Daily Archives: November 2, 2010

The Republican Pledge to America Cannot Possibly Work

I’ve seen the Republican agenda, and I’ve heard them talking tonight on and on about what they are going to do. Trust me, nothing that they are going to do could possibly have a good affect on anything important, much less the economy.

Tons of tax cuts. This will blow up the deficit they hate way worse than before.

It won’t help the economy because the economy is suffering from lack of demand. Business is already sitting on a record mountain of cash. They don’t need any more of it. Giving them more won’t make them hire one more worker. The problem is lack of customers. More supply side (neoclassical) economics won’t do anything to solve that.

The lack of demand is due to the economic crisis. It’s also due to a 35 year war that the Right has waged on working people via outsourcing, union busting, Hindu 1-B and other guest workers, and mass immigration, legal and illegal. They’re crushed the American worker, smashing his wages and income. It’s classical capitalist class war. As Fordists would argue, this is having its predicted effect in that workers can no longer afford to buy the stuff that business is selling.

There has also been a mass transfer of income to the well off. The top 10% of the income earners now spend fully 1/3 of all US consumer spending. This is the 3rd World model of economic development, where a tiny elite is the economic engine for the whole country, and everyone else festers in some shantytown. Good luck with that model.

Cut government spending. This is retarded. In the US, government spending is 20% of GDP. By cutting government spending, you cut GDP by definition. Get it, idiots? Cutting spending in the middle of a downturn worsens the downturn, resulting in a recession or depression. Expect that to occur if spending is heavily cut.

Pledge to work across the aisle. The Republican Party’s goal in 2008 was to do everything possible to make sure that Obama would not be elected in 2012. They will continue to do this. They will oppose everything that he will try to do. If he tries to do rightwing things, they may go along with him, but that’s dubious. Look forward to 2 years of total gridlock.

The Capitalist Shit Market, I mean the Capitalist Stock Market, rallied on the elections not because Republicans were going to win but because a Republican win would mean a gridlocked government that is so paralyzed it can’t do anything. All of you who love the stock market or the US corporate class so much ought to think about that. The US corporate class, via its institution, the stock market, wants a gridlocked state that does as little as possible. So those of you who feel that the government ought to do something (like “create jobs”), ought to rethink your cheering on of the US corporate class or the US stock market.

You heard that right. Business wants a government that does nothing. Capitalists are wonderful people!

Get rid of regulations on business. Business is regulated, in general, in the interest of consumers, workers, society and the environment. By deregulating, you by definition harm consumers, workers, society and the environment. Because the economic crisis is due the financial mess, not lack of regulation, deregulation will do nothing to help the economy. The economy will not improve until the financial crisis is dealt with. The other aspect of the problem economy is lack of demand. All the deregulation on Earth will not put one more penny in the hands of workers and consumers. It will enrich business, but business is already sitting on an Everest of cash. This will fail to help the economy.

Create jobs! The state cannot create jobs except through stimulus spending and deficit spending, which these shitheads oppose for ideological, not economic reasons. As we discussed above, all the tax cuts and deregulation on Earth will not create one job absent a solution to the financial crisis and/or measures to restart demand. The huge spending cuts they are advocating will by definition result in GDP loss and will actually cause loss of jobs, not job gain. Therefore, this will fail.

The entire Republican project cannot possibly help the economy because it’s not economics. Or rather, it’s bad economics. Better, it’s politically driven economics. It’s economic policy in pursuit of political goals such as gutting the state for ideological reasons and waging the class war of the top 20% (all earners earning over $75,000/yr) against the bottom 80% (all earners earning less than $75,000/yr. It’s the economics of economic destruction, not economic growth.


Filed under Capitalism, Democrats, Economics, Fake Guest Workers, Illegal, Immigration, Labor, Legal, Obama, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

The Democrats Got Creamed, Right?

I have not been paying much attention to the news tonite. Looks like the Democrats lost the House for sure, but no way did they lose the Senate too. Forget that. A lot of polls were showing a serious last minute surge for Republicans, I mean in the three days prior to the election.

Marco Rubio, who are seriously insane, appears to have won in Florida. The thing that’s scary about this guy is that he’s so popular with the wingnuts that he could actually run for President in 2012. On the plus side for the Democrats, even though this election was said to be a referendum on Obama, the Republicans still do not have one candidate who can beat Obama in any poll. But maybe they will find one.

