which a large part of the English population had been forcibly driven off the land they had been farming for centuries - that was by force, it wasn't a pretty picture. In fact, very likely one of the main reasons why England led the industrial revolution was just that they had been more violent in driving people off the land than in other places. For instance, in France a lot of people were able to remain on the land, and therefore they resisted industrialization more. But even after the rising bourgeoisie in England had driven millions of peasants off the land, there was a period when the population's "right to live" still was preserved by what we would today call "welfare." There was a set of laws in England which gave people rights, called the "Poor Laws" - which essentially kept you alive if you couldn't survive otherwise; they provided sort of a minimum level of subsistence, like subsidies on food and so on. And there was something called the "Corn Laws", which gave landlords certain rights beyond those they could get on the market - they raised the price of corn, that sort of thing. And together, these laws were considered among the main impediments to the new rising British industrial class - so therefore they just had to go. Well, those people needed an ideology to support their effort to knock out of people's heads the idea that they had this basic right to live, and that's what classical economics was about - classical economics said: no one has any right to live, you only have a right to what you gain for yourself on the labor market. And the founders of classical economics in fact said they'd developed a "scientific theory" of it, with - as they put it - "the certainty of the principle of gravitation." Alright, by the 1830s, political conditions in England had changed enough so that the rising bourgeoisie were able to kill the Poor Laws, and then later they managed to do away with the Corn Laws. And by around 1840 or 1845, they won the elections and took over the government. Then at that point, a very interesting thing happened. They gave up the theory, and Political Economy changed. It changed for a number of reasons. For one thing, these guys had won, so they didn't need it so much as an ideological weapon anymore. For another, they recognized that they themselves needed a powerful interventionist state to defend industry from the hardships of competition in the open market - as they always had in fact. And beyond that, eliminating people's "right to live" was starting to have some negative side-effects. First of all, it was causing riots all over the place: for a long period, the British army was mostly preoccupied with putting down riots across England. Then something even worse happened - the population started to organize: you got the beginnings of an organized labor movement, and later the Chartist movement, and then a socialist movement developed. And at that point, the elites in England recognized that the game just had to be called off, or else they really would be in trouble - so by the time you get to the second half of the nineteenth century, things like John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy, which gives kind of a social-democratic line, were becoming the reigning ideology. See, the "science" happens to be a very flexible one: you can change it to do whatever you feel like, it's that kind of "science." So by the middle of the nineteenth century, the "science" had changed, and now it turned out that laissez-faire was a bad thing after all - and what you got instead were the intellectual foundations for what's called the "welfare state." And in fact, for a century afterwards, "laissez faire" was basically a dirty word - nobody talked about it anymore. And what the "science" now said was that you had better give the population some way of surviving, or else they're going to challenge your right to rule. You can take away their right to live, but then they're going to take away your right to rule - and that's no good, so ways have to be found to accommodate them. Well, it wasn't until recent years that laissez-faire ideology was revived again - and again, it was a weapon of class warfare. As far as I can see, the principles of classical economics in effect are still taught: I don't think what's taught in the University of Chicago Economics Department today is all that different, what's called "neo-liberalism". And it doesn't have any more validity than it had in the early nineteenth century - in fact, it has even less. At least in the early nineteenth century, Ricardo's and Malthus' assumptions had some relation to reality. Today those assumptions have no relation to reality. Look: the basic assumption of the classical economists was that labor is highly mobile and capital is relatively immobile - that's required, that's crucial to proving all their nice theorems. That was the reason they could say, "If you can't get enough to survive on the labor market, go someplace else" - because you could go someplace else: after the native populations of places like the United States and Australia and Tasmania were exterminated or driven away, then yeah, poor Europeans could go someplace else. So in the early nineteenth century, labor was indeed mobile. And back then, capital was indeed immobile - first because "capital" primarily meant land, and you can't move land, and also because the extent that there was investment, it was very local: like, you didn't have communications systems that allowed for easy transfers of money all around the world, like we do today. So in the early nineteenth century, the assumption that labor is mobile and capital is immobile was more or less realistic - and on the basis of that assumption, you could try to prove things about comparative advantage and all this stuff you learn in school about Portugal and wine and so on. Incidentally, if you want to know how well those theorems actually work, just compare Portugal and England after a hundred years of trying them out - growing wine versus industrializing as possible modes of development. But let's put that aside... Well, by now the assumptions underpinning these theories are not only false - they're the opposite of the truth. By now labor is immobile, through immigration restrictions and so on, and capital is highly mobile, primarily because of technological changes. So none of the results work anymore. But you're still taught them, you're still taught the theories exactly as before - even though the reality today is the exact opposite of what we assumed in the early nineteenth century. I mean, if you look at some of the fancier economists, Paul Krugman and so on, they've got all kinds of little tricks here and there to make the results not quite so grotesquely ridiculous as they'd otherwise be. But fundamentally, it all just is pretty ridiculous. If capital is mobile and labor is immobile, there's no reason why mobile capital shouldn't seek absolute advantage and play one national workforce against another, go wherever the labor is cheapest and thereby drive everybody's standard of living down. In fact, that's exactly what we're doing in NAFTA and all these other international trade agreements which are being instituted right now. Nothing in these abstract economic models actually works in the real world. It doesn't matter how many footnotes they put in, or how many ways they tinker around the edges. The whole enterprise is totally rotten at the core: it has no relation to reality anymore - and furthermore, it never did.

