The Hill: Shock doctrine and the debt limit

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/175641-shock-doctrine-and-the-debt-limit

Washington's recently staged drama of dysfunction over the federal debt limit sadly distracted attention from real crises occurring outside the beltway. These include unemployment, housing foreclosures, torched 401k plans that have stalled earned retirements, and college graduates struggling to begin their careers with paying jobs. But there’s a more profound problem with this farce: This fabricated debt “crisis” was really nothing more than a veiled attempt to destroy the last vestiges of FDR’s New Deal utilizing “shock doctrine” to pacify resistance.

In her best-selling book Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, social critic Naomi Klein argues that crises are intentionally created to push the free market agenda. In the midst of a crisis, social protections can be destroyed, paving the way for ever more virulent versions of free market capitalism.

Jamie Galbraith’s The Predator State refines this by claiming that what’s pursued by leaders in a crisis isn’t so much a “free market” agenda, but rather using government to install an elite class that runs the economy to further enrich and entrench themselves as predators. We recall President Bush’s dinner speech before an elite audience in October 2000: "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." Their sole public purpose for government is to serve that predator base.

Our current economic calamity buttresses Klein and Galbraith’s claims. The global financial crisis was spurred by gutting many of the New Deal constraints on financial institutions. By doing so, we promoted a gambling spree that enriched Wall Street. Self interest can explain all this; no need for conspiracy theories. Individual self interest created the debt-fueled real estate boom and then individual self interest created the cover up. When a bank makes a liar’s loan, every other link in the real estate food chain — from the property appraisal, through the securitization process, on to the foreclosure and finally to the bank bailout -- involves a cover up that taints everyone involved in the process.

(...)

and that we need a flat tax (because they can't get away with extending the Bush tax cuts again).

They love this jobless recovery that has been GREAT for corporate profits.

They're coming after everything... our savings, our social security, our prisons, our fire and police protection... our water.

Got that right. Outstanding article.

It is good to see some truth beginning to bubble up *somewhere* in the American press.

We still have a long way to go to open eyes.

If we stop consuming we're all screwed. Consumer spending IS our economy, we don't manufacture or produce much anymore.

I don't disagree with these shock doctrine theories, only that those practicing it are painting themselves into a big corner. Nobody can consume if they have no money.

have all the resources themselves. Resources (oil, water, etc.) are dimishing rapidly and the elite see that. They want at least, say, 75% of us to die off within a decade or two so they can keep all the remaining resources for themselves.

It's a culling of the herd. Some right-wingers will say it openly, at free republic for instance. Politicians aren't saying it but you can bet that is what they are aiming for.

as a system. It requires infinite expansion and since it requires infinite expansion, it's running up against finite resources, that causes a crisis. Of course that's ANOTHER problem with capitalism, the crises. But these two problems are working together to cause ever more SEVERE and more crises. So what does it as a system do to ameloriate these crises? Hoard the resourses so that only a few can expand their holdings while the rest of us starve.

As a system whether we like it or not, it's on it's last legs. The problem is it's trying to take the rest of us with it. Our question becomes, what do we do about it? Socialism is a way to redistribute the resourses so that more people can benefit. But they won't let go without being FORCED to let go. System change is RAPIDLY becoming a matter of self defense for the rest of us.

Do we starve or do we fight back. Even if it means taking "private" property. Notice I said "private", not personal.

Last year, the US created 19.9 per cent of world manufacturing output, compared with 18.6 per cent for China, with the US staying ahead despite a steep fall in factory production due to the global recession.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af2219cc-7c86-11df-8b74-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ua5QSqQf

Rec

nt

and the country. With the stock market drop, I've made sure to point out to all my republican 'friends' that they're the ones who want to get rid of social security and invest their own money for retirement...and what happens to that retirement account when the bottom drops out of the market?

The elite political establishment pushes a right wing radical economic agenda for their own benefit and that of their contributors. It is called trickle down economics. It does not work and they do not care as long as they get theirs financially and retain power. The rest of us can slide into oblivion.

And here is the Libertarian plan of attack perhaps?


http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/sp-ratings-move



On Entitlements:

We have just a few months before the next explosion. S&P has put the US on a negative alert. Meaning further downgrades are going to happen if the US fiscal house is not put in better order.

Folks, that CANNOT HAPPEN without substantial cuts in both Medicare and Social Security.

So over the next few months when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi tell us that there will be no cuts to these mega programs, respond by immediately shorting the stock market. If Obama sticks in the mud and says, “We will not cut SS” the Dow will fall 500 points.

I'd say people starting to channel their inner hartman is telling.

For quick news on political and Congressional focus stuff, I scan TPM, them, and what is probably the most conservative of the three- Roll Call (sometimes it has details the other two don't mention, or gets them before the first two get them). I like the Hill. They move their stories pretty fast, even though they occasionally mess up and seem they could use a couple more proofreaders. I never bother with Politico, but I doubt we'd see this in that one.