The comments on Yahoo news stories is an excellent place to judge the popular mood. Like the entire Internet, Yahoo comments are frighteningly rightwing. Why is that? Because the Internet is not democratic like television or radio, though it ought to be. Internet access should be as easily available as access to TV or the radio. It’s not due to cost. So around the world, only the rich, upper middle class and middle classes are on the Internet. In the US, the poor, the low income and the working classes do not have much Internet access. The Internet is a tool of the moneyed classes. That’s why the Internet seems so much more rightwing than real life.

Judging from Yahoo comments, it’s true that the Democrats and Obama are unpopular, as one might expect. But another thing is very interesting. Among these rightwing commenters, the Tea Party is not popular at all. In fact, they are widely despised. So this crowd supports Republicans but not the Tea Party. I suspect that this divide between somewhat more reasonable folks and the serious lunatics in the Republican Party will be an ongoing thing.

I just spoke to two Democrats tonight. Neither of them voted, nor do they ever. How many Republicans do you know like that? As a Big Government fan, I would love to make voting mandatory as it is in many countries. If you don’t vote, what? $50 fine? Higher? How many people would just pay it?

Russ Finegold lost in Wisconsin, but he was down a couple points in the polls for a long time now. His opponent is a serious asshole and insane person. It’s hard to believe those Scandinavians up there are that insane. Finegold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. So we see that Americans hate those who hate the Patriot Act.

This election cements my contempt for this country and its people which I’ve had most of my life. Seriously, I am with JohnUK and AJ in the comments section. Americans deserve every bad thing that is going to happen to them in the future due to these idiot decisions they are making.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Government, Law, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

Scorecard: Past Two Years

Democratic accomplishments:

1. Financial reform
2. Health care reform
3. Saved American auto industry

Republican accomplishments:

1. No
2. Nope
3. Don’t think so


Filed under Democrats, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

Successes of Socialist Vietnam

Uncle Milton continues his distortions in the comments section:

I’ve been to China, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, the Philippines, and Thailand… whatever they may state on paper is not followed in reality. It sucks to be poor in all of those countries but it sucks somewhat less in Thailand…because if nothing else you can rip off the many tourists with a smile and there actually are subsidized health clinics in Thailand and the Philippines. In addition there are quite a few charitable organizations within and without the catholic church. In theory you have free (sort of) care in Vietnam but you basically have to pay a bribe to be treated.

Sorry to be so contentious but what you are saying just doesn’t reflect the reality of these countries.

Those tourists won’t help you in the rural areas, because there are no tourists there.

Malnutrition rate:

Thailand: 32%
Philippines 30%
Vietnam: 17%

Vietnam also has almost no unemployment, about 1%.

Being poor in the Philippines really, really sucks. For one thing, they still have a semi-feudal rural economy, so you are basically a serf for some feudal lord. Plus they have some of the worst shantytowns on the planet.

Thailand is variable. They recently had a socialist oriented leader in power named Thaksin. He was ousted in a rightwing military coup led by bourgeois forces in Bangkok. His followers are poor rural Thais in the Northeast who speak a language called Isan. The recent street fighting between the Red Shirts (socialist followers of Thaksin) and yellow shirts (Bangkok bourgeois followers of the coup leaders) that led to deaths and injuries in the capital was really just class war, though the capitalist press never told you that. Under Thaksin, Thailand had a pro-people leader.

Vietnam, whatever its problems, has a pro-people government.

The Philippines has never had one, which is why the National People’s Army (NPA) exists.


Filed under Asia, Economics, Health, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Nutrition, Philippines, Regional, Revolution, SE Asia, Socialism, Thailand, Vietnam

Another Neoclassical Lie: Neoliberal Economics is the Best Way To Help the Poor

Also, the poor are poor for a reason. If you follow your liberation theology and gather resources for the poor through redistribution you’re shrinking the area of the pie from which everyone draws resources. Capitalists lose, some of the poor who become powerful in the new redistribution (i.e. community organizers and feminists) gain power, the majority of the masses lose as well because they aren’t smart enough to create jobs for themselves or make their own way without someone providing a job and capital for them to work with.

You want egalitarianism, but that comes at the expense of quality of life. So that everyone is equal you are willing to accept that everyone is equally poor.

