Wednesday, September 12, 2012

The Bible’s Bias and Billionaires


I grew up as an Iowa farm boy in the late 40's and 50's.  I was raised in what we considered to be a very conservative family.  Things were different back then.  Conservative meant responsibility for family, community and nation, and for following the Bible.  Good Christians were those who worked hard and shared their often meager resources with neighbors and also strangers in need.   "Gay" meant happy and none of us kids knew what an "abortion" was.   People seemed much less interested in the sex lives of others.  Maybe we were all so busy on the farm that there wasn't much time for speculation.  It could also be that we had a different standard about what was just none of our business. 

It seems like more recent conservative preoccupation with these personal issues has led us off track.  When you read the New Testament it's easy to see that a bulk of admonitions and guidance are related to social justice and care for vulnerable families, not reproductive issues.  It concerns me that we allow the modern conservative movement to claim that the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality and abortion are to be government enforced by public law when they comprise so few verses.  Then the same groups claim that the extensive Biblical exhortations for a fair economy, to treat the poor with compassion and justice, are none of the government's business but to be performed by private charities. 

 

The American Bible Society has recently published "The Poverty and Justice Bible" as a companion to its new translation, "Contemporary English Version." A total of more than 2000 verses are highlighted, condemning cheating the poor, unjust wages, and greedily depriving the earth, animals and workers of their God-given right to Sabbath rest. These highlighted scriptures promote God's way of doing economics and government, calling humankind to repent and work out God's salvation. The Bible's agenda of poverty and injustice thus competes with the modern Christian agenda based on microscopically fewer words. Human survival, as well as that of our families and nation, depends more on obeying God's dominant moral teachings, as written. That's been my opinion for decades. I know this opinion runs against that of most conservatives today, many I consider good friends. So I was astounded to read a NewsMax article last week shaking my perception that modern conservatives have abandoned the Bible's dominant agenda.  

 

Conservative media sources, led by "NewsMax," have discovered that Wall Street has conned both political parties into legislating a deregulation regime, creating an unprecedented wealth gap in our economy, and bringing our nation to the brink of economic disaster.  Check out this enlightening article: "Nobel Economist Steiglitz: Wealth Gap Causes All of America's Woes. " I was surprised at the apparent abandonment of their pet trickle-down economics.  It seems that modern conservatives are starting to accept that accumulation of wealth among a few is not what creates a common good strong enough to meet needs of our poorest citizens. 

 

Steiglitz makes a powerful point that inequality has always been justified based on the concept that people with the most money actually create wealth for others.  The recent financial crisis has clearly illustrated this to be a myth.  Those who brought the economy to ruin are the same people who have walked away with billions of dollars. Welfare corruption at the bottom end of the national wealth spectrum doesn't hold a candle to the taxpayer paid excess going to the top end. Here in Big Horn County, we'll be paying the bill to recover from their greed for generations.  I doubt those with the money will be doing anything to stimulate our economy.   Is there hope for change this election year? My guess is our burden will continue of working hard to pay both our own living expenses and simultaneously that of America's richest corporate class's excesses. Maybe it will be eased slightly if the Democrats win this November.  I only wish the Republicans would seize the moment and make this a big difference with the Democrats. It's a simple matter of siding with the 99% of us, which would scare the Democrats spitless. It would be an impossibly huge policy change, wouldn't it?

 

Let's hope realists in the conservative camp, like those exploring these issues cited in the Steiglitz column, don't get debunked, branded liberal class warfare extremists, and silenced by the big money media censor mill. From my own conservative roots, I claim their findings as squarely in the center of the conservative philosophy into which I was born in a farmhouse in Iowa in 1942.

 Here's Steiglitz, featured in NewsMax, from his new book, "The Price of Inequality," referring to the major 2008 meltdown, and inadvertently reflecting the Bible's prominent agenda in America today: 
"It may have been a prosperous two decades. But it wasn't like we all shared in this prosperity.
"The financial crisis really made this easy to understand. Inequality has always been justified on the grounds that those at the top contributed more to the economy — 'the job creators.'
"Then came 2008 and 2009, and you saw these guys who brought the economy to the brink of ruin walking off with hundreds of millions of dollars. And you couldn't justify that in terms of contribution to society.
"The myth had been sold to people, and all of a sudden it was apparent to everybody that it was a lie.
"Mitt Romney has called concerns about inequality the 'politics of envy.' Well, that's wrong. Envy would be saying, 'He's doing so much better than me. I'm jealous.' This is: 'Why is he getting so much money, and he brought us to the brink of ruin?' And those who worked hard are the ones ruined. It's a question of fairness."
These new (to conservatives) ideas are the focus of a video by Newt Gingrich, Lou Dobbs and others marketing a new investment strategy to maintain personal wealth in this ruinous economic environment. So one can watch the video with either the goal of protecting ones' six figure investments, or with the goal of understanding and remedying the growing citizen suffering for these errors (sins?) in our national governance, both by the elected government and the governing business sectors.

The video presenters have chosen the first goal. But Steiglitz and these conservative leaders are now at least acknowledging the foolish and immoral errors causing our American problem of poverty and injustice. That's the focus of the Bible too, but with healing and hope instead of protection of personal wealth. Read the Bible for the one side, and watch the video for the other.  Either way, it's time the truth gets out on what's wrong with our economy today.  http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/dr-krugman-schools-flabbergasted-rand-paul-govt-employment-going-down-under-obama?akid=9369.144927.vOoj86&rd=1&src=newsletter707734&t=3

On the same lines, here is Jeremiah Goulka. He writes about American politics and culture.  His most recent work has been published in the American Prospect and Salon.  He was formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, a recovery worker in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice. He has recently switched from committed centrist Republican to the Democratic party. Read this link and wonder: Could the above information bring him back to the Republican Party fold?  http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/political-awakening-republican-i-had-viewed-whole-swaths-country-and-world-second?paging=off

David Graber
Hardin, MT  59034

graberdb@gmail.com

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Why?

Why are times so hard?

 

Why do times seem tough for so many people across the country and right here in Big Horn County?   We keep hearing about more and more young families who are unable to earn enough money to support themselves and their children.   It seems like even small financial setbacks are bankrupting more of us, who consider ourselves middle class.  We're losing the equity in our homes and our retirement funds are drying up.   That's before we start factoring in the devastation of medical costs (even for those of us with high quality health insurance coverage). 

 

Listening to the news of the day, you'd think all of this economic turmoil was being caused by people in our society who choose not to work hard.   These are the folks who receive public subsidies or "entitlements" in the form of TANF, Medicaid, or Medicare.  The theory is that these moochers keep our tax rates too high, which keeps us from being able to save and invest in our own futures.   Yet, I can't help noticing that a lot of mooching seems to be going on at the other end of the wealth spectrum. 

