What has been gained these last two years and what has been lost? And how shall measure its value?
Here are two graphs, two measure of one reality. They both measure the huge surge in the number of Americans who rely on Food Stamps to feed themselves and their children. They are from articles both published this week
The first measures in people. It comes from an article in Stateline called “Food stamp rolls reach historic levels.”
The article begins by describing the poverty of a middle class American lady called Dorene. A teacher, determined employed, but at a job which does not pay her enough to feed her two young children.
She is part of a flood of people the article talks about who are struggling to keep their heads above water and their dreams for their children alive.
The second is from “Food Stamps Cut?” part of the “Downsizing the Federal Government” series
from the neo-liberal think tank,The Cato Institute.
It begins by railing against what it calls “…another $26 billion in bailout money for state and local governments.” And concludes, “The food stamps program needs to be cut. In fact, the entire federal welfare system needs to be devolved to the states, or preferably, private charity.”
One measures in people the other in dollars. One in misery, the other in cash. Both are true measures but what they chose to measure, what world view they come from and what message they push at us are quite different.
I believe we are coming to a moment when we must, each of us, decide and honestly admit which world view, which message, which graph, has the true measure of us. Which graph measures what really matters to us. We have to stand up for it. Because one of these graphs will shape what we are going to chose to cast aside, and for what, and who’s profit.
The Easter Islanders, whoever they were, chose to erect statue after massive statue in the belief that they would look after them, even as they cut down the last of the big trees on the island without which they could no longer sail out to sea. We have so far chosen to indebt our children for the sake of a system of faceless banks who we are too frightened to oppose. Upon whose greatness we are told, our own shop soiled, moral mediocrity and guttering hopes depend.
What have we saved? Debts. Not even our own. Debts in towers of glass.
What will be our profit? You tell me. Our children’s indenture? Agreed in advance to save us, their parents, from fears we are too cowardly to stand and face.
And what are we losing? Nothing much. Just our dignity. Just our pride. Just the democracy our Grandparents died for and our children once thought we were guarding for them.
What I find astonishing is that (according to the first article you linked to) "the food stamp program helped 43.6 million people" – yet only 65% of those who were eligible claimed the benefit. This suggests that over 67 million people in the world's most powerful economy require assistance to "put food on their family".
This renders the bank bail outs and colossal public subsidies to private companies (socialism for the rich) all the more obscene…
Why aren't people on the streets?
Keiser Report: Fiat Food (E119)
Oh I'm waiting w/ breathless anticipation… Cut the Walmartaqouis Dumb American Bastard's Food Cards and then you'll see it. 67 Million DABs marching in the street + add all the other DABs who are just pissed off in general!
Civil Unrest! Civil Unrest! Civil Unrest!
Just keep talkin' to your Cop/NationalGuard/Armed Forces Buddies/Families/Acquaintances and tell 'em to be nice to us Poor Dumb American Bastards and remind them that they're in the same damned boat the rest of us are in – and no need to start loading live rounds or crank up the M240's or get the Brownshirts all riled up… Turn them Bobbies on to Oathkeepers
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html
– and always tell 'em, "When you get shitcanned due to the budget cuts at the Police Force, we'll be hear to pick you up and welcome you with open arms!
Where are all the Rich Bastards gonna go when TSHTF! China?!
Hi,
I found this blog by actively seeking you out after watching "The Secret Life of Waves" last week(a truly wonderful and remarkable piece of intelligent TV). I, like a growing number of people, am feeling disenfranchised and aghast at the arrogance with which the people are ignored and abused.
"Why aren't there people on the streets?" J x x asks. I think that is something that is going to change and I feel that blogs like this are going to become the street corners upon which we gather. At first, to feel some comfort in the fact that we are not alone in our dissatisfaction and disbelief, then, hopefully, to begin to organise our "response"…
Inequity and injustice must never be tolerated.
I'm glad I'm not alone, thank you.
Pascal,
Thank you for your kind words about the film.
you aren't alone. And I agree it is a good feeling to share with people. Not only are you not alone but you are part of something that is growing. A feeling that is rising slowly now but perceptibly growing in pace. I see the evidence in the growing numbers who come to this blog.
