Let me add Marshall, that while I think that true democracy can be accomplished through a form of democratic socialism, Keynesianism and the New Deal were, unfortunately, “not” socialistic.  Roosevelt and the Democrats in the 30s came up with the New Deal not to destroy capitalism but to prevent the avaricious beast from devouring itself.  They came up with a “mixed economy” rather than Socialism, a major mistake since it left the forces devoted to political and economic inequality in a position to rise again. 

Laissez faire is a myth.  The fact is that most fortunes have been made in this country by tapping into the public till.  The railroad barons amassed fortunes in large measure because of outright grants of vast swaths of land from the government.  When the schemes of the billionaire swindlers on Wall Street go bust, as, for example, would occur by design by with sub-prime mortgages, they can always count on the paid-for politicians to bail them out.  Crony capitalism, who consistently tap the public till through no bid contracts with no measure of accountability, can always count on corporate friendly politicians to bail them out.  They believe in Socialism for the rich and leave the “free market” to the suckers.  A major sector, the military-industrial complex, could not exist unless it had its hand in the public trough.

Unregulated markets brought us the first Great Depression, and the era of deregulation, ushered in by Reagan, brought us the Enron-led scamming of the California energy market in 2001.  It has unleashed the sub-prime mortgage crisis, created a vast increase in wealth disparity, which in turn, through an exponential expansion of lobbyists and corruption of the political process.

We agree to disagree.

By Ernest Canning, April 21 at 5:17 pm #
(1465 comments total)
Re: Re:

Well Ernest - Obviously no point in my addressing your individual points since you’ve made it clear that you don’t support the concept of free markets to begin with.  I obviously disagree with you, and I don’t think it takes a very long look at the world’s successful economies to prove you wrong.  It amazes me that Socialists (which I’m assuming you would classify yourself - correct me if I’m wrong) still cling to an economic system that has so utterly disproven its worth.  Of course, the U.S. (as the world’s largest economy) is in fact a Socialist Democracy, in that we have some social programs and govt. regulation… to excess, many would say.  But you sound like more of a purist to me; someone who would prefer eliminating the free market altogether in favor of a socialist state.  Is this the case?

Take your ideological blinders off Marshall.  The seeds for the current economic malaise were being sown by the sub-prime loans that were fueling the economy in 2003.  Further, 2003 just happened to be the year that we invaded Iraq with promises from your friends in the Bush administration that we would be greeted with baskets of flowers and that the oil revenues would pay for the invasion and occupation.  Of course, if you are an oil industry executive or have significant stock in Halliburton or Blackwater, I could certainly see why you would believe things were going smoothly.

The fact is that the financial status of working class Americans has steadily deteriorated since Reagan first assumed office in 1980, advancing the “greed-is-good” philosophy, a factor that was greatly accelerated when the Clintons joined with Reagan and Geo. H. W. Bush to ram NAFTA & the WTO through on the fast track.  These enabled the ruling elites to outsource our manufacturing base in an endless search for the $2/day laborer while what was left of American labor has been increasingly Wal Martized.

The fact is that we are learning for the second time a painful lesson that should have stuck back in 1932.  Free markets don’t work.  They create grotesque economic equality leading to corruption and political inequality, leading to further economic inequality.  Freed of New Deal (Keynesian) constraints, the avaricious beast we call capitalism devours itself, destroying the economy and the environment.

George W. Bush was not alone in creating this mess.  The deregulating mantra of the radical disciples of Milton Friedman free markets who exerted undue influence in every administration since 1980 had a good deal to do with it.  However, by adopting massive tax cuts for the wealthy while pursuing a $3 trillion imperial conquest of Iraq, George W. Bush has done more than any of his predecessors to hasten our demise.

By Ernest Canning, April 20 at 6:56 am #
Re: Re:

“Economic revival of 2001?  What a load!”

Mistype.  2003 is the correct year.  Obviously 9/11 intervened in an economy that was beginning to rebound in late 2001.

Economic revival of 2001?  What a load!

What?  I thought it was Jesus F. Christ!  Sez the godless liberal.

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 20 at 4:09 am #

“Our economy is in a shambles.  As for an early pull-out from Iraq, this is typical perverted rationalization.”

I knew you’d say that.  Now tell me what the current credit crunch has to do with Bush?

Iraq is not a fetus.  After more than five years, 1.1 million Iraqi deaths, the deaths of more than 4,000 American soldiers (all from the working class), an unknown number of mercenary deaths and the squandering of $3 trillion from the U.S. treasury, “pulling out” immediately (aka bringing this imperial folly to an abrupt end) is not “premature.” Any who suggests otherwise is neither “smart nor informed.”

“Neither do most people cast their vote on a single issue, and there were numerous other reasons to support Bush over the competition that have also turned out to be good ones; the ensuing strong economy to name one.”

You can’t be serious!?

Our economy is in a shambles.  As for an early pull-out from Iraq, this is typical perverted rationalization. 

As for Brameld, I am certain I got the true meaning of his response to my question.

Please note: my post above was a reply to:

By AnnMullins, April 18 at 8:25 pm #
(1 comments total)
Re: Re: Robert Scheer is Disingenuous

...not to G. Anderson’s post.

The Republicans, being less idealistic than others and more aware of the gulf between their leadership and the average guy, have used advertising most ruthlessly and successfully. (Techniques from focus groups to scans of brain temperature changes).
The point is that there is a monumental amount of intentional miseducation going on, and its working. Fifteen percent still think Obama is Muslin. How to state it clearly? People don’t have mountains of time to untangle every upsetting, confusing thing they hear. Democracy requires that the time people have to inform themselves not be wasted on miseducation. I would like to see warning labels running along the bottom of bad tv about things like hiring a friend to represent your opponent really badly, distortion of your opponents position, cherry-picked facts, conflict of interest, insinuating some halftruth into the public dialog through brute force repetition. I would like a rotating jury of ordinary people to be able to decide the stories they want to hear, and for every broadcaster to be required to devote some hours each day to these stories and public education about politics, civics and history, with dynamic interesting and honest educators. I would like to see public Universities develop a set of facts, debateable online, that would have to be dealt with as the facts accepted by x percent of knowledgeable folk as true.

It tells me that I don’t know what “MMM” stands for.

But more importantly, your question to Brameld presupposes that you know what’s in the country’s best interests (and that the masses don’t).  That makes it a loaded question.