In Understanding Power ("The Fraud of Modern Economics"), 2002


In fact, just take a look at the history of "trucking and bartering" itself; look at the history of modern capitalism, about which we know a lot. The first thing you'll notice is, peasants had to be driven by force and violence into a wage-labor system they did not want; then major efforts were undertaken - conscious efforts - to create wants. In fact, if you look back, there's a whole interesting literature of conscious discussion of the need to manifacture wants in the general population. It's happened over the whole long stretch of capitalism of course, but one place where you can see it very nicely encapsulated is around the time when slavery was terminated. It's very dramatic too at cases like these. For example, in 1831 there was a big slave revolt in Jamaica - which was one of the things that led the British to decide to give up slavery in their colonies: after some slave revolts, they basically said, "It's not paying anymore." So within a couple of years the British wanted to move from a slave economy to a so-called "free" economy, but they still wanted the basic structure to remain exactly the same - and if you take a look back at the parliamentary debates in England at the time, they were talking very consciously about all this. They were saying: look, we've got to keep it the way it is, the masters have to become the owners, the slave have to become the happy workers - somehow we've got to work it all out. Well, there was a little problem in Jamaica: since there was a lot of open land there, when the British let the slaves go free they just wanted to move out onto the land and be perfectly happy, they didn't want to work for the British sugar plantations anymore. So what everyone was asking in Parliament in London was, "How can we force them to keep working for us, even when they're no longer enslaved into it?" Alright, two things were decided upon: first, they would use state force to close off the open land and prevent people from going and surviving on their own. And secondly, they realized that since all these workers didn't really want a lot of things - they just wanted to satisfy their basic needs, which they could easily do in that tropical climate - the British capitalists would have to start creating a whole set of wants for them, and make them start desiring things they didn't then desire, so then the only way they'd be able to satisfy their new material desires would be by working for wages in the British sugar plantations. There was very conscious discussion of the need to create wants - and in fact, extensive efforts were then undertaken to do exactly what they do on T.V. today: to create wants, to make you want the latest pair of sneakers you don't really need, so then people will be driven into a wage-labor society. And that pattern has been repeated over and over again through the whole entire history of capitalism. In fact, what the whole history of capitalism shows is that people have had to be driven into situations which are then claimed to be their nature. But if the history of capitalism shows anything, it shows it's not their nature, that they've had to be forced into it, and that that effort has had to be maintained right until this day.

In Understanding Power (pp. 203-204), 2002

Parados, you have a few quotes, that is right, I had forgotten some of those. I have forgotten every single word that I have said here, that I said in an effort to warn people about Obama. I will not retract any of those things. I own up to all of them.

I will try to summarize what I believe here, parados. We have a president that is not an open book, in fact during the campaign, many people including me were asking, who is Obama? Even John McCain noticed and talked about the revealing quote from Obama where he replied to Joe the Plumber that we need to "spread the wealth around," which I would remind you parados, that spreading the wealth around is flirting with a Marxist philosophy. I think even McCain realized that and attempted to warn people about it. Now, I doubt Obama would claim to be a Marxist, in fact I think he would strongly deny it, but is anyone including you going to claim he is a 100% on board of free market capitalism?