The ground the powers that be stand upon are beginning to shift under them.
I am glad you found us.
I feel uneasy about the presentation of this dichotomy and I'm not sure why.
So here goes, two anomalies (to me at least):-
Firstly, a lot of the folks (lower middle class) who would have benefited from Obama's health care reforms actively campaigned against it.
Secondly, a lot of the US "middle class" suffering at the moment would also still identify with the professed aims of the Cato institute "Free markets", "Individual liberty".
Why?
I suspect it's a combination of things,
1) It's populations is largely (to some degree) religious and naturally right of centre – certainly from a European perspective. It has a natural conservative inclination to self-reliance and an idealised narrative "the American dream", work hard and you'll be rewarded (despite the reality being very different). They also have a natural distrust of government.
2) Their government is in fact fully in the thrall of crony capitalism, it's clear to many American's that their government isn't working for them but for its cronies.
3) Crucial parts of the American media have found an angry audience in the combination of 1 and 2. "Let's get back to the real American, where its hard work that's rewarded not cronyism, main street not wall street!"
Combine the above and it becomes a little clearer on why calls to cut government go down well with a substantial number of Americans. They view it as corrupt from top to bottom, part of the problem. All they've seen it do is spend trillions of theirs and their children's money bailing out rich financiers.
So given the above I guess my uneasiness with the presentation of these two alternatives is that I don't necessarily see them as alternatives.
Is cutting government bad – not necessarily, government can be good at some things bad at others. Is the particular instance of cutting food stamps bad – yes in my opinion it's both morally and economically bad but I'm nervous about extrapolating up to the idea that any cutting of government is bad.
Sorry for wittering on but I'm in the process of clarifying my own thoughts on this issue.
Hello Myopia,
You're not wittering. We're all clarifying our thoughts here.
I agree with you about how a very large number of American's distrust the idea of governemtn and see ample evidence of its coruption. And I agree we should not think of cuts to government as being necessarilly a bad thing
But it's odd that the calls for sutting spending or on rooting out corruption always focus on cutting the provision of welfare to the less well off and never on the provision of welfare to the wealthy via tax cuts , to banks, or to defence contractors.
I offer the comparison not on the grounds that it relects how many Americans see it but how we might see it. But it was a late night musing which may well not be very well expressed. Sorry if it adds only further confusion. Not my intent.
.
Hello Golem,
"But it's odd that the calls for sutting spending or on rooting out corruption always focus on cutting the provision of welfare to the less well off and never on the provision of welfare to the wealthy via tax cuts , to banks, or to defence contractors."
Key here I think is my point number 3
"Crucial parts of the American media have found an angry audience in the combination of 1 and 2. "Let's get back to the real American, where its hard work that's rewarded not cronyism, main street not wall street!""
That "part of the American media" which has found an angry audience is also part of the crony problem. The owners move in the same circles as the cronies in government and finance. Conflating the problem of Wall street and government inefficiency suites their agenda. We see it in our own media and it's an easy sell – "Your working your butt off why should benefit scroungers live the life of Riley or why should immigrants get first dibs on housing". It's less complicated that high finance and appeals to easy prejudice.
What worries me (and I don't accuse you of this but I've seen it on other blogs) is the presentation of this problem in term of political leanings – left vs right. The problem in my view is not of this nature.
One of the best analysis of the current situation out there (in my view) is Karl Denninger (http://market-ticker.org/). I don't think it would be too unfair to describe him as a full on free marketeer libertarian yet he's just as Peed off with the crony capitalism we're seeing right now as anyone on the left.
Check him on Egypt http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2384189
Myopia,
I agree with you that is isn't a simple left versus right question. The question to my mind is more between the belief that everything depends on saving the free-market system versus nthose who think far from saving the free-market system it is in fact a mjor part of the prioblem. The main left wing party here, Labour, is as entranced with the free market and its faith in growth as teh ony end taht matters as is the right.
The two graphs were not meant to be left and right. I only mentioned their provenance so that people could know they did come from different agendas.
For me the difference was as I described it. One started with people. The other with the system. One is clear it wants to sacrifice people to save a system which, as you point out, is made of interests in government, finance and media. You are right about the toher agneda being less clear.