 

They are the ones who sold us on the idea that our problem is excessive government spending, not their revenue withholding. Here's a link to research sources proving a simple observation: ending tax evasion and tax havens for the moochers would be enough to bury our trillion-dollar deficit: http://www.nationofchange.org/add-it-taxes-avoided-rich-could-pay-deficit-1346074084

This source includes several logical ways to approach this one big elephant-in-the-Republican-room problem no politicians seems to want to talk about.

 

It reminds me of a situation we had out on the farm not too long ago.  We were troubled with varmints stealing into our chicken coop and dining on our chickens here on the Back 40.  I fastened chicken wire over, under and around every square inch of that coop to stop our chicken meat disappearing.   One morning, a few weeks after the chicken wire intervention, one of the chickens didn't exit the coop when it was opened.  My granddaughter noticed it struggling to stand up on one leg and sitting right back down. I crawled in, picked the bird up and found it only had one leg, and was still bleeding from the cavity of the missing leg. It took a while to find the blood stained chicken wire hole through which that leg was yanked and gnawed off. 

 

My simple solution had looked so perfect. I trusted chicken wire. It was obvious no varmint could slip through those holes.   While I was busy shoring up the chicken wire, those smart thieves were just waiting for a chicken leg to emerge from my carefully constructed security system.  They had all night to watch and wait, while I was busy taking care of farm business.  It makes me think of those wealthy varmints in our country.  These are the people who are increasing their own entitlement income while conspiring to replace Medicare and Obamacare with something to raise our own health care costs and their profits.  They only need to get one big bite out of each of us to make their fortunes.  We're left disabled, while they walk away with full bellies.  They're busy out in Washington D.C.  setting up a budget that will require raising taxes on all but the richest citizens, in order to fund special interests and continue corporate welfare.  In the meantime, we're worried about keeping those indigent people out of our chicken coops. 

 

The problem is that we lose to the moochers, regardless of whether they have more or fewer resources than us.  We become easy targets for those who exploit us by raising prices, sending jobs overseas, or lowering wages for higher short-term profits.  After getting their payout, CEOs have little compunction about bankrupting the companies they run, thereby devaluing our mutual fund portfolios (a.k.a. retirement accounts). 

 

Most of us simply don't discuss the divided economics and politics of why any more. It has become too contentious to speak of these things in public.  Our voice from Big Horn County may not represent many of the moochers at the top, whose voice is heard all over the media loudly denying the charges of, say, the Occupy Wall Street crowd. More of us are near the bottom of our economic ladder, dropped from the significant middle class of the 80's.  We resent being even remotely associated with living off the labors of others.  This may keep us from really thinking about what's happening to the middle class and how we are going to protect our own self-sufficiency in the coming decades. 

 

The national adversarial conversation promoted by the media victimizes us to blindness to any but one side of the answer: ours. News is no longer "The News," representing a variety of points of view rather than just one, like decades ago with David Brinkley or Chet Huntley. Now "News" on TV, radio, on line or cable is tailored to conform to a particular bias. It gives us ready answers, conservative or liberal answers decided by its perception of our point of view, with plenty of counterpunch ideas on why the other point of view is wrong, dangerous, unpatriotic, or totally stupid. Even in our families, we seldom listen to each other on issues that divide us, each with a different "totally right" answer to why the current state of the world, our nation, and Big Horn County is so dismal.

 

In my previous column I asserted that big government and big business have so mixed themselves up with each other we the people can't any longer tell them apart.  The corrupt conflicts of interest have made our arguments over blaming one or the other irrelevant. This week I am unveiling two kinds of moochers in our economy. The one at the bottom is featured in the media and highlighted by Ayn Rand and the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. The other is denied and justified, but its control of our national conversation over our economy are the reasons why we the people have given up even talking about the economic stress our families know today. This highlights the need to restore the legal structure of a fair economy built after our Great Depression and dismantled over the last half century. If we don't, the class warfare between the two grand moochers of our economy will spill out of our prison system into our streets, and racial conflict and revolution will attack our nation.

 

Some examples

Why in New York City are there more empty homes than homeless people? Is it only because these homes were foreclosed and are now owned by banks?

 

Last week, the Justice Department announced it wasn't going to prosecute Goldman Sachs or its employees for its shady activities during the mortgage crisis. The same day, Goldman disclosed in a regulatory filing that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had dropped an investigation into a troubled $1.3 billion residential mortgage-backed securities deal launched in 2006.

For more on this and other info on Banks: http://www.alternet.org/economy/uncle-sam-needs-you-bailout-6-reasons-another-big-banking-crisis-coming-our-way

 

Why does Jamie Diamond lose $9billion placing bad bets with money borrowed from his Chase Morgan bank, and get bailed out? Is in only because he regulates his own bank as a powerful member of the Federal Security and Exchange Commission, which gives him the power to grab taxpayer moneys to cover his losses? Who regulates such regulators? Why don't they do their job?

 

Why did Obama bail out mortgage banks to the tune of $700billion and not bail out the individual citizens losing their homes through mortgage default? More important, why did the subsequent $7trillion bailout subsidy of the financial sector get passed by congress with barely a whimper?

http://themoderatevoice.com/130732/secret-federal-reserve-loans-of-7-8-trillion-yield-13-billion-to-banks/

 

Why is BP in charge of the cleanup of the Gulf oil spill, and doing the job of the government program responsible for monitoring potential environmental disasters from our national fossil fuel appetite? http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2012/03/bps_oil_spill_cleanup_isnt_don.html

 

 

Why has our government abdicated its responsibility to us and turned over regulation to the interests needing the regulation? Doe self-regulation work? Can children nurture and raise themselves into responsible adulthood? Can foxes monitor the safety of hens in the hen house? Can chickens be safe from chicken moochers when the chicken wire doesn't work right?

http://dumpdimon.com/

http://gadfly.igc.org/progressive/corp-reg.htm

 

 


--
David Graber

Hardin, MT  59034

www.greenwoodfarmmt.org
graberdb@gmail.com


Friday, August 17, 2012

The Biggest Lie of 2012


Republicans believe government must be smaller, that it feeds off the public, and that it reduces the self-sufficiency of families.   They believe government steals our money through taxes, and its touted hostility toward businesses sends those jobs overseas and previously middle class families suffer deprivation.

Democrats believe government has grown too weak to regulate the biggest business sectors like banks, energy and health.  They believe capitalism has gone cutthroat and lost Adam Smith's bottom line—the common good.  They believe the middle and working classes have lost jobs, homes, and lives due to corporate greed.   They also feel that millions of American families suffer deprivation as a result of high prices.

The leadership of both parties—read Romney and Obama—have left unchallenged the false notion that business and government are separate and in competition, like they used to be when our free enterprise system functioned. They aren’t separate anymore; the assumption they are separate is the biggest lie. Big business is now in bed with government more than ever before. Government is governed by big money more than ever before. Republican and Democratic leadership are the same flock of turkeys, noisily competing with each other over taxpayer morsels by the $billions. That flock has infiltrated the private and public sector so extensively that politicians/business execs easily and quickly exchange identities and claim exaggerated loyalty to us the people where there is none. So the real story, yet untold, involves politicians from both camps competing over billions of dollars in spoils from the dying middle class.  Could the weekly political crises, promoted for media outlet profit and fueled by people’s frustration, actually be contrived to divert people from this issue?