I think most intelligent people by now know that Obama is not a 100% free market capitalist. Where he actually falls on the scale, I cannot honestly tell you, parados, the man is cryptic and is not totally honest enough to tell us exactly what he believes. It is left up to us to figure out what he actually believes, by what he ends up doing. By the time some people finally figure it out, it could be well after the fact, and too late for many to change their vote. Then there are those like you that may have some of the same sympathies as Obama does, I don't know, because you are also reluctant to actually spell out your beliefs. I have asked for you to do it, but nothing significant out of you that I can recall. I have been told by cyclops that he does in fact like some aspects of Marxism, and thinks we can cherry pick those good things from Marxism and mix them with what he would consider good aspects of capitalism. It is fascinating that his beliefs are so similar to how I would judge Obama. Is cyclops a Marxist? I doubt it, but it would in fact be accurate to say he does have Marxist sympathies. So is Obama a Marxist? I am not sure to be honest, but I think it is accurate to say he probably has sympathies toward Marxism. So yes, if I have said I think Obama has Marxist sympathies or is a Marxist at heart, I have in fact felt that way at times, and so that is the opinion that I expressed. It is frustrating to have a president that will not be open and honest to the people he serves.

You of course will deny any validity to his associations and appointments, but the reality is that presidents tend to associate with folks that they admire, and they will also appoint folks that they admire. Need I list the people that he has appointed that have known Marxist tendencies or ties? And of course you will dismiss the association with Jeremiah Wright as well, but the fact will simply not go away - that the church that Obama said changed his life and converted him to Christianity, it is based upon a combination religious / political philosophy, something called Black Liberation Theology, which is a form of Marxist belief. Obama's religion is not simply a religion, it is a political belief that has religious fervor to it. I believe Obama thinks he is somebody very special, that he believes his calling is to bring fairness to government, with that fairness instituting some of the aspects of Black Liberation Theology, as applied to all citizens, black, white, and everyone else.

Now I doubt okie would claim to be a liar, in fact I think he would strongly deny it but is anyone other than okie going to make the claim that okie has been honest and reasonable about what he has said here?

That is too funny okie... You have an odd way of "owning" up to what you said.

Let's see..
You denied you called for Obama's impeachment.
You denied you said Obama was destroying the country.
You denied you agreed with ican that some of his claims about taxes being unconstitutional.
You denied you called Obama a Marxist.
The list just gets longer and longer.


I think most intelligent people by now know that okie is not 100% honest. Where he actually falls on the honesty scale, I cannot tell, the man is deceptive and is not totally honest enough to tell us exactly what he believes. It is left up to us to figure out what he actually believes, by what he ends up saying and what he ends up denying even though we have evidence of him saying it.

Are trying to say that Okie can not be a honest lier? LOL

okie, It's not about "forgetting every single word." Nobody expects everybody else to remember everything we/they post on any blog. However, you continue to make claims and counter-claims about people that have been proven wrong - by copy and paste of your own words by parados and others.

You never learn; even when your mistakes and quotes are repeated back to you.

That you can pat yourself on the back about having succeeded in school and business is not relevant to how you present yourself on a2k. You lie and repeat those lies too often.

You need to get a grip; quit making ridiculous statements about Obama, our economy and politics. If you say something, at least have the decency to provide some reliable, credible, source for what you say. FYI, Obama is not a Marxist; he's a black American who happens to be our first black president. He is not perfect, and it's okay to disagree with his actions or legislation that he wants passed, but you need to explain why you disagree with them rather than just calling him a communist or Marxist, or that he's out to destroy this country.

Your knowledge about domestic and international politics is not good. There are many resources on the internet to get facts and expert opinions about both. I advise you to use them more often.

As I have participated on this forum and have peered through the windows into the thinking of others, and also through observation throughout my life, perhaps there is a reason why there is the old saying, do not discuss politics or religion. Perhaps those subjects or beliefs are so deeply held by people, or their roots are so deeply entrenched into peoples minds, that it is futile to discuss them in any hopeful way of changing them? I guess I am saying you probably have a very good point, that they do in fact bear similarities.

