Socialism philosophy was a byproduct of early industrialization. In the middle to late 19th century conditions for workers were horrible, capitalists grabbed power and killed people in the process. Marx, Engels and others had an understandably extreme reaction to this situation. They saw that the social system arising from the new technologies and class structure as unsustainable. To their eyes the new world of industrial capitalism was an unending, unbending trend in world history that could only be altered by revolution. They were right and they were wrong.
Industrial capitalism is still in place a century and a half later. The class structure is still exploiting workers and enriching the exploiters. But this is not a universal condition as it was in their time. Technological and social changes have slowly mitigated the horrible excesses of capitalism that these men reacted to. These changes have mostly killed the labor movement.
Now socialism primarily exists in the struggle between government and private power. We do not have a class structure as the fathers of socialism saw it. There are no loosely organized masses of unskilled and semi-skilled workers needing informed leaders to consolidate their common goals into a revolutionary movement against capitalist economic structures. Society is more complex than these critics saw it, and it always was. But there is a power struggle going on now. It is a jockeying between public and private interests, between selfishness and collectivism. This neatly fall into modern partisan lines of left and right leaning arguments.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Class Warfare is not nice
A few days ago I ate a bunch of fiber rich foods too close to bed time. My wife was not happy with the results, but I was happy that she didn't resort to calling it ass warfare. I had no intention of taking the ground she occupied or killing her. Calling this situation a war could only lead to a hardening of positions. My determination to eat what I want and her rights to a peaceful night's sleep would both be compromised by raising the stakes in the discussion. Neither of us wants to lose a war. War implies national pride, life and death. We should really be discussing farts, which typically do not involve patriotism, life and death.
President Obama has again proposed raising taxes on rich people. In Republican circles, this amounts to class warfare. Can't they come up with a better sound bite than that? What would they call it if poor and working class people took up arms and killed rich people with swords and axes? If you have already defined class warfare as raising taxes on the rich, where can you go with your rhetoric?
I humbly suggest that Republicans tone down the rhetoric a bit. The Freedom Tax, Class Argument, BadDemGoodRepub and Shartonomics come to mind. Come on Conservatives you can come up with something better than Class Warfare. This is the party that coined "no new taxes", "government is the problem" and "tax and spend". I have faith in you knuckleheads.
President Obama has again proposed raising taxes on rich people. In Republican circles, this amounts to class warfare. Can't they come up with a better sound bite than that? What would they call it if poor and working class people took up arms and killed rich people with swords and axes? If you have already defined class warfare as raising taxes on the rich, where can you go with your rhetoric?
I humbly suggest that Republicans tone down the rhetoric a bit. The Freedom Tax, Class Argument, BadDemGoodRepub and Shartonomics come to mind. Come on Conservatives you can come up with something better than Class Warfare. This is the party that coined "no new taxes", "government is the problem" and "tax and spend". I have faith in you knuckleheads.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Economic malaise and blame to go around
The US economy is dead in the water. Today's bleak job's report cinches it. The entire thing will remain stalled until the election is over and the newly elected (or re-elected) federal office holders are in office. This will happen in early 2013. Even then, improvement is only possible if voters make a clear choice.
There is no psychological momentum for spending on anything. Consumers are afraid of losing their jobs, don't have jobs, are underemployed or otherwise watching their investments produce zero or negative earnings. They won't spend. Governments can't hire people because elected officials are too scared to spend. Companies are likewise afraid of hiring because earnings are so spotty.
The voting public of the USofA is almost entirely to blame for this condition. We elected Obama and put a conservative House in place to resist any liberal leanings he had when he was a Senator. We have put a paralyzed Federal government into place and now they are powerless to agree to any solutions to our problems.
President Obama will propose some very conservative job creation measures next week, including an extension of the gasoline tax to pay for road improvements and a continuation of the payroll tax 'holiday'. Republicans have already shot these ideas down. Nothing will get done and our economy will continue to sputter, our leaders blame each other and we citizens toss bullshit rhetorical devices at each other to cheer on our respective chosen team of politicians (party).
We suck, but at least we have football season coming.
There is no psychological momentum for spending on anything. Consumers are afraid of losing their jobs, don't have jobs, are underemployed or otherwise watching their investments produce zero or negative earnings. They won't spend. Governments can't hire people because elected officials are too scared to spend. Companies are likewise afraid of hiring because earnings are so spotty.