I was reminded of our current dilemma yesterday, as my family's flock of turkeys followed me around the fields.  My granddaughter, Hannah, taught our seven baby turkeys how to scratch and peck last spring.  Now this August, they are perfectly capable of fending for themselves, as they range the farm.  However, they much prefer that I catch insects for them.  I gave in to their begging yesterday, mostly because they're so darn cute, and offered up a large grasshopper for their consumption.  I was quickly overwhelmed with the demand for more, as turkeys began pecking at my buttons and eyeglasses.  At that moment, those little creatures seemed to really believe that their existence depended on me, even though they had the skills to feed themselves.  Of course, they really do need me to help them out of a jam, like when they get caught on the wrong side of the fence and lose their freedom to range where they want. 

I wonder how we can get back to a philosophy of working together to help each other in times of genuine need, without creating systems of dependency.  Is there a way to back out of our current all or nothing thinking regarding the evils of government or the evils of the corporate take-over of America?  I wonder whether we all find ourselves believing the same big lie, that government and industry are easily distinguishable enemies. 

Those hating "Big Business" want to keep their social security payments and medicare benefits as a safety net for retirement.  Those distrusting government programs want the business sector to guarantee retirement benefits and health care insurance.  Either way, we fall prey to the lie that the two have not become one.   They have.  In the meantime, we have a big mess with our economy, class warfare is threatening, and basic freedoms are falling by the wayside.  Families who have gone broke or suffered human losses from inadequate health care have little hope since Obamacare and Romneycare, and whatever either winner might regurgitate after November 11, will be caught in the same confusion. 

Witness the turkey gathering around Medicare, Medicaid and social security, the big cash cows congress and investment banks have conspired to peck into for a century. Says Romney on CBS, "There's only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion…" Yet that's precisely the Congressional Budget Office estimate of the savings to this country under Obamacare. Further, the GOP plan keeps that Obamacare savings plan intact. Yes, Romney and Ryan are reasonable enough to know Obamacare is right for America, so their plan duplicates the savings of $716 billion.  

So why do these turkeys so badly misrepresent reality? Why are Republican leaders sold on Obamacare's central plans to slow the growth of Medicare over the next decade, eliminate overpayments to private insurers, reform provider payments for greater efficiency, tie reimbursements to improvements in economic productivity, and set up programs to reduce fraud and abuse? Because it puts a useful band-aid over the bleeding of America, while keeping in place the confused network of myriad conflicts of interest between government and the private sector, involving trillions of our American dollars to be gobbled up. Some turkeys.


Perhaps we could start by restoring the clear separation of government and business so that we, the people, can again clearly monitor what's going on between them.  That's what our founding fathers believed. It's what President Eisenhower warned us about. It's what the Glass Steagall act was designed in the '30's to remedy. It's what the Roosevelt trust busting program was about. And it's what Republicans and Democrats conspired together to mix up and confuse in the last half-century.

--
David Graber
Hardin, MT  59034

graberdb@gmail.com


Sunday, August 5, 2012

How we got gun un-control


Gun control is such a taboo subject among my friends and family in Big Horn County it's hard to find the correct language for a rational discussion.

I learned to handle a gun and to hunt almost by the time I could walk to school. We needed to hunt to put food on the table back then. I remember carrying my new .22 single shot to school and hiding it behind coats in the cloakroom so we could hunt on the way home. But the teacher found it, and Dad put a stop to this. He was a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and sympathetic, but he also believed in teaching us how to safely and responsibly handle firearms. By the time my two brothers and I graduated from a Benjamin BB gun pump air rifle to a single shot .22, Dad paid the dues for us to join the NRA. As junior members, well before it was required to get a hunting license, we took a county NRA gun safety course for teenagers. The NRA supported government regulation of guns then. From their course I learned responsibility to society and to the American government. That was before it was taken over by gun marketers/politicians.

I remember, as a young teenager, trying to buy ammo at the local hardware store. I was turned down because I wasn't old enough. I also remember helping a neighbor grind off the small nib in the action of his .22 automatic rifle to make it fully automatic. Then we went rabbit hunting, and held the trigger down for a dozen very fast shots—emptying the tubular magazine and scorching the barrel—while tracking the running rabbit with the open sights and ruining the meat with multiple shots. That was great fun until Dad informed us we were violating the law. It was against federal gun regulations to have in possession a fully automatic weapon. He told us the police could come take that gun away. We tried but succeeded only in making the action jamb every time for the second shot. I felt bad about helping ruin that gun.

Things changed rapidly after the assassination of JFK, in 1963. During the following months and years, political assassinations escalated. That's when the NRA changed its focus from supporting hunters and promoting family hunting into political action. Their attempts to remove government regulation of gun ownership have been astonishingly effective. It's amazing when you consider that the American people have maintained their power to regulate automobiles, fireworks, dynamite, and pesticides. All of these can and do become lethal, and can even turn into lethal weapons. Yet, the NRA has succeeded in propagandizing America citizens to accept placing firearms out of reach of the oversight and safety rules of our elected government representatives. Children, criminals and psychopaths can now bypass government regulations via private citizen dealers at gun shows or the internet and purchase firearms making huge profits for gun manufacturers and marketers.

It didn't take long to convince people that any regulation of destructive weaponry was a violation of their Constitutional rights. The NRA became an association of gun marketers and manufacturers, who promoted a lucrative political conspiracy theory that the government is going to confiscate our guns. Money continues to pour from gun business NRA affiliates to media and political coffers to help support this propaganda. When you follow the money trail, it's easy to see who benefits the most from the last decades of removing more and more government control of guns.

 
My Dad was troubled by the NRA's change in focus. He didn't want to lose the right to own his double barrel ten-gauge, but also couldn't understand unrestricted access to weapons of mass destruction. I think many of us struggle with this all or nothing interpretation of our Constitution. Guns with huge magazines and capacity for rapid firing, built in the US and sold around the world, are now being designed and marketed to kill and maim human beings en masse. Features making little sense to hunters, but appealing to a criminal mind, such as easy concealment, stealth, silencing technology, and long range sniping ability have become NRA-promoted selling points.

I still have my guns, plus a few more. I continue to laugh at my brother, who claims I am naïve in thinking the United States government has never and will never confiscate my guns. My two brothers bought the propaganda, have become part of the NRA marketing clientele. The many non-hunting weapons proliferated here and around the world, purchased by law-abiding citizens such as my family members, could do massive carnage if the Armageddon predicted by a sector of Christians here and nationwide were to become a real civil war. I question whether those who happen to own the most weapons should have the power to overthrow our elected government. If our government has gone wrong, we have a more effective and legitimate means to overthrow it: the ballot box.