This becomes an epistemological battle in that we are pitting the idea of socialism or social democracy against a relatively free economic model. People can choose for themselves what they want, and it seems that they usually choose economic freedom over egalitarianism.

In many social democracies, people are certainly not equally poor, and most Communist countries wiped out poverty, even if they only were able to provide a relatively low standard of living and the model bogs down and collapses over a period of some decades.

Surveys the world over show that most people want some kind of socialism. There are few exceptions, though the US may be one of them. Socialist, populist, progressive or Left parties rule almost the entire globe. Rightwing parties are in the minority or out of power in most places. The few places where they have power (the US, Chile, Colombia, Philippines, Thailand, the Baltics) they are busy destroying the country, just like they always do.

That’s one of your neoclassical lies. I just showed earlier how 12 of the 13 richest countries on Earth are all social democracies. Also many wealthy countries have low to very low Gini coefficients. Go to a place like Sweden, and you will be amazed at how many small businesses there are. Literally one on every corner.

The masses don’t lose. When you redistribute wealth, as long as you do not do so too radically, the masses gain tremendously in wealth, power, resources, benefits and rights. All neoclassical economics ever does is shift wealth from the bottom 70-80% of the population to the top 20-30% of the population. We have had decades of neoliberalism in the 3rd World, and this has been the result. Total failure. Which is why it’s being abandoned lately in Latin America.

The economies that are really kicking ass now are heavily socialist economies like Russia and China (state capitalist, corporatist or mixed economies). The economies that weathered the latest Capitalist Depression best used stimulus spending to come out of it and had heavy state intervention in the banking system. The ones that got fucked worst of all had followed neoclassical economics in their banks to the greatest extent (Iceland) or following neoclassical economics, used austerity instead of stimulus to deal with the slump (Baltics and Ireland) got fucked worst of all.

Laissez faire is refuted. Neoclassical economics doesn’t work. It causes wild booms and busts and leads to regular economic recessions and depressions. It’s only good for rich people because the purpose of it is class war and wealth transfer.


Filed under Americas, Asia, Capitalism, Chile, China, Colombia, Conservatism, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Ireland, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Neoliberalism, North America, Philippines, Political Science, Regional, Russia, SE Asia, Socialism, South America, Sweden, Thailand, USA

Vote Republican? Rather Die

Shawn encourages me to vote against illegal immigration.

I encourage you, Robert, and all others to vote for the candidate opposing illegal immigration (and ideally massive immigration in general). This should be your issue because it is itself economics and a pro-poor vote. Yes, this means you could find yourself voting Republican. I just did!Disclaimer: I have voted for the D’s, R’s, and I’s in the past. Find me an anti-immigration D and I will vote for her.

Never! I will never vote for a Republican. I’m a progressive person. The only way I would ever vote for a Republican is if the Republican was more progressive than the Democrat. I don’t like illegals, but the rest of the Republican agenda is worthless. I’m a liberal like my late father. He never voted Republican in his life. I’m the same way. I’d rather die than vote Republican even one time.

I agree with the Republican candidates on illegal immigration, but here in California, even the Republicans are typically pro-illegal. I disagree with Democrats in general on illegals, but that’s not enough to make me switch parties. Sorry. Illegal immigration is one of the few things that I am rightwing on.

Opposing illegals will be the only way that these Republicans are for the poor. The whole rest of their project will harm the poor.

My politics is the same as that of Liberation Theologists – advancing the interests of the poor, low income and middle class in the US. For that, it’s always necessary to vote Democrat and against Republicans, because Democrats are always more for the poor, low income and middle class than Republicans are. If I can’t stand the Democrat and I know he’s going to win anyway, I will throw my vote away and vote Peace and Freedom or Green.

I’ve been told that as a radical, I should never vote Democrat. Instead I should throw my vote away on some stupid Left 3rd party or sect. Sorry, homey don’t play that. The Tea Partiers are right in a way. Most Left radicals in the US – socialists, Communists, etc – vote Democrat. Many are even active in Democratic Party politics in a wing of the party called the left wing of the Democratic Party.

However, most Democrats are not actually radicals. But I think quite a few Democrats would actually support social democracy, so many to most of them are may well be socialists in that sense. But the deep structure of the party – the DNC wing that actually elects candidate, Obama, Clinton and the rest – are even opposed to social democracy, so it’s not right to call them socialists.


Filed under Democrats, Illegal, Immigration, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics