They read your email.
They listen to your phone conversations.
They have the right to enter your home without your knowledge and search it.
They can collect what you read at the library, grab you off the street and imprison you – whisk you away to some location, domestic or foreign, torture you. hold you indefinitely without charges.
They make you remove your shoes, your laptop, take off your jacket. Produce your identification three or four times just to board a flight.
They have satellites that can pick you out in a crowd at the Superbowl, drones that can kill you in the middle of a wedding, software that can track the movements of your money anywhere in a banking systems with trillions upon trillions of dollars flowng at blinding speeds.
They have files on you – your mother, father, friends, who you are sleeping with, and how much you paid for the privilege.
This is all, they say, to keep you safe.
This is because the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
But, let a father walk in to an embassy and tell them his son is acting strange – that he may be harmful to himself and you – and all those things we mention are useless to stop the young man from getting on a plane and killing hundreds of people – people who are walking today only owing to his incompetence or to something worse: That he was setup to take a fall.
In the end, all the money being spent, and all the whiz bang technology, is merely a pretext for a special interest to maintain itself at your expense – on your dime, and at the price of your freedom.
This is a chart of the estimated industrial capacity of the United States since 1948. It is compiled based on data provided by the Federal Reserve.
(The inset shows the most recent data.)
According the authors of the index,
The Federal Reserve’s monthly index of industrial production and the related capacity indexes and capacity utilization rates cover manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities. The industrial sector, together with construction, accounts for the bulk of the variation in national output over the course of the business cycle. The industrial detail provided by these measures helps illuminate structural developments in the economy ... The capacity index, which is an estimate of sustainable potential output, is also expressed as a percentage of actual output in 2002.
Industrial capacity is a measure – an estimate – of an economy’s ability to produce goods. This is not to be confused with the amount of goods an economy actually produces, however, which, in normal circumstances, will be somewhat less than its capacity. Capacity is how much we can produce if we need to; it is not how much we are producing.
As you can see by looking at the chart, in the entire post-war history of the United States, despite nine recessions of varying intensities, there was never a contraction of the American economy’s capacity to produce goods.Year after year, decade after decade, despite recessions, wars, inflation, etc., the ability of the US economy to produce more than it had the previous year always grew. The very suggestion that the United States of America might have less productive capacity than it had the year before would have been seen as a bad joke.
That is, until 2003.
As of November in that year the total industrial capacity of the United States stood .46 points lower on the Federal Reserve’s index of such things than it had in November 2002. This was followed by another, smaller, fall by November 2004 of .18 points.
For some odd reason, this passed without remark by any official government spokesman, nor questions by any media outlet. It was a non-event – in the way the sudden disappearance of a minor moon of Jupiter might be considered a non-event: A piece of data that might only insignificantly affect the memory pool of the communal consciousness – rippling lightly across it, and leaving no permanent trace of having been.
This unremarked event has now been followed this November by a similar YOY fall in US industrial capacity of a larger magnitude – nearly 3 times greater than the combined fall of the two previous years, or 1.72 points on the Federal Reserves index of such things. Something, previously unthinkable, occurs two years in a row, and then happens a third time – this time greater than the combined previous two times.
According to Clusterstock.com – an investor site,
This capacity destruction was likely the result of inefficient and outdated U.S. capacity being rendered uncompetitive as the economic downturn separated the wheat from the chaff.
The writers, Vincent Fernando and Kamelia Angelova, asks the obvious question:
Is it a bad thing? Actually, no. The removal of uncompetitive capacity means that the remaining players face less over-capacity going forward. If there are too many weak players, they all kill each other via price competition. In the long-run this is what we want to happen — weaker players are mothballed during downturns, making room for stronger ones.
The obvious objection to that sanguine view are the previous sixty data points on our chart. During that period of unbroken increases in the expansion of US productive capacity a lot of “weaker players were mothballed.” The writers at Clusterstock are clearly confusing competition with the ability to produce. And, despite decades of rising capacity to produce, the US never experienced deflation.
For decades, uncompetitive, obsolete capacity was mothballed, driven into bankruptcy, ruined, but, total manufacturing capacity always expanded. Thousands of autoworkers were laid off, but capacity expanded. Detroit was turned into a ghost town, but capacity expanded. The Rust Belt flowered throughout the Midwest, jobs ran south, and then to Mexico and China – but capacity expanded.
Capacity to produce always expanded.