The Bible says we should love our neighbors, but I'd feel better if mine didn't have weapon stockpiles in their backyards or machine guns at the movies. How about you?

Follow the links below, also available on Alternet.org, to significant gun-un-control measures where a majority of citizen NRA members oppose the NRA leadership:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/opinion/la-ed-guns16-2009dec16

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/editorials

Gun control's NRA supporters

 

1. Editorial from LaTimes

A poll finds surprising support among NRA members for some aspects of gun control.

December 16, 2009

Gun control is one of those culture-wars issues on which liberals and conservatives often don't even seem to be speaking the same language, let alone coming to consensus. Gun owners -- especially the hard-core enthusiasts who belong to the National Rifle Assn. -- are often thought to oppose any restriction on their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Except that, according to a recent poll, they don't.

The gun-control debate is replete with suspect polls and fishy statistical analyses, so when Mayors Against Illegal Guns set out to survey gun owners, it knew it would be accused of putting a liberal slant on the questions. That's why the group, a coalition of 500 mayors started in 2006 by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, hired a conservative pollster to do the job: Frank Luntz, an occasional commentator on the Fox News Channel. Luntz surveyed 401 NRA members and 431 gun owners who don't belong to the group, and came up with some surprising results.

 

2.  Controls on gun purchase and ownership.

If you are put on the U.S. terror watch list you cannot board an airplane. You can, however, still purchase guns and explosives. According to the Government Accountability Office, "From February 2004 through February 2010, 1,228 individuals on the watch list underwent background checks to purchase firearms or explosives; 1,119, or 91 percent, of these transactions were approved."

NRA members understand this even if their leadership stubbornly tries to protect the gun-ownership rights of terrorists (but they're patriots, I tell you!). Eighty-two percent of NRA members think this gap should be closed.

 

 

3. Tiahrt Amendments

Named in honor of all-around clod, former Kansas Republican Congressman Todd Tiahrt, this is part of the NRA's constant effort to hamper, harass and harangue any government effort to get to the bottom of how guns came to be used in a crime. These amendments, attached to federal spending bills, do their best to severely limit law enforcement's ability to access, use and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws.

Not surprisingly, while these are a big hit at NRA HQ and among those members of Congress so graced with their campaign contributions, 69% of their own members have come to the logical conclusion that this is a pretty bad idea, as have 74% of non-NRA gun owners who think there should be no barriers to information-sharing between federal agencies and police when it comes to gun crimes.

 

 

4. Reporting Lost and Stolen Guns

Supporting provisions requiring this would seem to be only common sense. But there is not much of that present among the NRA's leadership. For example, the NRA has not only fought all efforts to make reporting lost or stolen guns to the police a requirement, but in Pennsylvania, where scores of cities and townships have picked up the slack by passing these measures themselves, the fine Americans and conservative-lawsuit-abuse haters at the NRA have actually threatened to sue to overturn these laws. Yes, you read that correctly, our friends who love state and local rights when it comes to allowing a kid to stay on their parent's healthcare policy until they are 26, don't feel so much the same way about guns.

NRA members would seem to disagree: 78% of them think this provision would be a good idea, as do 88% of non-NRA gun owners.

 

 

5. Sharing Records With National Instant Background Check System (NICS)

The Fix Gun Checks Act, modeled on ideas developed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was introduced in the wake of the carnage at Tucson by, among others, Senator Chuck Schumer in March 2011. Besides closing the gun-show loophole (see #1), it also sought to fix a huge problem in the current federal background check system--a lax attitude by many states and some federal institutions in sharing records of those ineligible to buy firearms due to criminal record or mental health defects.

For example, Seung-Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, had been declared mentally unfit by a judge in Virginia, and Jared Loughner had been rejected by the military for admitted drug use. Both of these men never should have been able to get anywhere near buying a gun legally. But these records were never shared.

The Fix Gun Checks Act would provide both incentives and penalties to states so that all these records are shared in as timely a manner as possible. But NRA leadership has gone to war with this bill, as with all other efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unfit. Yet, a poll of swing-state voters taken around the time the bill was introduced showed overwhelming support for this concept among gun owners. In Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, Arizona and (most ironically, and sadly) Colorado, more than 82% of gun owners believed states should be fully funded in their efforts to share these records, while 91% supported requiring federal agencies to share information on potentially dangerous persons such as Loughner.

 


--
David Graber

Hardin, MT  59034

www.greenwoodfarmmt.org

graberdb@gmail.com


Thursday, June 21, 2012

God, mammon, and corporations as persons


I like the prophetic humorous bent of a recent article in Sojourners Magazine by Bill McKibben, "Corporations are people, the Supreme Court insists, and hence have the right to dominate our democracy with their money. Which means that the Supreme Court has decided it's really, really Supreme—it doesn't get much more Godlike than manufacturing new people. In fact, this may be the first attempt since Adam's rib surgery."

 

This week the Supreme Court takes up Montana's constitutional appeal to keep our state's rights to regulate corporate takeover of our election funding.  Why is Montana taking on this issue on behalf of our citizens?  States' rights are the surface issue.  The fundamental issue is morality.

 

Last week former governor Brian Schweitzer was interviewed on Yellowstone Public Radio's  "Home Ground." He did a good job of summarizing corruption that plagued Montana when, a century ago, big money overpowered the rights of real people.

 

In his words, "… a miner named William A. Clark came upon a massive copper vein near Butte. It was the largest deposit on earth, and overnight he became one of the wealthiest men in the world. He bought up half the state of Montana, and if he needed favors from politicians, he bought those as well. In 1899 he decided he wanted to become a United States senator. The State Legislature appointed United States senators in those days, so Clark simply gave each corruptible state legislator $10,000 in cash, the equivalent of $250,000 today." The U.S. senate eventually kicked him out when it learned of the bribes.  In 1912, following decades of turmoil, a successful ballot initiative banned corporate money from election campaigns and required financial transparency. This is the Montana law now to be dismantled by the federal government in the "Citizens United" Supreme Court case.

 

It seems the people of Montana were reading their bibles back in 1912.  Interestingly, there are many references to the classic issue of the rights of money-backed power versus human rights in the New Testament.  Jesus' many prophetic utterances often apply directly to this issue, such as, "you cannot serve God and mammon," (Matthew 6.24 and Luke 16.13).  John the Baptist preached a gospel of repentance from mixed worship of both money and God like this, calling people snakes who resisted "bearing fruits of repentance." When they asked what they should do, he said, "Let those who have two coats share with those who have none." (Luke 3.4-20).  Either we trust money and greed to determine our economy, or we trust God's compassion and interest in economic justice for all. Our state's history is solidly on the side of citizens, not "citizens united." Our traditional moral sensibilities along with the Bible's repeated references to God being on the side of  the orphans, widows, landless and poor Should make this issue resolve itself. Seldom are controversial issues so clearly resolved by simple literal Bible reading.

