This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Democracy in Action
By Phil Davis of Phil's Stock World
The WSJ noted this morning, small business firms (the ones the Republicans claim to protect) want a strong dollar so that American Citizens, who live and work in America - can afford to own a heated home with enough left over to buy some food and, hopefully, even be able to purchase their goods and services. Big Business wants a weak dollar, so they can sell their goods overseas and use those profits to buy land and capital equipment from struggling American individuals and firms at relatively bargain prices - maybe even in foreclosure!
Who do you think is getting their way? As Charlie Koch says in his featured Op-Ed piece in the Journal this morning: "Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors (i.e. Koch Industries) at bay." But don't worry, the Koch Brothers are on the case, spending their Billions to support far-right and Tea Party causes looking to roll back the Progressive causes all the way to where we were before the Great Depression (the first one, not the one their idiocy is likely to bring about next). Charlie says:
"Because of our activism, we've been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we're determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously."
So that's why we're shorting small business. The worst part is they are too stupid to know who their enemies are. Small businesspeople are suffering every bit as much as Middle Class Americans yet they believe they are the same as the Koch Brothers and they look to get Government out of their lives and support Big Business causes, much like Hansel and Gretel moving into the Koch's gingerbread house - not realizing that they are the desert.
One of the great jokes played on Small Business in America is the Chamber of Commerce, an organization that claims to represents small business (and takes their money, letting them think they have representation) but is really just another mouthpiece for the top 1% (see "The Scam Chamber"). The Chamber of Commerce has, in fact, swung so far to the right that responsible corporate citizens like Nike, Apple, Exelon Energy, PG&E quit the Chamber over its extremist positions.
.jpg)
Small Business is dying in America from lack of representation and, even worse, those that claim to represent them are selling them down the river (when they are not stabbing them in the backs). In fact, we can create a profitable investing premise buy simply investing in the people who do all the lobbying these days and shorting those who do the least - look how well this idea would have played out tracking 2010 Lobbying Spending by Sector.
See how Defense needs to step it up? Also, you can see why Labor has no chance at all of having their voice heard. Consider for a moment that all this money is used to "influence" just 435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, 9 judges and one President in one year! This matter came to our attention when one of our Conservative Members put up statistics from the National Review that "proved" that unions have plenty of influence in Washington. In that article in that once-respected magazine, the author says: "Here are the ten largest donors in U.S. politics as of February 7, according to OpenSecrets.Org: ActBlue: $51 million, AT&T: $46 million, AFSCME: $43 million..."
Wow, that sounds impressive doesn't it. Unless, of course you follow the link and notice that this represents the TOTAL spending of those groups since 1989 - $51M in 21 years vs. THIS CHART'S 2010 SPENDING.
I don't know when the National Review turned into the National Enquirer but shame on them for misleading Conservatives like that! Fortunately Kevin Williamson, who wrote this hack piece, is only the Deputy Managing Editor of the National Review and not the Managing Editor - now THAT would be embarrassing!
Anyway, so where was I? Oh yes, small businesses are being screwed over and likely to be slammed by the inflation that Big Businesses are pushing for and the Fed, of course, is 100% on the inflationary bandwagon. As David Fry said yesterday:
Last week it was Bullard, Lacker and Kohn throwing the spin around and today it was Dudley with a notable assist from Buffett. And, since it was month-end, headline writers got the green close they wanted with the third month of gains. Kohn’s comments last week were incoherent overall while Dudley’s TV appearance consisted of misleading BS with comments like, “The Fed is keeping its mandate” and, “It’s unwise to overreact to rising commodity prices.”
Overreact? I don't see anyone reacting, other than speculators who are BUYBUYBUYing more and more commodities as the prices rise. In fact, as of February 22nd, Hedge Funds had taken the largest speculative net long position on oil futures since June 2006, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's weekly Commitments of Traders report. "Money managers are looking and seeing the Middle East situation is far from resolved," said Carl Larry, president of Oil Outlooks & Opinions in Houston. "The upside is unlimited, depending on how bad things get."
Of course I mean no one in THIS country is reacting. In more thoughtful nations, people are rioting. Although, did you know there are more people protesting in Madison, Wisconsin this week than in Tripoli, Libya? No, you wouldn't know that because that's not the way the Corporate Media in this country reports things, is it? To be fair, in Libya, the Government is threatening the protesters with guns while Governor Walker is only threatening to fire the protesters in Wisconsin. Makes you kind of proud we live in a Democracy, doesn't it?