That is part of the work we have to do. The rotteness of our government and the class who infest it, has, so far, been an argument used by those who say, tear it all down, and turn it all over to the markets.
We have to show that the rotteness of our government is at least in part,because of the markets having corrupted it. What was it, 50% of Tory funding from City pockets? No influence being sought there at all. Of course not. Before it was NuLabour they were buying. Now its Tory. Those with money don't care who they arebuying as long as they are for sale. And both left and right are for sale. Infact that is what elections are about. Seeing who gets to sell power for money for the next little while. Our governments are rotten because finance has corrupted it, left and right alike.
The pro free-market press is intent on convincing people that our problem is government waste, and ineptitude and that free-market alternatives will be 'more efficient'. What they don't mention is that the funding crisis is more to do with the inneptitude and collapse of the financial sector than the costs of the public sector.
What we are witnessing now is the application of what Naomi Klein called The Shock Doctrine. Create or take advantage of a financial crisis. Make its effects worse if you can. When in its grip, tell people the government is to blame, even if its not, and insist that the only solution is to sell off assets and dismantle as much of the state as possible starting with those parts that once privatized will make the new owners the most money. And do it in a barrage of bad news and propaganda so that people are more likey to agree out of fear.
That is whaere we are now.
Hello Golem,
I'm going to think about this but my initial reaction is your confusing capitalism with crony capitalism. I've also seen the "Shock Doctrine" worried about from the opposite angle – i.e. "big government" types will take advantage of the crisis to blame free markets for everything etc.. again I think both are missing the point. I've seen cronyism at work in the public/government sector just as appalling as we're seeing in banking sector.
As I say I'll think about your last post but to me the issue isn't a fight against free markets or big government its more a fight for transparency for knowledge something your blog helps with I might add. It's only through those two things that progress will be made.
In days of old your wealth was measured by the number or serfs tied to your land. Now, its probably your loan book. There will be no war because dead people, one, don't consume, and two, as my wife says, dead people don't pay tax.
Myopia – I agree with you, to an extent.
The 'Shock Doctrine' as described by Naomi Klein refers to the manipulation of crises by capitalists (or free marketeers, if you like) in order to secure privatisation of public assets, and this is backed up by numerous case studies.
However, I think the 'Shock Doctrine' illustrates a wider point about the nature of power and its use (or rather, abuse). Note that 'big government' – the state, whatever you want to call it – used the terrorist attacks on the US and UK to make its own power grab. It is unlikely that without such a convenient excuse, the public would have acquiesced (at least in aggregate) to such measures as detention without trial.
Unfortunately, whilst the interests of 'capital' and 'state' have not always been so perfectly aligned (so at least there were competing interests, with the people somewhere in the middle), we now exist in an era of crony capitalism where the state has been compromised.
In this scenario every 'crisis' is an opportunity for the ruling elite to exert more control over a bewildered populace *and* to extort more money from the public purse – which is precisely what 'Golem' writes about.
(I think. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.)
Ken — I agree with your wife, but I feel it necessary to add that people don't starve voluntarily.
If aid like food stamps (or just plain food,) for people who cannot actually afford to feed themselves & their children, is cut to the bone, these hungry people will do things they might not otherwise do to express their anger.
With world food prices at an all-time high, I cannot but believe that events in Egypt are causally related to this fact. If people don't have food they will do something about it. They may end up dead, as many already have in Egypt, but those hoarding the food can't kill 'em all.
myopia — I think we're going to have to disagree on the health care reform. Forcing people to purchase health care is not much of a solution, especially considering the loopholes which undoubtedly litter the legislation. And of course the law does little toward reducing the actual costs of health care, nor does it strip insurance companies of their anti-trust exemption, which allows them to operate monopolies in different regions of the country. I would very much like to believe that this reform will help people, but I'm afraid I cannot.
Golem – you say: ''We have to show that the rotteness of our government is at least in part,because of the markets having corrupted it.''
Absolutely agree one hundred percent. Hits the nail on the head.
One thing we have to remember Myopia – is when we talk about government that our government/s have always been part of the capitalist system. If it is corrupt it is partly because it is a cog in the wheel of a corrupt system.