 

Republicans usually prioritize Biblical morality. It's baffling to me that prominent Republicans are confused on this issue.  Can  they keep a straight face while reading  and refuse the literal meaning of scripture? Do they really think corporate executives have inadequate free speech rights as citizens like the rest of us, so must have additional personhood rights of their corporations to exponentially multiply their power of speech over the rest of us? Under this ruling, corruption continues — sanctioned and covered up by the Supreme Court.  

 

People in the rest of the country might be feeling confused about whether corporate rights should exceed citizen rights.  For many of us in Big Horn County, though, it's clear that people, not big money, should control our legislative process.  How else will the rights and interests of those of us who own a Bible, but don't own a gold mine ever prevail?

 

The following comments and links are only in the blog edition, not in the paper:

 

Most shocking to me was the secrecy provision of the Supreme Court's finding of citizens united. This provision alone should be cause for overturning. Shouldn't we all have a right to know exactly which corporations and individuals are spending millions in attack ads to influence elections -- and what their agendas are? That was a key provision of the Montana anti-corruption legislation in 1912, which the Supreme Court's misguided decision would overturn. 

 

The Christians began to use the name of Mammon as a pejorative, a term that was used to describe gluttony and unjust worldly gain in Biblical literature. It was personified as a false god in the New Testament.{Mt.6.24; Lk.16.13} The term is often used to refer to excessive materialism or greed as a negative influence.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/an-invitation-to-keep-money-out-of-politics.html

Governor Brian Schweitzer's editorial that prompted his interview on Yellowstone Public Radio. This is the story of wealthy financier miner William Clark, who bribed his way into the US Senate from Montana.

 

Clark "won" the "election," but when the Senate learned about the bribes, it kicked him out. "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale," Clark complained as he headed back to Montana.

Nevertheless, this type of corruption continued until 1912, when the people of Montana approved a ballot initiative banning corporate money from campaigns (with limited exceptions). We later banned large individual donations, too. Candidates in Montana may not take more than a few hundred dollars from an individual donor per election; a state legislator can't take more than $160. And everything must be disclosed.

 

 

http://www.alternet.org/economy/155538/Paul_Krugman%3A_We_Could_End_This_Depression_Right_Now/?page=2

Paul Krugman: We Could End This Depression Right Now

The Nobel laureate talks about Washington, Europe and the bizarre alternate universe inhabited by deficit fear-mongering media and political elites.

 

E.J. Dionne Jr. a columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He writes in Sojourners Magazine on the obvious citizen rights violations by Supreme Court's citizens united ruling, with the religious implications only hinted:

http://sojo.net/magazine/2012/06/bizarre-and-peculiar-ruling

 

This is one obvious wrong of government policy. Our broken two-party political system may very well leave it unchallenged. Montana's initiative this week is one of several options that may very well help restore sanity to an activist Supreme Court.

 

Can our politicians address the burning issues of the people of our nation instead diverting our attention to issues that inflame and divide us? Here are some real challenges troubling people across the nation but concentrated in Big Horn County, that, if addressed rationally, could build our nation's strength and revitalize our families. Unfortunately, the extremist base of the Republican party including Romney, and most Democratic politicians including President Obama, won't touch these issues.

 

AlterNet / By Louis Ferleger and Jacob M. Magid

How to End the Nightmare of Jobless America

 

Louis A. Ferleger is a professor of history and director of the graduate program at Boston University. Jacob M. Magid is completing his master's degree in economics at Boston University

 

"In Henderson, when a new company moves to the area, the Henderson-Vance County Economic Development Commission schedules a meeting with representatives from local community colleges to determine what programs might be needed to support the enterprise. At Vance Granville Community College, administrators work on instituting and implementing customizable training services for the company's workforce; they also created a new five-year program in which students can earn a high-school degree and an associate degree simultaneously. As a result, high school drop-out rates have fallen and new bio-tech labs have been established.

Business-government partnerships are only one part of what needs to be done to reduce the staggering number of dead zones."

 

 

--
David Graber

Hardin, MT  59034

email graberdb@gmail.com



Thursday, June 7, 2012

Jubilee or judgement day


In the fall of 1974, a fellow teacher in Busby and son of famed wildlife biologist John Craighead, professor of biology at the University of Montana, opened my eyes to a crisis plaguing the grizzly bear population of Yellowstone Park—a crisis that parallels the economic situation of our larger American society today.  We Montanans have made a radical shift in our thinking about grizzly bear survival in Yellowstone Park.  We desperately need a similar radical shift in thinking for the survival of our American families, if not our nation itself.

Early tourists to Yellowstone were enthralled with wildlife, and grizzly bears quickly learned that people--and their garbage cans--meant food.   Rather than learning to dig grubs and catch fish, grizzly cubs followed their mothers to the dumpsters.   Park visitors paid to watch ferocious grizzlies fight over garbage from the safety of a caged-in concrete stadium.  This was far from what the Creator intended for these creatures.  

It was also deadly business. Bear attacks became serious problems in Yellowstone Park as postwar crowds streamed through that habitat, tempting the bears with cameras and snacks. It also took a terrible toll on the wild grizzly population. As their garbage supply dwindled at the end of tourist season, hungry bears began to raid outlying communities.  Cubs starved. Many renegade bears were shot. (The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology In The Yellowstone Ecosystem, by John Craighead and Jay Sumner)

Our naturally self-sufficient American society also needs to develop a new understanding of changes that have happened around us.  Our misguided economy is now destroying families, rather than encouraging appropriate growth and development. It's time to look at reality today, just like we came to realistically appraise Yellowstone bear life in the 70's.  Jubilee could be the answer to setting the bears and us free. 

What is Jubilee?  In short, it's radical redistribution, not so much of wealth, but of the means to make a livelihood. In the Bible, Leviticus 24, it was primarily the restoration of productive land, the primary means of survival then, to children of the owners from fifty years previous. Significantly, it also meant freedom for slaves, release of prisoners, and cancelling of debts. It DID happen in Bible times, contrary to many Bible teachers, but the frequent failure of ancient Israel to practice jubilee is the origin of much of the Bible's prophecy of judgment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_%28biblical%29

It's ironic to read the new Jubilee writing from secular-minded economists, such as the famous Boston Group.

Some of the best economists and historians are warning us all that unless we restructure our private mortgage debts and increase citizen access to our economy as a means of livelihood, we will all suffer as our nation teeters on financial disaster. We could even descend into going at each other over dwindling morsels of garbage like the Yellowstone bears.  Maybe in the case of humans those would be junkbonds.

Many of us continue to focus on the poorest families in our country as the scapegoat for our economic problems.  Yet evidence suggests that a great deal of government support is actually going to the richest Americans.  This reminds me of what happened to the Soviet Union during Yeltsin's "glasnost," when partial reform of the failed communist economy toward capitalism led to tragic population loss.   Our national media, anxious to similarly shift accountability because it's again owned by the elite, teaches us to blame only one kind of free-loading welfare-recipient: those at the bottom of our economy.

