The Global Economic Crisis and the Experts

If it weren't for the suffering engendered by the global economic crisis, I would be laughing myself sick. None of the self-styled pundits and experts touted in the media knew it was coming. Other than a couple of mavericks, ignored by the mass media and especially the political leaders, none of the economists foretold it either. I, on the other hand, did, expecting it to happen any time in the last three or four years. The obvious signal of the coming crisis would be the imminent collapse of the housing bubble. This spring, I saw that the US housing market was really and truly in trouble, would soon collapse, and due to the interlinked nature of contemporary economies, the rot would spread globally. So I dumped my mutual funds, saving a chunk of my retirement money. In the years previous to this, I had paid off my mortgage, and indeed, had chosen a house within walking distance of down town and a yard big enough for a garden, all in preparation for the ''big one.''

I write this, not to pat myself on the back. I am a retired health care worker, not an economist. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the basic nature of the economy, just a little reading and a dollop of common sense. This same common sense suggests that you should read material critical of the system rather than its touts and ideologues, since they have a stake in it. One should no more believe capitalism's shills, than believing advertising for dish soap.

You find that crisis is endemic to the system, a relatively minor turn-down (that still puts millions out of work!) every 5 to 10 years and a whopper once and a while. Speculation booms are usually the last event before a crisis. A fall in profit in "real" industry – industry that makes things – due in part to market saturation, leads to speculative investment in areas such as real estate. As the value of a speculative product is largely hot air, eventually the balloon bursts, bringing the whole structure down with it. The situation was made worse by deregulation of the financial institutions which allowed vast frauds to be perpetuated.

Getting back to the pundits, experts, and economists who "didn't get it." I suspect that on the sly, most of them did, and have their money stashed safely. But their job was to pimp the system, to get as many suckers rounded up as possible and to protect the political gangsters and corporate bandits who set up the financial fraud.

These same pundits, experts, political gangsters and corporate bandits now claim "the turn-down should end by 2010", "Canada won't be effected much", and "de-regulation wasn't the problem."

They expect us to believe them?

The Free Lunch Gang or the Coming Demise of Neo-liberalism

This was originally written in December 2003

"There Ain’t No Sec Thing as A Free Lunch," (TANSTAAFL) the old libertarian slogan means everything is interconnected and influences everything else. Nothing exists in isolation. Acting as though it did is dangerous abstract thinking and has severe negative consequences. No group is more guilty of the free lunch mentality than the so-called conservatives who have been at the helm of government in the UK, Canada and the US for more than 20 years.

Monetarist policies were adopted by these governments to defeat the stagflation that had been infecting the economy. With typical abstract thinking, “unions” were deemed as a major part of the problem and they sought to crush them. Conservatives sought a “free lunch” of lower wages and lower expenditure on social welfare. In spite of the criticisms one can make of the trade union bureaucracy, there are no such thing as “unions”, in concrete terms what you have (or had) were tens of millions of wage earners, some of whom were reasonably well paid.

When the payment for the “free lunch” of destroying people’s living standards came due the following occurred:

• The millions of unemployed, as whenever you have a great deal of unemployment, created massive social problems. It is surely no coincidence that the 1980’s saw a vast increase in suicide, crime, drug addiction, child poverty and homelessness. All of these social problems cost money, in the short term, and especially the long term.

• Since two-thirds of the economy is consumer-based and the overwhelming majority of consumers are ordinary people, the recessions of the ‘80’s and early ‘90’s were long and it took years for “consumer confidence” to return. Furthermore, since many of these wage earners are now permanently earning less, the body of well paid potential consumers is less numerous, making the economy more fragile. In order to consume at an “acceptable” level, people turn to credit, which in turn adds to the potential fragility.

• In the US and UK, the traditional manufacturing areas were devastated by “conservative” policies, resulting in a loss of manufacturing industries. Goods once made at home are now imported. For the USA, this has exacerbated the balance of payments problem, making the economy fragile.