To me, politics is merely for this life, and to support that I can point to what Jesus said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesars." In other words, the political issues were not his concern, as his was spiritual rather than of this earth. I would like to be consistent also with that attitude, and at the end of the day be able to forget what is said about politics such as occurs on this forum. In the final analysis, politics only go so far, and they only serve us for this life. I would like to see political decisions be good and responsible, but I should also realize that politics do not offer us solutions to all of life's problems.

I guess that is why I am a conservative as well. I have observed that in the liberal mind, that they often may consider government as a sort of god to them, that government is the one to turn to, that government can offer ultimately some kind of utopia for them and all of mankind. Consistent with that, they may see certain personalities, such as Obama, as extra special, perhaps almost a sort of Messiah that will bring about huge change toward "social justice" and those kinds of things. I would caution anyone when they hear anyone mention "social justice," as it is a red flag. It has commonly been the rallying cry by many or virtually all of the most notorious leftist dictators in history, such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro, the list continues.

The application of the Laffer Curve may vary depending upon country and specific economic system in that country, but the mathematical and human behavior principles behind the curve do exist and are manifested in almost every country, I believe. The problem is getting enough people to recognize and admit to the truth of that statement, rl, and to agree in each country how those principles can be evaluated and quantified during the making of economic policy. To boil down the principles of the curve, tax rates applied to economic output will be mathematically consistent, and economic output will either rise or fall in proportion to how much individual reward people can expect to receive from the work that they are willing to do. Peoples rate of work will vary according to their expectation of personal rewards for their work. This is the principle of human behavior that is undeniable in my opinion. The very fact that we have created thousands of pages of income tax code is ample proof that politicians have used the undeniable principle of self interest or human behavior tendencies to either encourage or dampen various economic outputs or behavior. Why not universally recognize and use the same undeniable principles to discuss reasonably and formulate a balanced tax policy for this country?

If you think Obama is anti-capitalist, I have a bridge to sell to you.

And this is okie's idea of a well reasoned argument?

If you call liberals dictators and compare them to Hitler doesn't mean you have a strong argument okie. It only points to you have no argument at all so you have to resort to attacking them without any evidence.

The word Irritator can also be used in this situation.

ci, do you remember every single word you have posted here on this forum?

AAARRGGGHHHH!!!!!! okie will be pushing up daisies in the form of the Laffer Curve!!!!!! When is he ever going to give up on it??????? It is meaningless!!!!!!!

The problem is not getting others to understand that okie. The problem is getting you to understand it. The Laffer curve works on the extremes but it doesn't work in the narrow range that US taxes have been in for the last 50 years. A tax rate of 17-22% of GDP isn't enough to show the Laffer curve exists. That is the reality that YOU refuse to accept okie. It has nothing to do with what others will or won't accept. Either you accept that the Laffer curve can not be shown based on the US tax rates over the last 50 years or you deny reality. It seems you prefer to deny reality okie.

Liar!

Really, after he has done just about everything the corporate class wants, to include recapitalizing the banks at our expense. Now the corporations are taking almost free money from the government and sitting on it, not hiring or expanding or doing anything else that will help America.

Obama was in the hip pocket of the corporate class, this sniveling from them that he has not done enough just goes to show how entitled they are, how much they expect to be given.

If I had my way they would have needed to take at least a 60% haircut, but the feds have back filled almost all the money they should have lost in the great recession. What Obama has done for the capitalist should qualify for the charge of treason.

I don't understand how you have the patience to remind okie and his sock puppets of everything that okie can not remember. Jeez! He sounds like a member of the either the raygun or bush I or bush II cabinet testifying before Congress. "I don't remember . . ."

Speaking of honesty, parados, I do not recall you ever saying what you do for a living. Are you a lawyer? Are you a member of Moveon.org or one or more of several other activist Democratic connected organizations? Or do you work for the government and post your stuff on a taxpayer supported computer like cyclops does part of the time?

I would not care, except you are so partisan as to make me suspect you are more than an average citizen in fly over country, so I admit my curiosity.

I admire parados for being okie's conscience but what keeps parados from screaming? What is amazing is that okie never remembers anything and yet he calls himself a "success (start the countdown because he will write that he never said he was a success)" and he expects you, parados, reasoning logic, realjohnboy and anyone else who trips across this thread to respect him. Respect???!!!