The Republican majority in the House recently voted to continue the free-loading taxpayer-funded subsidy of oil companies that Obama was trying to curb. This is just one example of how government money is being used to support capitalistic enterprises that should sink or swim on their own.  Remember the bailouts? There are all sorts of justification for this trend, but ultimately it comes down to lopsided welfare for the rich.  As in Russia, and like the garbage-eating bears of Yellowstone, we have found ways to allow free-loading off the lowest classes en masse. We don't see these free-loaders hanging around the streets of Big Horn County. We have to go to Wall Street to find them.

Democrats and Republicans have notoriously left unchallenged welfare for the rich while continuing to cut welfare for the poor. Both parties attempt to keep us distracted with diversionary pelvic issues (abortion and gay rights), while maintaining this system of unjust subsidies. 

Let's remember the Bible's message of Jubilee and stay focused on fair distribution of the means of wealth, rather than wealth itself.  Let's take care of the earth, so that all families can forage successfully to live well. 

The Big Horn County News  column ends here. Further information and additional citing follows.

Our founders felt the principles contained in the Jubilee were so important that they had the Liberty Bell inscribed with words taken straight from Leviticus: "...Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all its inhabitants thereof" (Lev.25: 10). Obviously the concepts underlying the Jubilee have something crucial to say with who we are not only as people of faith, but as Americans. Liberty: It's what the United States is all about. But Americans have an even stronger bond to the Jubilee. We like the Isrealites of old whom God is prescribing the Jubilee to are a land of exiles. "I am the lord your God, who brought you out of Egpyt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God." (leviticus 25:38) Most of us are of immigrant stock, some of us came here unvolunteerily.
But does the Jubilee speak to a time long gone? If we focus on the literal and look at the specific remedies God prescribed to Moses with the Jubilee celebration: cancellation of debts (Dt. 15:1, 15:9, 31:10, Neh. 10:31; Jer 34:14), the freeing of slaves (Lev 25:39, Ex 21:2), returning land purchased to its original owner (Lev 25:23-24) , letting land lie fallow (Lev 25: 4,11) it certainly appears dated. Slavery has been almost totally eradicated and the importance of land has diminished as we are no longer an agrarian society. But what was God after in the jubilee, the spirit behind it? and what have we learned in the last 3500 years?

According to Leviticus 25, every fiftieth year was to be a jubilee where property would be returned to its ancestral owners, and everyone who had sold themselves as an indentured servant to a fellow Israelite or as a slave to a resident alien would be released:
You shall count off seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the period of seven weeks of years gives forty-nine years. Then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud; on the tenth day of the seventh month -- on the day of atonement -- you shall have the trumpet sounded throughout all your land. And you shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty (Hebrew: דרור; LXX: φεσις) throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: you shall return, every one of you, to your property and every one of you to your family. (Lev 25:8-10 NRSV)

Usury, fascism and the process of depopulation are three phases of the same process. The murderous debt-collection policies that dominated Imperial Rome destroyed the economy of the entire Mediterranean region, and led to a collapse of the population by 40 percent. The attempt to collect the debt imposed on Europe by the Bardi and Peruzzi banks in the fourteenth century led to the impoverishment of the population, the lowering of its standard of living and immunological resistance, and the devastation of the Black Death, which reduced the continent's population by one-third between 1348 and 1373.
In America, this triple process is far advanced. The Bush and Obama administrations lied that poverty is declining in America. The facts show otherwise, yet today. The minimal number of US poor is 45 million; but another 60 million are barely surviving with household incomes for a family of four within $6,000 of the poverty line. Two out of every five Americans barely subsist during what is supposedly the greatest recovery in American history in this century

Moral hazard is a concept that is arguably misunderstood, since those responsible for the damage have neglected to acknowledge its terms. Moral hazard is perceived by Allan Loeb in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps as ''being able to steal your money without responsibility''. This very crude description of moral hazard, however, turns out to be fairly exact. In the financial system, moral hazard occurs when the person investing money is not held responsible for the outcome of their investment strategy.2atardif.com


Frank Craighead's  nephew was my teaching colleague at Busy in 1974-5. My family and I heard first hand of encounters with grizzlies, and saw many film clips taken in dangerous circumstances. We saw awesome violent footage, and also got a deep impression of the Craigheads' efforts to bring "jubilee" freedom to the bears of Yellowstone.  Ultimately, they were granted freedom from their addiction to garbage, and the survivors relearned the forage structure that was compatible with the ecosystem in place in Yellowstone Park.

The brothers worked hard to stop a "cold turkey" decision that came down from the USDA to utterly end bear access to garbage in a very short time in the late 70's.  The Craigheads promoted a program that would give bears time to relearn their nich in the Yellowstone ecosystem over time, so more would survive. In fact, survival of the Yellowstone grizzly was threatened by this program. Grizzlies were imported from Glacier Park to supplement the Yellowstone population. Now their survival is much better established.  Control of these dangerous animals is still a controversy.

Many modern opponents of evolution reject Darwin's theory of evolution but accept, even practice, evolutionary survival-of-the-fittest in the market place. It's really the worst kind of evolution it threatens families the way bears' existence was threatened in Yellowstone by well-meaning profit-motivated ignorance. But a few bears survived their own judgment day, and now are doing better.

Some Biblical scholars argue that the Jubilee Year was never carried out in practice, suggesting that God has ceased to care about economic justice, that mounting inequalities do not lead to violence, and that we are off the hook. The Old Testament prophets repeatedly denounced those who devoured widows and orphans, taking over lands and houses until there were no (free) people left in the land. When the Children of Israel lost their land and were living in Babylonian exile they pondered their calamity and, with the help of prophets like Jeremiah and Isaiah, they came to understand that idolatry and the injustice it caused, since idolatry is basically greed, were the cause of their disaster.

There is a question here for all societies to ponder. Can growing inequalities
only be resolved by violence? Can any human society can last without mechanisms of redistribution? Free public education, progressive income and inheritance taxes, and universal health insurance are examples of what is needed to prevent social collapse from too much tolerance of the idolatry of greed.

Will the powerful tend toward social justice only if and when violent breakdown of society threatens? Or will they allow jubilee because it's a deeper principle of God's word and human solidarity?  Self interest even of the wealthy requires awareness of human suffering when excessive wealth deprives too many of basic human rights of survival and safety. Jesus focused on this.

For him, perpetual Jubilee was at the heart of the prophets' ministry, and even  more so of his: At the beginning of his ministry, in the Synagogue of Nazareth, Jesus published his "movement manifesto" by reading from the scroll of the
prophet Isaiah: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's Favor.
". . . Then he began to speak to them, 'This text is being fulfilled today even as you listen.'" (Luke 4:18-19).