Bad news that will be ignored this morning includes a 0.5% drop in ICSC Retail Store Sales (those pesky small businesses), who are losing consumer discretionary dollars to energy producing companies - like Koch Industries! Chinese PMI fell again in February but still an expansionist 52.2 but a separate HSBC survey shows a more significant drop to 51.7, a 7 month low. I apologize for the link there to the Liberal rag-sheet NY Times but the WSJ apparently has no idea Chinese PMI went lower as their headline on the same subject is "Asian Factory Data Show Growth Intact." I must say I am proud to live in a country where we are free to choose the facts we want to hear from such a wide variety of media outlets. Imagine how dull it would be if there was just one truth and we all read the same thing...
Ben Bernanke addresses Congress today and tomorrow and those people will hear the same thing and draw completely different conclusions from it but we're playing the Dollar bullish as other countries are loosening their money to keep up with us and I do believe there will be enough anti-Fed noise made this week that QE3 begins to be called into question. Of course, it's budget showdown week as well and, as Paul Krugman points out: "While low spending may sound good in the abstract, what it amounts to in practice is low spending on children, who account directly or indirectly for a large part of government outlays at the state and local level." Krugman points to the "Texas Miracle" and it's not-so-miraculous aftermath:
in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average... The really striking thing about all this isn’t the cruelty — at this point you expect that — but the shortsightedness. What’s supposed to happen when today’s neglected children become tomorrow’s work force?
Unfortunately, that's not a question that concerns the Koch Brothers or President Obama's Economic Adviser, Jeff Immelt of GE - they are outsourcing their labor and they can't wait for the day when American schools begin to turn out graduates who will live 8 to a room in a factory dormitory and work 12-hour shifts at $2 per hour. It's called "Putting America Back to Work" and there are armies of lobbyists either lining the pockets or twisting the arms of each and every Congressman you'll see on TV over the next two days.
That's Democracy in action!
»
- ilene's blog
- 9202 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I'm fully aware of what FDR and TR did. I'm also aware that TR was instrumental in the passage of the Sherman Act, which appears to have become moot in the era of TBTF.
My take on FDR was that he understood the Banksters for who they were, and was completely pragmatic in his approach to using Wall Street. The increase in corporate taxes in 1937 was a colossal failure, and might have condemned FDR to a tough Third Term Campaign against Willkie, had not FDR had cause to juice the New Deal with his rearmament programs after about 1938. Was he ultimately wrong and Calvin Coolidge ultimately right? I should think so. Nevertheless, FDR did get the Banksters in ways that Hoover did not, I think, and understood that regulation needed to occur in the form of the SEC and Glass-Stegall.
I will say this about FDR, he was an elitist blueblood through and through, and understood how to govern, and how to display the Common Touch. And let's be clear, his make-work programs actually employed several million people for a time. There is, after all, a reason his 1936 reelect was a landslide. Ordinary people could actually see people they knew working at jobs. Now had FDR done what Coolidge had done in the mid-20's, recovery would have come much faster. But then he would not have been a Progressive. You go with what you have, unfortunately.
And though Social Security was established on the Ponzi principle, as written above, I'm not sure that FDR gets the lion's share of the blame for where we're at today. It was only after he had passed that the notion of State Welfare came into being during the Johnson years. FDR, for his part, was careful to make the New Deal a work program, not a welfare program, because he understood that people hated the idea of being on the dole. Republicans never got this. SS, though ultimately a Big Ponzi, was set up as a contributions program. Only later, when younger New Dealers like Johnson and Humphrey got their hands on power, would Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, and the Permanent Welfare/Warfare state become part of our lives.
In FDR's defense, it should be noted that once the war began, and once things got ramped up in the Defense plants, the WPA and the CCC were closed down and absorbed into the War effort. The same can't be said about the Great Society, Vietnam, or the latest experience we've had during the Bin Laden War.
All that said in FDR's defense, Pat Buchanan was right. Those damn Germans should never have attacked Pearl Harbor! ;)
How can you applaud FDR when you correctly condemn others who enlarged the welfare state? I was also taught that FDR was one of our greatest presidents but a critical look at what he did to us casts doubt on that. FDR threatened the supreme court to get them to justify clearly unconstitutional laws using the commerce clause, a single decision that has been used to justify the ever growing modern welfare state. The progressive movement has always been patient. They understand that they must accomplish their agenda incrementally. I'm sure that FDR would approve of what his creation has become.