It is what capitalism does.
There is no cure for it.
You can’t negotiate with capitalism about this, threaten it, cajole it, bribe it, or, shame it into not expanding capacity to produce. The moment capitalism stops expanding manufacturing capacity, is the moment it dies.
So, if Wall Street is destroying manufacturing capacity in the United States, you just might want to know where they are expanding it.
Last week, Jane Hamsher shocked progressives by joining one of the arch enemies of big government, Grover Norquist, in demanding the investigation and prosecution of Rahm Emmanuel on charges related to Washington’s housing market debacle.
Grover Norquist is best known for his statement:
I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
In the following excerpt, Hamsher explains her tack:
So, it’s not an issue of “personalities.” It never should be. It’s about principles. And principles aren’t pliant — you either have them or you don’t. You can’t just use them as a yardstick to measure the inadequacy of people you don’t like, and then throw them away when it comes to your “friends.”
Rahm Emanuel is destroying not only the Democratic majority but the Democratic Party. There isn’t enough pork in the world to hold his “Blue Dogs” in office with the legacy of bailouts that he has engineered, and that’s why his “big tent” is now collapsing in his wake. Parker Griffin, and now (possibly) Chris Carney, may blame Nancy Pelosi for their defections to the GOP, but that’s pure demagogurery. The mess they are fleeing — the corrupt back-room deals, the endless bailouts — belong to Rahm.
The ground is shifting. You can feel it. And the Rahm dead-enders have become no different than the Bush dead-enders, completely unaware that the President whose malfeasance they are defending on the basis that one must not “consort with Republicans” is the one who ran on — consorting with Republicans. It is knee-jerk authoritarianism in the extreme. Rick Warren is okay because Obama says so. Principles? Who needs them.
If Obama/Rahm want to triangulate against progressives (and they do), they’re not the only ones who can make cause with people on the other side of the aisle. If that’s what it takes to shake up the corporate domination of our political system, we’ve done it before and we can do it again. Because working within the traditional political order to support “progressives” whose conviction lasts only as long as it doesn’t matter just doesn’t seem to be working.
As viewed by Chris Bowers, in an Alternet piece: Marginalized, and impotent, it is slowly beginning to dawn on progressives that they are irrelevant to the Messiah:
Overall, this leaves progressives on the short-end of an ideological divide within the American center-left, with relatively little organizational ability to shift that hierarchy, and facing the very real prospect of being squashed if they step out of line. This is why so many progressives are frustrated right now.
The pitiful thing is Bowers has absolutely no idea how progressives differ from the Washington mainstream. Waterboard this analyst, and he still could not come up with a single policy difference between the Messiah and his progressive allies. Progessives demand more power be given to Washington over significant portions of the economy, and Washington keeps out-sourcing that additional power to its cronies on Wall Street:
These are the three major examples of the difference between the left-progressive view of government and [Washington’s] view of government. To solve major problems, from health care to climate change to the financial crisis to education (an example Kilgore discusses in his piece), [Washington’s] philosophy is not for the public sector to take over where the private sector has failed (which would have meant temporary bank nationalization, carbon tax, single payer / expanded public options, and equitable education funding) but instead to use a heavily subsidized and moderately regulated private sector (which meant purchasing toxic assets and loan interest loans to struggling banks, non-auctioned cap and trade, health insurance mandate with subsidies, and charter schools).
So, it all comes down to whether an irretrievably corrupt Washington will educate our children, care for the sick, and protect the environment, or whether it will be out-sourced to the Wall Street cronies of this same irretrievably corrupt Washington.
But, Bowers doesn’t even have the courage of principles to label Washington corrupt to its core. Washington is not engaged in the worst kind of crony capitalism, it is merely committed to relying on private means to accomplish public good. To drive home his point, he quotes another writer:
To put it simply, and perhaps over-simply, on a variety of fronts (most notably financial restructuring and health care reform, but arguably on climate change as well), the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. This approach was a hallmark of the so-called Clintonian, “New Democrat” movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as “the Third Way,” which often defended the use of private means for public ends.
What we are witnessing here, in other words, is not the continued fusion of the most predatory and unequaled economic power with the very machinery of state, to the exclusion of all other human and global environmental considerations, but the mere out-sourcing of good government practices to the private sector.
In our last post, you probably noticed something that not even young Raj has discovered yet about the field of economics: One can decide to provide unemployment benefits to a population of ruined workers, or one can leave them to their fate. However, as Raj points out, policy makers’ choices have consequences:
“Standard models predict that we should have no safety net,” said Chetty … [but] because most Americans have so much income tied up in fixed commitments, such as payments for houses, cars, and furniture. “There are a lot of things you can’t adjust in the short term” …
Unemployment compensation should be provided, in other words, because if people aren’t provided an income to make up for their lost wages, gangsters on Wall Street can’t collect on their debts. See, you have to continue eating, so Wall Street can get paid.
If you were paying attention you also caught how it neatly fits with the introductory statement to the piece regarding the food chain:
Occasionally, an economist will say something that makes it all clear exactly your position in the food chain.
That, even though we did not intend it, neatly sums up your position in life: domesticated animal:
Moo, motherfucker. Moo!
Occasionally, an economist will say something that makes it all clear exactly your position in the food chain. This one was just a link on Angry Bear to an article on still another blog:
“All of our current models prefer people to starve and die.”
A link on the second blog will take you to this article in the Harvard Gazette about a young prodigy – a tenured professor of economics – who has discovered that economics is a load of crap.
What! An economist who admits his field is pure ideological claptrap?
Okay, not actually.
His insight is limited to the conclusion that economic models used today miss something important: reality.
[Raj] Chetty, who just turned 30, is looking for ways to make the serenity of mathematical economic theory more descriptive of the tangle of economics in the real world. “People are not human calculators,” he said, and so sometimes make decisions that defy traditional models of economic theory.
As is to be expected in a profession that is highly politicized by Washington’s pretense that its particular interests are in fact the general interest of society – indeed the world – Raj has set out to fix this problem – and, apparently, he is drawing some attention for it – not by burying economics, but seeking to remedy its defects with some ingenious work around.
In one example provided by the article, Raj explains that the standard models argue against any support for unemployed families in the middle of this economic collapse:
When someone is laid off, should the government provide high benefits? Traditional theory says no, since big benefits seemingly reduce the incentive to find a job. “Standard models predict that we should have no safety net,” said Chetty.
Okay, fine. But then you run into the problem that, eventually, families without any income can’t pay off their debts, mortgages, or rent, buy groceries, clothes, heating oil, 42 inch high definition wide screen televisions, and lose all connection with the economy, and finally die from starvation under a bridge. And, since people who have no income can’t do all of the things we mentioned, banks, shops, landlords, car dealerships, and eventually even Wal-Mart go belly up:
But in reality, higher benefits are more in line with actual needs, because most Americans have so much income tied up in fixed commitments, such as payments for houses, cars, and furniture. “There are a lot of things you can’t adjust in the short term,” he said.
So the traditional economic models that are used to determine unemployment benefits miss a simple fact: People have bills to pay. “You miss certain features of reality,” said Chetty, “when you’re trying to write down simple models of the world.”
The question to be raised at this point is not how this can be fixed, but how anyone, much less a 30 year old tenured professor, at one of the nation’s most prestigious and influential universities, could admit to using a model which fundamentally ignores the fact that a starving population of indebted workers might be bad for business?
Is there, in any other branch of science, a model of the real world that suffers such a defect?
Could medicine argue that the efficacy of some particular treatment of a disease does not depend on whether the patient is alive and breathing, or decomposing in the graveyard?
“He’s dead – too bad! Well, at least we can treat that cold!”
According to Jesse,
Obama is captive to special interests, as are many of the key members of the Congress, and the Obama Administration, and the Federal Reserve. And I should add his two predecessors.
It explains why he cannot articulate a coherent ideological position and make it stick. Make no mistake, he is a smart and verbally adept individual, a gifted person intellectually. But he cannot adhere to principles because he has abandoned whatever principles he may have had to serve a variety of corrupting interests. And he appears laissez faire and distant because he is a figurehead, a household servant, and not in control.
We think Jesse has it exactly backwards: The Messiah is not a captive of special interests, he is just the member of that exclusive club who made it past the auditions with the rubes. All the principal candidates of the two parties in last year’s election could have served, more or less, as close substitutes had they garnered more votes than he – McCain, Clinton, Romney, etc.
When this is no longer true – when a candidate emerges who does not fit this profile – you will know it, because the military will be patrolling the streets of America before the election.
We will be told that, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” or, something to that effect.
With great passion, they will quote that slave owning serial rapist, Thomas Jefferson:
[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.