In his book,  The Politics of Jesus, John Howard Yoder quotes a word study by Andre Trocme that identified Jesus' announced "Year of the Lord's Favor" with the Jubilee Year. This has become the consensus of an increasing number of New Testament scholars. In fact, once this connection is made, it is hard to find anything in the Gospels that does not illustrate an ongoing enactment of the Biblical Jubilee.

In Jesus' coming, Jubilee was no longer a periodic and oft' neglected part of Israel's history, but the Messiah and his traveling community practiced an ongoing Jubilee celebration. Jesus went about forgiving sins, bypassing the temple sacrifice system. He taught his disciples to pray, "Forgive us our debts as we have forgiven those who are indebted to us," a moral and economic initiative of grace. Every healing was at the same time a restoration to full participation in the community of Israel. The feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000 illustrated the plenty that comes from a radical sharing that is blessed by God. The coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost triggered a Jubilee avalanche of, sin forgiveness, economic restoration, healing, and baptism into communion of the saints. The periodic practice of Jubilee was turned into a perpetual Jubilee by those who follow Jesus in the way of peace. This is what times of renewal in the Church have always looked like. Jesus came, as he said, not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

A responsible scholarly theological investigation of this theme is

Although replete with scholarly language, the book is readable. The author attempts to remedy the de-emphasis, a problem of today's theology, of shalom, koinonia and related social transformation at the heart of the Bible's message of salvation. 

Bible is clear. Luke 4:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release (Hebrew: דרור; Greek OT [LXX]: φεσις) to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19 NRSV; cf. Isaiah 61:1-2; 58:6).


In the 'Book of the Covenant' (Ex. 21-23) there are two regulations concerning the sabbatical year, one about agriculture and one about slavery. First, the regulation concerning agriculture is found in Exodus 23:10-11: For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, but during the seventh year let the land lie unploughed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. (NIV)

In the Jubilee God speaks to us about right living. We are told how we should treat each other and the land--that all shall be set free! The principle(s) is so simple but it is profound and powerful. Yet generation upon generation have refused to follow its tenets, thinking it foolhardy or too dificult to follow. By doing such we have turned this basic truth into a hidden mystery. Liberty is power--the power to free ourselves.
We easily can find the free-loading low-initiative poor. Every community has some, trying to get from government what they cannot get or are too lazy to get for themselves. 

Jubilee in the Bible teaches that it's the responsibility both of government and of individuals to support a major revolutionary redistribution of the means—not the result—of productive work every 50 years. It wasn't wealth simple redistribution, and obsession of political talk today; it was land redistribution. Land, after all, was the foundation of wealth in that economy.  So Jesus' words frequently refer to land and its production, not to his father's work, carpentry.

Some comments on jubilee-related issues from The Economist's View, a clearinghouse of current writings by economists at universities around the world:

Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Simon Johnson says we are "on a bipartisan route to disaster":
A Colossal Mistake of Historic Proportions: The "JOBS" bill, by Simon Johnson: From the 1970s until recently, Congress allowed and encouraged a great deal of financial market deregulation – allowing big banks to become larger, to expand their scope, and to take on more risks. This legislative agenda was largely bipartisan, up to and including the effective repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act at the end of the 1990s. After due legislative consideration, the way was cleared for megabanks to combine commercial and investment banking on a complex global scale. The scene was set for the 2008 financial crisis – and

Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Surprise, surprise, Larry Tabb, the founder and chief executive of Tabb Group, is complaining about regulation of the financial sector. He starts off strong:
Mea Culpa? Yes, the banks did wrong. They became overlevered; hopped-up on greed, they took on more credit than a loan shark would have extended. When the bets turned sour, they went cap in hand to the taxpayer. Once bailed out, the banks threw petrol on the fire by not being contrite, hoovering up cheap cash, paying bonuses as if there were no tomorrow and refusing to develop a set of even the least offensive business restrictions.

But quickly changes course:
So what did legislators and regulators do? They did what they normally do in a crisis: they legislated and regulated. While the new rules may or may not preclude another crisis, they will certainly punish the banks and may inadvertently punish the taxpayer.


Saturday, March 03, 2012
The chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Phil Angelides, wonders if there will ever be a thorough investigation and prosecution of "the financial assault on our country":
Will Wall Street Ever Face Justice?, by Phil Angelides, Commentary, NY Times: Last week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. proclaimed in a speech that when it comes to fighting financial fraud, the Obama administration's "record of success has been nothing less than historic." Such self-congratulation is not only premature, but it also reveals a troubling lack of understanding about what is required to win the war against financial wrongdoing.
Four years after the disintegration of the financial system, Americans have, rightfully, a gnawing feeling that justice has not been served

Sunday, February 26, 2012
Daniel Davies on the history and purpose of debt contracts (this is from a series of posts at Crooked Timber discussing David Graeber's new book Debt: The First 5,000 Years):
Too Big To Fail: The First 5000 Years, by Daniel Davies: One of the many fascinating pieces of information that David Graeber tosses off like shrapnel in Debt is that the first recorded appearance of the word "freedom" in a political document is in a Sumerian proclamation of a debt amnesty or jubilee.
What interested me, however, from the point of view of a professional banker, is that the document in question provided only for the discharge of personal debts of the Sumerians; commercial debts of merchants were not discharged. ... The point I am trying to make here is that as well as being the first mention of the word "freedom", this proclamation marks

Ehrenreich: How Corporations and Local Governments Rob the Poor Blind
The trick is to rob them in ways that are systematic, impersonal, and almost impossible to trace to individual perpetrators.

Individually the poor are not too tempting to thieves, for obvious reasons. Mug a banker and you might score a wallet containing a month's rent. Mug a janitor and you will be lucky to get away with bus fare to flee the crime scene. But as Business Week helpfully pointed out in 2007, the poor in aggregate provide a juicy target for anyone depraved enough to make a business of stealing from them.

According to a new study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the number of Americans living on less than $2 a day has doubled in the past 15 years. That's right -- nearly 1.5 million Americans are living in the kind of extreme poverty that, until now, has been associated with developing countries.

No political candidate is serious about the debt problem, deficit spending, and the impact of our economic depression on average people. Check this out.

Folks at this organization envisage a political culture where everyone has the skills, the information, the opportunities and the right to contribute to solving society's problems. "We create tools for groups of people to learn about, discuss and decide on complex issues."  This is a core principle of jubilee.


Hammurabi Knew Better
Debt Slavery – Why It Destroyed Rome, Why It Will Destroy Us Unless It's Stopped
by MICHAEL HUDSON
Book V of Aristotle's Politics describes the eternal transition of oligarchies making themselves into hereditary aristocracies – which end up being overthrown by tyrants or develop internal rivalries as some families decide to "take the multitude into their camp" and usher in democracy, within which an oligarchy emerges once again, followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on throughout history.
Debt has been the main dynamic driving these shifts – always with new twists and turns. It polarizes wealth to create a creditor class, whose oligarchic rule is ended as new leaders ("tyrants" to Aristotle) win popular support by cancelling the debts and redistributing property or taking its usufruct for the state.