The voting public of the USofA is almost entirely to blame for this condition. We elected Obama and put a conservative House in place to resist any liberal leanings he had when he was a Senator. We have put a paralyzed Federal government into place and now they are powerless to agree to any solutions to our problems.
President Obama will propose some very conservative job creation measures next week, including an extension of the gasoline tax to pay for road improvements and a continuation of the payroll tax 'holiday'. Republicans have already shot these ideas down. Nothing will get done and our economy will continue to sputter, our leaders blame each other and we citizens toss bullshit rhetorical devices at each other to cheer on our respective chosen team of politicians (party).
We suck, but at least we have football season coming.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Debt Rage
From this morning's Boston Globe:
Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said he cannot support Boehner’s bill. "I simply cannot raise the debt ceiling if we are not going to fundamentally change the way we do business."
"It’s extremely disappointing that the House of Representatives was unable to work together in a bipartisan way to avoid default," Republican Senator Scott Brown said in a statement. "Frankly, this is pathetic. The American people deserve better. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above partisanship. The time to act is now."
The first quote is an attempt to make harming the global economy seem like a principled act. The second quote is an attempt to share blame with Democrats for the failure of the Republican controlled House to agree on anything. This is really pissing me off. Really.
As of this moment, no bill has been presented to the President for his signature. And yet Republicans will blame him for not signing a bill that he does not have. I think Obama deserves a great deal of blame. He is failing to do his job right now.
A few days ago, Speaker Boner compared the US Government to a household to make the point that cutbacks in spending are needed. Aside from the fact that the analogy is stupid because a government is nothing like a household, I would like to continue with it. Let's say a husband buys something on credit, something so big that it shifts the power structure of the household to the wife. The wife signs a pledge saying she won't pay the creditor a dime because she is against frivolous spending. The husband is not man enough to stand up to the self-righteous spendthrift. Where does that leave the creditor? I would say the creditor is pretty pissed at this principled couple.
The government of the United States of America is not a television sitcom couple. It is a financial entity of incomparable power and size. The government (and all Americans by extension) spent the money, we should pay our creditors. The time to argue about principles is when the money is being spent, not when the bills come due.
We should pay our creditors. We should pay them even if they are old folks, poor folks, illegal aliens, defense contractors, abortionists, oil companies, drug dealers, homosexuals, devil worshipers, the Chinese government, or Satan himself. It shouldn't matter what made us spend the money that we owe. It shouldn't matter who we owe the money to. Just cut the fucking checks and argue about spending in the next campaign cycle.
Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said he cannot support Boehner’s bill. "I simply cannot raise the debt ceiling if we are not going to fundamentally change the way we do business."
"It’s extremely disappointing that the House of Representatives was unable to work together in a bipartisan way to avoid default," Republican Senator Scott Brown said in a statement. "Frankly, this is pathetic. The American people deserve better. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above partisanship. The time to act is now."
The first quote is an attempt to make harming the global economy seem like a principled act. The second quote is an attempt to share blame with Democrats for the failure of the Republican controlled House to agree on anything. This is really pissing me off. Really.
As of this moment, no bill has been presented to the President for his signature. And yet Republicans will blame him for not signing a bill that he does not have. I think Obama deserves a great deal of blame. He is failing to do his job right now.
A few days ago, Speaker Boner compared the US Government to a household to make the point that cutbacks in spending are needed. Aside from the fact that the analogy is stupid because a government is nothing like a household, I would like to continue with it. Let's say a husband buys something on credit, something so big that it shifts the power structure of the household to the wife. The wife signs a pledge saying she won't pay the creditor a dime because she is against frivolous spending. The husband is not man enough to stand up to the self-righteous spendthrift. Where does that leave the creditor? I would say the creditor is pretty pissed at this principled couple.
The government of the United States of America is not a television sitcom couple. It is a financial entity of incomparable power and size. The government (and all Americans by extension) spent the money, we should pay our creditors. The time to argue about principles is when the money is being spent, not when the bills come due.
We should pay our creditors. We should pay them even if they are old folks, poor folks, illegal aliens, defense contractors, abortionists, oil companies, drug dealers, homosexuals, devil worshipers, the Chinese government, or Satan himself. It shouldn't matter what made us spend the money that we owe. It shouldn't matter who we owe the money to. Just cut the fucking checks and argue about spending in the next campaign cycle.