Thinking that a negro could change the US on banks, corporations and lobbies, I dont know how people were able to believe that drivel.
A negro female is the least likely person US citizens would accept the consequent damage coming with the implementation of change on banks, corporations and lobbies. The next one is a negro male.
Obama is not mad: he knows perfectly well that if he works toward changing the banking sector, corporations and lobbies, he will finish hanged to a lamp post good old US style because the US people would not endure the pain associated with it.
The US People will not suffer the damageful consequences of reforming banks, corporations and lobbies. They get too much out of them. Their priviledged way of life derives a lot from banks, corporations and lobbies. Just imagine the pain they could go through if the FED was eliminated.
Hey, US people would even hang Jesus if he came to change the banks and thus endanger the US way of life.
US citizens are not sheeple, their propaganda is cheap and allows anyone to see through it but they are not sheeple.
If they elected a negro male, it is because they knew perfectly the guy would fight to maintain a status quo so favourable to the US citizens. If he did not, lynch him the good old US mob mind way.
As far as I can tell Obama is turning out to be a bigger liar than Bush was. At least with Bush we pretty much knew what we got. He made no bones about it. Obama rose to power on populism and 'change we can belive in'. We are seeing how that is working out for us.
The first clue was when he won the nobel peace price, what a crock of shit. Next thing you know he orders a surge in Afghanistan. Those pesky terrorists...
Absolutely true.
The whole plan is pro union.
Not like the labor unions are full of rocket surgeons and brain scientists without complete moronic imbeciles to protect there are no labor unions.
i agree
i liked Bush because he was a knucklehead who no one trusted nor believed a word he said
as it should be for all lying politicians
i just cant understand why so many people are giving obama a free pass to plunder and destroy
i voted cynthia mckinney...at least she had ideas that made some sense
wasted vote, because no one even knew she was running
i voted cynthia mckinney
http://vimeo.com/3945205
It is nothing new that in a representative system like a Republic, small people as they are called are only to be used as a stepping stone for some others who want to move up on the social ladder.
People wanted a Republic? They got it. Shall they be satisfied with it.
The Republic turned, almost imperceptibly, into the evil Galactic Empire many years ago when it went fascist.
So you blame it on the type of government? Nevermind the technological advances. I guess the people have no blame at all for becoming complacent and taking our freedoms for granted. As a whole, we have a much greater concern for what's on tv than what is going on in DC. (Obviously not all our fault as this disaster began in 1913 but you get the drift.)
I dont blame it on the government type.
It is just like that people who choose a type of government should accept the whole package.
A Republic is well opened to this kind of moves.
US citizens were part of suppressing freedom on their own will. Do not get fooled on that. The government simply made them more efficient in suppressing freedom.
When US citizens were patrolling slaves quarters in order to prevent slaves from fleeing, it was not a government's order. It was personal initiative. Government is one thing, private personal initiative is another.
"It is just like that people who choose a type of government should accept the whole package."
bravo. the only problem is that most folks seem to pick their governments based on the late-night TV ads, never bothering to read the fine print (S&H, etc.) or crack the manual once bought. It's easier to trust and hope, rather than think. Las Vegas and Powerball prove this every day.
No - I blame it on centralized power. There has never been and so long as humans behave as humans, there shall never be, a centralized power system that is NOT controlled by the Oligarchs. We can argue for all eternity about "Bushilter" vs. "Obamacare" vs. "stained blue dresses" but it's all a diversion. There is only ONE political question that matters. Power and it's concomitant responsibilities can be distributed as closely to the individual as possible or in a centralized power structure. As long as the answer is the second, then the Oligarchs will ALWAYS co-opt that power. They will co-opt distributed power as well - BUT it is much more difficult to accomplish and by it's nature remains more evenly distributed even after it has been co-opted.
Thus my disgust with "progressives" - while I believe we agree with whom we'd like to see empowered I believe their policy solutions accomplish exactly the opposite. Here in the real world, as opposed to dorm room bullshit sessions, you do not empower someone by giving their rights and responsibilities to bureaucrats that are bought and paid for by the Oligarchs.