Contract Theory, Distributive Justice,
and the Hebrew Sabbatical

No idea for freeing our nation from the threat of judgment day because of our mistreatment of "the least of these" is one soundly based in our Bible. It's the idea of jubilee.

But the Biblical basis for an American jubilee doesn't come into public discussion from religionists. It comes instead from economists—actually, a group of highly respected economists based in Boston.


India's legendary Wootz steel from 300 BC  met.iisc.ernet.in/~rangu/text.pdf

Iron has both creative and destructive associations. If iron has represented the sustenance of life through agricultural implements, its destructive potency has been amply demonstrated by the weapons of war and conquest. In the words of the famous Roman scientist, Pliny the Elder, of 2000 years ago,
'Iron mines bring man a most splendid and most harmful tool. It is by means of this tool that we cut into the ground, plant bushes, cultivate flourishing orchards and make grape vines younger every year by cutting off old vines with grapes. By this same tool we build houses, break stones and use iron for all purposes. But it is also with the help of iron that we fight and battle and rob. And we do it not only at close quarters but giving it wings we hurl it far into the distance now from embrasures now from powerful human hands, now from bows in the form of feathered darts. This, I think, is the most infamous invention of the human brain. For in order to enable death to catch up with man faster, it has given it wings and armed iron with feathers. For that the blame rests with man and not with Nature'.

The average salaried worker makes 10% money less than a decade ago. This is on top of a half-century decline in real income.  What happened to the American dream? The only ones who believe it anymore are those who made it. 


According to the operative theory—developed by the founding fathers of libertarianism/neoliberalism, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman and the rest—a privately-owned company will always outperform a state-run company because private ownership and the profit-motive incentivize the owners to make their companies stronger, more efficient, more competitive, and so on. The theory promises that everyone benefits except for the bad old state and the lazy. The story of Russia since the arrival of capitalism with Yeltsin is a case in point.


At the end of the 1990s, after the total collapse of the mass-privatization experiment in Boris Yeltin's Russia, some of the more earnest free-market proselytizers tried making sense of it all. The unprecedented collapse of Russia's economy and its capital markets, the wholesale looting, the quiet extermination of millions of Russians from the shock and destitution (Russian male life expectancy plummeted from 68 years to 56 years)—the terrible consequences of imposing radical libertarian free-market ideas on an alien culture—turned out worse than any worst-case-scenario imagined by the free-market true-believers.

In reality, as everyone was forced to admit by 1999, Russia's privatized companies were stripped and plundered as fast as their new private owners could loot them, leaving millions of workers without salaries, and most of Russia's industry in far worse shape than the Communists left it.


The central message of Paul Krugman's new book, End This Depression Now! is simple: It doesn't have to be like this. No external dynamic is keeping unemployment at more than 8 percent and consigning a generation of young workers to an economy in which risk is plentiful and opportunities scarce. It is only a failure of political will -- and an almost universal embrace of conservative voodoo economics – that is keeping us mired in this dark economic moment.

Following is from an interview conducted with Paul Krugman (PK), based on his new book:

Of the 2009 stimulus, Krugman writes, "Those who had more or less the right ideas about what the economy needed, including President Obama, were timid, never willing either to acknowledge just how much action was required or to admit later on that what they did in the first round was inadequate." Instead of treating the dismal jobs picture as a crisis requiring their full attention, Washington "pivoted" to talking about the deficit – a phantom menace -- at precisely the wrong time. "People with the wrong ideas," Krugman writes, "were vehement and untroubled by self-doubt."

PK: The moral of the book is: this doesn't have to be happening. This is essentially a technical process; it's a small thing. It's like having a dead battery in a car, and while there may be a lot wrong with the car, you can get the car going remarkably easily, if you're willing to accept that's what the problem really is.

 Not enough spending. Cuts in state an local government pay and workforce cutbacks. School teachers especially.
If government spending for public enterprises had expanded in the Obama administration as it did in the Bush administrations, reflecting population changes, we would have 1.3 million more jobs now. From this there would be indirect effects we are now missing in lower family debts, more spending on needs, and our economy would be much better.  That's something like 2 million more jobs. That's something like 2 million jobs right there. "When you put it all together my back of the envelope says "…If we weren't doing this austerity, GDP would be around 3 percentage points higher right now, the unemployment rate would be at least 1.5 points lower, which means we'd be at 6.5 percent."

Democrats say the government has to pull in spending when families do. Isn't that the reverse of the truth? Isn't it the fact that when families are tightening their belts the government needs to loosen its belt to make up for that loss of demand?
PK: That's right. The whole mistake that people make is that we're all like a family. We're not because we're interdependent. Your spending is my income and my spending is your income. If we both tighten our belts at the same time thinking that's going to make us better off, it actually makes us worse off. This is a fundamental fallacy.

This notion that we have to have extreme income inequality in order to have a successful, growing economy requires that you forget history that's live in the minds of everybody over the age of 50. The best generation of economic growth we've ever had in America was the generation right after World War II. That was a society in which the rich were not even remotely as rich as they are now. How come we created all those jobs -- all those good jobs -- at a time when the top tax rate was as high sometimes as 90 percent?

There are many who believe we must not only slash spending and cut social programs, but also for some reason we must slash taxes on rich and the corporations.

JH: We're not the only ones who have been afflicted by this scourge of irrational deficit hysteria -- the idea that we should cut spending when private sector demand is deep in a hole.
The bond markets are willing to lend America -- the US government -- long-term money at about 1.7 percent as of right now. That's ridiculously low. The index bonds that are protected from inflation actually have a negative interest rate. The bond markets are saying they're worried about economic stagnation. They're worried there aren't going to be investment opportunities because the demand is so weak. So they're going to park their money in US government debt, which is considered safe. The last thing you should be worrying about, at least according to the bond market, is those deficits. Those are not the problem right now.

What happens is when the wealthy are very wealthy they can in effect buy political support. The way that's worked in practice in the United States is that the Republican party moves with the interests of the super elite. Not the 1 percent, but the .01 percent. So the extraordinary explosion in incomes of the .01 percent relative to everybody else has pulled the Republican party far to the right to the point where there is no center. The center did not hold, it dissolved and turned into a chasm. That's not because Democrats moved to the left, because they didn't; they moved right. It's because the Republicans moved off into the Gamma quadrant. That is at the root of our political paralysis right now

The wealthy .01% They not only spend money directly on campaigns, but they also fund these networks of what I call alternative information infrastructure. If you look at for example billionaire Pete Peterson he's put $1 billion of his own money into a network of think tanks and media projects to help us understand that the greatest threat that we face are deficits, far-off deficits projected 30 or 40 years out.

--
David Graber

Hardin, MT  59034

graberdb@gmail.com