Friday, June 03, 2011
How Conservative Will We Be?
The feeble US (and world) economy limps along flat lines. Jobs are still in short supply. Manufacturers are now laying the people off they hired in a moment optimism earlier this year. Home prices continue to slump as no one has the cash to buy.
America's political leadership is beating each over the head with talk of debt and default on Treasury Notes and Bonds. In short...we're fucked. The policy discussion holds absolutely no hope of job creation. The Republican idea that cutting spending and taxes will create jobs is fantasy. Obama and the Democrats are largely in agreement that federal spending must be cut, they are only fighting about how much and where government spending should be decreased.
Jobs are created because cash moves. Someone spends and someone gets hired. Government spending = cash circulation = jobs. The stimulus and bailouts of 2009 worked, that's why the economy didn't fall off the cliff into depression.
Conservative ideology holds that government is bad, therefore government spending is bad. The Democratic Party is conservative as are the majority of vocal, voting American citizens. Ergo, we are economically fucked.
The best American citizens can hope for is that Congress reaches an agreement with the White House to avoid default and we stay in our malaise for until early 2013 when a new government gets it's power. Worst case: The Tea Party wins the debate within the Republican Party and shuts the federal government down, defaults on US debt dragging the world economy into a depression. We can choose between conservative (and have a flat economy) or more conservative (and sinking into depression). Where is the left wing?
I can't answer my last rhetorical flash. The left wing has no power.
America's political leadership is beating each over the head with talk of debt and default on Treasury Notes and Bonds. In short...we're fucked. The policy discussion holds absolutely no hope of job creation. The Republican idea that cutting spending and taxes will create jobs is fantasy. Obama and the Democrats are largely in agreement that federal spending must be cut, they are only fighting about how much and where government spending should be decreased.
Jobs are created because cash moves. Someone spends and someone gets hired. Government spending = cash circulation = jobs. The stimulus and bailouts of 2009 worked, that's why the economy didn't fall off the cliff into depression.
Conservative ideology holds that government is bad, therefore government spending is bad. The Democratic Party is conservative as are the majority of vocal, voting American citizens. Ergo, we are economically fucked.
The best American citizens can hope for is that Congress reaches an agreement with the White House to avoid default and we stay in our malaise for until early 2013 when a new government gets it's power. Worst case: The Tea Party wins the debate within the Republican Party and shuts the federal government down, defaults on US debt dragging the world economy into a depression. We can choose between conservative (and have a flat economy) or more conservative (and sinking into depression). Where is the left wing?
I can't answer my last rhetorical flash. The left wing has no power.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Scott Brown vs Buck. Jobs ideas.
I'm lifting Scott's side of the argument from http://news.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20110201brown_outlines_proposalsto_grow_jobs_in_bay_state/srvc=home&position=recent
Scott: The Hire a Hero Act would extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to businesses that put veterans back to work. Small businesses with up to 100 employees would qualify.
Buck: Politically appealling idea with very small return for the overall jobs picture. We all like vets and small business. Vets are good. Small businesses are run by people we like. But unemployed vets do not account for many of the overall jobless problem and small businesses are small. The impact here on the economy is microscopic.
Scott: The Medical Device Tax Relief Act would repeal a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device makers that takes effect on product sales after Dec. 31, 2012.
Buck: Republicans like lower taxes. We all like people who need medical devices. They are nice. This has absolutely nothing to do with job creation.
Scott: The Tax Withholding Relief Act would repeal the 3 percent tax on any company with federal, state or local government contracts.
Buck: Again, Republicans don't like taxes but this has nothing to do with job creation.
Scott: The Innovate America Act co-sponsored with U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that would cut spending and red tape and help businesses use research and development for new products, boost education programs and promote U.S. exports in new markets to strengthen American economic leadership.
Buck: Promotes R&D, gives tax subsidies for businesses which is nice but it DOES NOT CREATE JOBS in any real, immediate way. This seems to be following the President's "Win The Future" (WTF) speech that does not create any jobs or remove anyone from the work force.
Scott: The Expediting Lifesaving Medicines Act would require the Food and Drug Administration to speed approvals of life-saving drugs.
Buck: Would promote earnings and job creation in the ailing pharmaceutical industry (wink wink). What The Fuck does this have to do with jobs?