I believe capitalism by its very nature is corrupt because it relies upon – ultimately – capitalists using other peoples labour and creaming off most of the profit for themselves. This is justified with a lot of talk about the 'risk' capitalists take. And maybe at some time they did? I am not aware enough of history of corporations and corporate law to know whether or not they did.
Now however most capitalists are pretty protected. Only the very small fry are not. For example in my city some big retaraunts have gone bust. They just re-opened using a slightly new name and new 'directors' – the previous managers basically – just having their strings pulled by the same owners who in reality are allegedly still the unofficial owners. So they are still in business yet all the really small producers they bought food off etc – and they owed money to – are now out of pocket.
Some of these were cooperatives and small agro businesses and they may go genuinely bankrupt now. That is totally and utterly corrupt. And anyone who has their eyes open sees it every single day operating in our wonderful 'free market' system.
Whilst I do agree with others on here that we don't have free markets right now – 'free markets' being a cuddly name for vicious neo-liberal crony capitalism – I am not convinced that if we had free markets all would be well. I do not believe free markets are moral, rational or self correcting.
I am not aware enough of history of corporations and corporate law to know whether or not they did.
If you were you'd know that much of the scaffolding upon which modern-day capitalism was constructed consists of fortunes accumulated, not on the backs of workers, but of slaves.
The UK didn't become an imperial power based on its good looks. Slavery built that empire, but since "that was a long time ago" it's not considered legitimate to even bring up this fact in polite circles. It's like steady state theory — they want us to think it was, you know, always like this. As if the way things are now is just the natural order.
There's also the fact that the western industrialized countries heavily protected their budding industries with import tariffs, yet today insist that developing countries do no such thing.
But that's for another day.
Hi -dah-sab – you said: ''If you were you'd know that much of the scaffolding upon which modern-day capitalism was constructed consists of fortunes accumulated, not on the backs of workers, but of slaves.''
I am aware of that much yes. I did economic and political european history so – years and years ago though it was – I remember that often conveniently 'forgotten' fact. In fact when politicians hark back to the ''good old days'' of the industrial revolution I always think – 'but that wealth was built on Empire and slavery'.
I'm a Sheffield lass and our historic involvement with slavery was minimal compared to say Liverpool etc. But Cannon Hall – which I used to live near in Cawthorne, Barnsley – was lived in by the Spencer family who were said to 'dabble' in the trade. And rumour has it that laid the foundations for their wealth.
Basically our hands in the West are very bloody and very dirty.
The whole thing is really complex though. I am against globalisation it has to be said, because I don't believe it brings benefits to most ordinary people – wherever they may live – despite what those in favour proclaim. I don't think it is as simple as saying we have to get poorer in the West now because others are getting their fair share. It seems to me that in most countrys a small elite is getting ever richer while the rest get poorer. I don't see most people in other nations getting their 'fair share'.
Being a bit of an old lefty I am a firm believer in Internationalism, which I think is rather a different beast.
princesschipchops — didn't mean to insult. My "if you were you'd know" was rhetorical.
The interesting thing about globalization, as you note, is that our titans of industry do actually believe that globalization is a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind of thing. But they way they express it, as in The Rise of the New Global Elite, is so utterly devoid of humanity it makes me want to give 'em the Mussolini treatment.
What they actually say is they're fine with trading one American who falls out of the middle class for a couple of Asians who rise into their middle class.
Of course, implicit in this expression is the fact that the two middle classes are not on the same level, and in this transaction there's a corporation extracting a fee for facilitating this involuntary trade, sucking ever more wealth upwards.
Dah- sab – I never took it as an insult don't worry. Just I know it is something that is glossed over all the time – and not something I mention much either myself despite knowing about it – made me think about.
I agree with you about the way the elite express their ideas about globalisation. But I found a really interesting paper that showed that the idea it is lifting millions out of poverty in developing nations, is in itself wrong. In fact this research claimed that globalisation had actually harmed millions in Africa and India and made them much poorer.
So it is not as simple as saying that for one American falling out of the middle class a couple of Asians rise into it. It might be more accurate to say that for every couple of Asians that rise into the middle class – one American or European leaves it and fair few Indians or Africans fall into really desparate poverty – food insecurity basically.