• Cut-backs at work have resulted in much heavier work loads. Many people work longer hours to keep up living standards. The result is employee burn-out and an enormous rise in stress-related illness. All of this costs money, in terms of time lost at work and insurance payments.

• The hypocrisy of the “conservatives” has created cynicism among the populace. Voters were told that they would “get government off your back”, but what happened was more government than ever. People were told there was no money for wages or social services, yet hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on corporate welfare, government megaprojects and their favorite form of corporate welfare, war and “defense” industries. Along with this “lack of money” came an astronomical increase in incomes for CEO’s and government bureaucrats. It can be all summed up thus; when its something we want, there’s no money. When it’s something they want, the coffers are bottomless. “Conservatism” has revealed itself as nothing more than a sleazy racket to steal our money, destroy our communities and rob us of our liberties.

But the real payment for the “free lunch” has yet to be made. Twenty-five years of abuse, lies and out-right robbery have created the potential for immense social unrest. Should some act or event crystallize this latent anger, payment for the “free lunch” will be demanded in full. And the bill is going to be a big one.

Examining State Ballot Issues: Issue 3

‘I’ve received numerous emails over the last two weeks asking my views on a number of statewide issues on the November 4 ballot — Issues 1, 3 and 5. For what it’s worth, below is the second of my humble assessments of these three ballot measures seen through the lens of corporate power/democracy. The questions that are important to me in examining each Issue are:
Will passage of the Issue provide business corporations more or less rights, rules and/or powers to do what they want, when they want, where they want?
Relatedly, will passage of the Issue make it more or less difficult for citizens to govern themselves?
With these two questions in mind, below is my assessment of state Issue 3. A critique of Issue 1 can be found at
http://RealDemocracy.bravejournal.com

Issue 3

No state issue over the last several years has yielded so many questions that Issue 3. I’ve received nearly 20 inquiries. Those who’ve expressed their leanings are almost evenly split.

The Ohio Water Compact Constitutional Amendment was placed on the ballot by the state legislature as a compromise for their support of the Great Lakes Water Compact. The amendment, sponsored by State Senator Tim Grendell (R, Cleveland area) seeks to protect the “reasonable use” rights of landowners to water under or running through their property.

Supporters content the Great Lakes Water Compact will threaten existing property rights of Ohioans by defining ground water as publicly owned — trumping the rights of Ohio property owners to the water on and under their land. The measure would make explicit in the Ohio constitution the property right of a private property owner in the reasonable use of the ground water underlying the property owner’s land. However, property rights described under the proposed amendment are subject to the public welfare.

Opponents assert Issue 3 is not needed. The rights of property owners to water under current Ohio laws already exist and are clear. Some also fear that the amendment would create a section of the Ohio Constitution in which property rights are held above most other sections of Ohio's governing document.

Issue 3 has flown under the radar of many, if not most, Ohioans. This is unfortunate.

At first glance it would seem like a pretty innocuous Issue. Even if it’s overkill, what harm can their be in imbedding “reasonable use” of water in the state constitution?

But there are two troubling aspects to Issue 3 in my humble opinion.

First, the measure stipulates “reasonable use” of water by property owners — which includes corporate owners of property. “Reasonable use” of a corporation, especially if that corporation happens to be, say, a water corporation, may be a wee bit larger than reasonable use by you or me.

Many contend a major loophole of the Great Lakes Water Compact allow corporations to sell bottled Great Lakes water. The little skeptical voice in me says the rush to pass Issue 3 coinciding with passage of the Compact sets the table for a major export of Great Lakes water in bottled form. Maybe this is extreme paranoia.

On the other hand, the vagueness of the exact wording of Issue 3 coupled with the fact that it is a constitutional amendment result in both wide interpretation (in the favor of corporate use and abuse) and difficulty in altering it down the road (constitutions are not easy to change). The exact same conditions spelled out as a law, by contrast, can be amended by simple vote of a majority of the state legislature with support of the governor.