There is a reason that throughout history democratic systems are destroyed by first centralizing the power - and always at the behest of the Oligarchs.
like flies to poop... they converge,
but it's pretty clear that power also begets oligarchs... of course you can form an elite if you control the resources. i would assume a petri-dish like cuba would validate the theory, where those in power were merely replaced by friends and peers of those who took that power away. same pattern, new faces, etc.
repeating historic patterns are more likely the result of repeating contexts with essentially the same elements.
either way, your point stands well, and one would expect the pattern to repeat again, if the same sorts of humans that we breed today are driving the train. i'm not expecting much change in the breeding patterns...
I agree - my point is not to argue chicken vs egg. It is that centralized power is always taken by the Oligarchs. "Whom" may change with a new era of "hopenchange" but there will always be someone taking control of the power. The trick is to force them to buy 50 legislatures instead of one and wherever possible to make them buy 5000 city councils rather than one Congress. The dance will never end - but the crucial element is this: any power or responsibility you give to the government will ALWAYS be co-opted by the powerful. We MUST not make it EASY for them - and progressive policies do exactly that.
Haven't had a republic for nigh on to 100 years. When the banks bought the right to control money from Wilson and his pet Congress was step one - the original "progressive" administration. It was lost completely when the second most "progressive" president in US history bullied the Supreme Court into an interpretation that there is NO restraint on the Central Government found in the constitution (Filburn). That was the end of a republican form of gov't in the US.
Both current parties are the tools of the banker class. But the "progressive" movement is what created this situation and the "progressive" solution is to move EXACTLY in the WRONG direction to resolve it (which is impossible anyway - but the "progressives" want to make it worse).
Agreed, I think we had a chance to get it back up until the 1960's with LBJs "broke" society along with the constant enhancement of entitlement programs. The dollar has been in a nose dive ever since. Once your spouse runs up the credit card, you're locked in - doesn't matter how frugal you are from that point.
Is this a joke?
everything must return to practically someday, like the markets returning to natural value and fundementals.
http://covert2.wordpress.com
It must be shit-for-brains season in Manhattan.
I always wonder what would motivate someone "intelligent" to write something like this. I suspect that this "player" in the financial world participates in the selling of financial products (funds, advice, whatever) directly or indirectly to organized labor. Therefore they must "get" their politics right in order to make the sale. They understand there is no difference between left and right but the "left" market is their niche that sustains them.
Cue the Jarred Loeghner (spelling) Clones...
yes and it's on You(the American citizen)
I got that message loud and clear as well.
Bob,
Sent to me by a friend in WI. The Koch Bros are bigger scum than most people know:
Kochsuckers all! ;)
Folks is really doing their work on this! I can't be surprised by the truth, only by its ready availability. Thank God for that much.
Disjointed? Yes, but so is the subject matter. I think he gave a pretty explanation of what the subject of the article was --- why he is shorting U.S. small business. Probably a pretty good idea, because from what I see the next downturn is on it's way, regardless of QE 3, 4, or 5. When it arrives, to quote Mr. Buffet, then we will get to see who has been swimming naked. Thousands of small businesses are hanging by a thread.
I'll second that motion. It is a joke to read.
What a bunch of frazzled thoughts, where is the cohesion?
Any 'article' ,from now on which implies that the crises we face is simply a liberal or conservative creation is junk. Divide and conquer, the responsible powers could care less about some political philosophy, it is bigger than that. So wake up 'ilene'.
Third. I couldn't follow it. Waste of my time, stopped reading before the end.
Stopped reading it, but took the time to admit that you can't think clearly enough to get through a short article. The new 140 character Twit mindset speaks.
Anyway, so where was I?
No one knows if you don't.
Someday the OP will learn to write in the old style; you know, write an argument that begins with a theme, proceeds to a collection of ideas and supporting facts, evidence or theories in some logical order, then draws a conclusion, all in an attempt to incite the reader to learn more or lead the reader to some conclusion. The thing above is a mess, an affront to writing, and I don't waste time on trash.
Ah, the five-paragraph essay. Is that technique not taught any longer in junior high school ?
only if the parents teach it...
sigh...
I'll be doomed!
one might note that obama reappointed bernanke, appointed dudley and continued the financial and economic policies of w. bush largely unbroken. it is clearly a two party job.