It was something to do with how globalisation has meant that traditional farming practices have been swept aside – and agricultural land taken for development – and so millions are now reliant on buying food they can't afford – or trying to grow food on poor soil. I will try and find it because it was really interesting stuff.
The present aim of capitalism is quite simply to socialise the costs while being allowed to privatise the profits.
In a nutshell, its capitalism without moral or social responsibility.
In another post I called the players psychopaths. I used that pejorative term factually, not as a knee jerk reaction but in the considered view of neuroscience and its application to the criminal traits of serial killers and their like.
The majority of psychopaths know the Law, are often astute in its application and are aware of the moral values deemed as normal benchmarks by society.
Where their flaw becomes apparent is their indifference to the values placed by both the law and normal society on such dispirit issues such as the minor offence of littering or the gravest offence of killing. They treat both with the same casual, if any, remorse.
The same attitude has been adopted by all the players in this game, including these who are supposedly in the business of representing us and looking after our interests. Both, however, hide behind the façades of institutions; institutions which by design and practice have removed conscience from their covenants because applying it would increase costs at the expense of profits. They don't see such an attitude as corrupt they just see it as the normal game of business – the world of dog eat dog and eat what you kill.
This explains their hubris and lack of remorse and appreciation of being saved from the stupidity of their own making and their utter lack of conscience to the extent they not only deem they had a right to be saved they want to exploit the recovery by tilting the ballpark and reducing the rules all in their favour.
They even have the audacity to threaten if they don't get what they want they'll take the huff and their ball and find a better pitch. Which would be laughable if we had a competent government with a backbone who said – Go, but before you do, its our ball, our pitch our rules and our clothes your wearing. So strip off and piss off as far as that big van that's waiting for you by the touchline.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a government (apart from possibly Iceland) any where in the world that has this biological necessity that, supposedly, seperates man from mollusc.
However, whatever the cost, – and I suspect to the normal citizen if done fairly and in a forensic manner, they would be less than the approach presently adopted – their failures and the surreal fantasy of their values have been exposed, and we have had an education in the worthless alchemy of their beliefs and the vacuous lexicon of their inner temples.
So, in the immortal words (except for Bush): Fool us once; shame on you – Fool us twice; shame on us.
But this is exactly what they are presently doing, with the connivance of governments.
Crinkly:
"The present aim of capitalism is quite simply to socialise the costs while being allowed to privatise the profits.
In a nutshell, its capitalism without moral or social responsibility."
But do you think capitalism ever had any moral or social responsibility? I don't – and there is no evidence to suggest that it ever did.
I recommend the following:
http://www.thecorporation.com
['The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Power']
… in which it is shown how the corporation cannot but exist to maximise profit ("shareholder value") at the expense of any other concern, be it social, moral or environmental.
There is an interesting legal example in the early history of the motor industry: Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company.
The Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business to profit his shareholders, rather than the community as a whole or employees.
Similarly, manufacturers have in the past omitted basic safety features from cars on the grounds that the cost of introducing them would have exceeded the estimated cost of compensating the victims of any 'accident'.
The corporation is an externalising machine which will always seek to shift costs, for example pollution, onto any agency other than itself – as it represents a cost that is best avoided in the interests of profit.
Privatisation of profits and socialisation of 'losses' (in this case environmental degradation).
The only moderating influences are consumer behaviour, consumer / political pressure and regulation – which is inevitably described as 'onerous', as 'red tape' or (laughably) a "distortion of the free market".
Capitalism *is* psychopathic in operation!
Jxx- Thanks for the items mentioned. As you will appreciate there are innumerable examples that can be used to underline the arguments on the inherent flaws of capitalism; I wasn't aware of those you mentioned.
Can capitalism work? Yes it can, provided it doesn't fall into the trap of all the other 'ism's'of taking the short view and allowing the idiocies of avarice and power lead to the word 'stupid' preceding it. And for that not to ultimately happen it must adopt moral and socially responsibilities within the frameworks and markets of the business.
Will it happen? I like to think it would, but have to restrict my hope to the could. And even then, apply it to a level only a shade more likely than pigs learning to fly.