Scott: A measure that would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Commerce Department to acknowledge that their catch-share regulations are strangling the Bay State fishing industry.
Buck: Fishermen are nice, hard working businessmen. Cuts some regulations, which Republicans don't like. That's nice too. This might put a hadful fishermen (who we like) back to work in the short-term but will have a negligible impact on overall unemployment.
Scott is preparing to run for re-election and he wants some cash from the Massachusetts pharmaceutical bio-research people. He's also making a few points with old folks and working people that he can carry around in his truck on the next campaign. This is not because "People all across the commonwealth have made it clear that the issue that weighs most on their minds is jobs.” This is because Scott wants another term and people want to feel like Scott is working for them personally, not for the unemployed person who needs a job.
Scott: The Hire a Hero Act would extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to businesses that put veterans back to work. Small businesses with up to 100 employees would qualify.
Buck: Politically appealling idea with very small return for the overall jobs picture. We all like vets and small business. Vets are good. Small businesses are run by people we like. But unemployed vets do not account for many of the overall jobless problem and small businesses are small. The impact here on the economy is microscopic.
Scott: The Medical Device Tax Relief Act would repeal a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device makers that takes effect on product sales after Dec. 31, 2012.
Buck: Republicans like lower taxes. We all like people who need medical devices. They are nice. This has absolutely nothing to do with job creation.
Scott: The Tax Withholding Relief Act would repeal the 3 percent tax on any company with federal, state or local government contracts.
Buck: Again, Republicans don't like taxes but this has nothing to do with job creation.
Scott: The Innovate America Act co-sponsored with U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that would cut spending and red tape and help businesses use research and development for new products, boost education programs and promote U.S. exports in new markets to strengthen American economic leadership.
Buck: Promotes R&D, gives tax subsidies for businesses which is nice but it DOES NOT CREATE JOBS in any real, immediate way. This seems to be following the President's "Win The Future" (WTF) speech that does not create any jobs or remove anyone from the work force.
Scott: The Expediting Lifesaving Medicines Act would require the Food and Drug Administration to speed approvals of life-saving drugs.
Buck: Would promote earnings and job creation in the ailing pharmaceutical industry (wink wink). What The Fuck does this have to do with jobs?
Scott: A measure that would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Commerce Department to acknowledge that their catch-share regulations are strangling the Bay State fishing industry.
Buck: Fishermen are nice, hard working businessmen. Cuts some regulations, which Republicans don't like. That's nice too. This might put a hadful fishermen (who we like) back to work in the short-term but will have a negligible impact on overall unemployment.
Scott is preparing to run for re-election and he wants some cash from the Massachusetts pharmaceutical bio-research people. He's also making a few points with old folks and working people that he can carry around in his truck on the next campaign. This is not because "People all across the commonwealth have made it clear that the issue that weighs most on their minds is jobs.” This is because Scott wants another term and people want to feel like Scott is working for them personally, not for the unemployed person who needs a job.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Obama and jobs. not.
Our newly conservative President Obama has laid out his vision for "winning the future" and it is largely conservative, Reaganesque bullshit. His SoTU speech was the moderate version of Reagan's old flag waving garbage about how much better the US is than the rest of the nations of the world. We are not in a big tournament against other nations, though the voting public seems to think we are.
It is right that this Democratic President become more conservative in response to the huge conservative win in the fall election. He's dropped any ideas about creating jobs, helping the unemployed and is barely pushing higher taxes on rich people. That's a drag.
As an antedote, I offer some suggestions for getting the US economy chugging in the right direction again. Highlights from http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.1/galbraith below. I think these ideas are brilliant analytical suggestions that are politically impossible.
Create an "infrastructure bank" that would be called "big gubment" by Republicans. It would plan, fund and oversee upgrades to national systems that need a boost.
Neighborhood Preservation Corps - more "big gubment" federally funded bureacracy to demolish condemned buildings and projects to replace them.
Further federal support for other local services (police, schools, parks, libraries) that are suffering because of loss of tax revenue and laws against deficit spending at the local level.
Increased Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a temporary lowering of the retirement age to 62.
All perfectly sensible stuff to me, but I lost.
It is right that this Democratic President become more conservative in response to the huge conservative win in the fall election. He's dropped any ideas about creating jobs, helping the unemployed and is barely pushing higher taxes on rich people. That's a drag.
As an antedote, I offer some suggestions for getting the US economy chugging in the right direction again. Highlights from http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.1/galbraith below. I think these ideas are brilliant analytical suggestions that are politically impossible.
Create an "infrastructure bank" that would be called "big gubment" by Republicans. It would plan, fund and oversee upgrades to national systems that need a boost.
Neighborhood Preservation Corps - more "big gubment" federally funded bureacracy to demolish condemned buildings and projects to replace them.
Further federal support for other local services (police, schools, parks, libraries) that are suffering because of loss of tax revenue and laws against deficit spending at the local level.
Increased Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a temporary lowering of the retirement age to 62.
All perfectly sensible stuff to me, but I lost.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Tucson and small gubment
A crazy guy shot people at a political event after a powerful Republican Pac targeted the politician.
Republicans tell us that this is just what happens in a 'free' society, that nothing can stop it and that we should just string the shooter up and move on. All set. The shooter is solely responsible.
Government can't tighten gun laws.
Government can't expand mental health services.
Republicans certainly can't be asked to be a little bit careful about what they say and how they say it.
I believe all these positions are in the Reagan tradition of 'small gubment' and ultimately harmful to the USofA.
Next week the newly elected Republican House leadership will make a noise in a grandstanding effort to slam "Obamacare". They have no chance to repeal it because they don't have enough power, but they will take up Congressional time to make noise.
President Bush (the junior) signed mental health care parity into law, requiring insurance companies to provide mental health services to their customers. I cheer him for that because as Tuscon points up, mental health is not just a source of suffering for the afflicted it can kick any of us at any time. It is clear to me, even in "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" where we have universal care, that mental health services are difficult to come by even when you actively and aggressively seek them out. I wish that situation were different.
Now, if we can just hold on and let "Obamacare" or TeddyCare take effect we might see currently uninsured people have access to mental health care. Would this have stopped Loughner? Stupid rhetorical question, but it is clear to any thinking person (on the left and center) that this nut could have used some help even if it meant government intervention.
Republicans tell us that this is just what happens in a 'free' society, that nothing can stop it and that we should just string the shooter up and move on. All set. The shooter is solely responsible.
Government can't tighten gun laws.
Government can't expand mental health services.
Republicans certainly can't be asked to be a little bit careful about what they say and how they say it.
I believe all these positions are in the Reagan tradition of 'small gubment' and ultimately harmful to the USofA.
Next week the newly elected Republican House leadership will make a noise in a grandstanding effort to slam "Obamacare". They have no chance to repeal it because they don't have enough power, but they will take up Congressional time to make noise.
President Bush (the junior) signed mental health care parity into law, requiring insurance companies to provide mental health services to their customers. I cheer him for that because as Tuscon points up, mental health is not just a source of suffering for the afflicted it can kick any of us at any time. It is clear to me, even in "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" where we have universal care, that mental health services are difficult to come by even when you actively and aggressively seek them out. I wish that situation were different.
Now, if we can just hold on and let "Obamacare" or TeddyCare take effect we might see currently uninsured people have access to mental health care. Would this have stopped Loughner? Stupid rhetorical question, but it is clear to any thinking person (on the left and center) that this nut could have used some help even if it meant government intervention.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Sarah and Me
Sarah: "There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal."
Buck: Partly true. I do claim the first but only kinda. It is partially to blame. On the claim that this act was apolitical I claim bullshit. When a Congresswoman is shot in the head point blank range at a political event it seems only fair to think the act a bit political.
Sarah: "And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently."
Buck: Complete bullshit that she goes on to attack a fictional argument by an unseen "they"and claim some crazy stupidity based on her personal familiarity with the holy founding fathers. I would say that the debate is not more heated just recently, and that she ought to be responsible and tone her bombastic bullshit down.
Buck: Partly true. I do claim the first but only kinda. It is partially to blame. On the claim that this act was apolitical I claim bullshit. When a Congresswoman is shot in the head point blank range at a political event it seems only fair to think the act a bit political.
Sarah: "And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently."
Buck: Complete bullshit that she goes on to attack a fictional argument by an unseen "they"and claim some crazy stupidity based on her personal familiarity with the holy founding fathers. I would say that the debate is not more heated just recently, and that she ought to be responsible and tone her bombastic bullshit down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