The second troubling notion about Issue 3 goes beyond “reasonable use” -- be it by the public (i.e. state), residents, or corporations. It has to do with the direction Issue 3 is headed.

Water is not simply a “resource” for human consumption. It’s not a commodity to be bought, sold or owned. Nor is it ultimately about “management,” be it good or bad.

The fundamental question is not what rights people have to water as much as does water itself have rights? Before you fall out of your chair, consider that Ecuador recently chose a different path when thinking about water and constitutions.

Citizens in that South American nation in September overwhelmingly approved a new national constitution that is the first in the world to recognize legally enforceable Rights of Nature, or ecosystem rights. The new Ecuadorian constitution proclaims nature the "right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution." The constitution forces the government to take, "precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles." This includes water.

Issue 3 with its increased constitutional protection of private property rights over water is headed in exactly the opposite direction that the prophetic people of Equator have steered.

The question ultimately may not be what rights people have to water as what rights water and all of nature has to its very existence, persistence, and regeneration.

I voted no on Issue 3.

The Day After Halloween

Far fewer kids seem out on Halloween trick or treating these past few years. One more example of the decline of community. Halloween has been replaced by phony parties in the malls. Commercialism reigns triumphant once again. One aspect of this decline has been the fear generated by the media about what might happen to those kiddies roaming around in the dark in your neighborhood. Add to this the urban legends that always appear about this time – poisoned candy, needles in apples or oranges. The latter was current when I was a kid 50 years ago!

Halloween was part of communal culture. You went around in home made costume to your neighbors and got gifts from them. Back in my day and beyond, Halloween also served another function – a kind of safety valve in the community. Living in a very authoritarian and repressive society, the young were given this one day of the year to cause mischief and torment their tormentors. While aimed at adult authority in general, the holiday also served as pay back time to individual members of the community who were unpleasant to children, such as the nasty teacher or the hateful old man down the street. They would get their windows soaped or the air let out of their tires. And the kids would snicker about this for months after.

Today, for the most part, the brute authoritarianism is gone. Children now face a more sublimated kind of tyranny. Every aspect of their lives is monitored and organized. It is of course, like the floggings and denigrating tirades of the past, "done for their own good." For "out there" lurks an army of kidnappers, child-buggerers, and gang members just waiting to pounce on Little Jason and Amanda.

Somehow I doubt it is all that much worse than when I was a kid. The difference is the lack of community. With real towns and real neighborhoods, we kids knew who all the "pervs" were and avoided them. Today "the public"is too aware, but then, overt knowledge of such things as pedophilia and incest was suppressed. We kids understood and expressed our awareness through warnings about not bending over to get the soap in a public shower and jokes about scoutmasters, priests and choirboys. In real communities, as the late Jane Jacobs pointed out, there are thousands of eyes seeing what goes on. The sick can't get away with much.

The anonymity and alienation of suburban life has given a much freer rein to the emotionally sick amongst us. This creates fear, and fear in turn, further destroys community. The suburb is a vicious circle that eternally grinds down everything that makes us human.The only way Halloween and all other forms of communal, non-alienated activity will revive is through rejecting the American-style suburb and a return to living in real neighborhoods.

Examining State Ballot Issues: Issue 1

‘’I’ve received numerous emails over the last two weeks asking my views on a number of statewide issues on the November 4 ballot — Issues 1, 3 and 5. For what it’s worth, below is the first of my humble assessments of these three ballot measures seen through the lens of corporate power/democracy. The questions that are important to me in examining each Issue are:
Will passage of the Issue provide business corporations more or less rights, rules and/or powers to do what they want, when they want, where they want?
Relatedly, will passage of the Issue make it more or less difficult for citizens to govern themselves?
With these two questions in mind, below is my assessment of state Issue 1. Similar assessments on Issues 3 and 5 will be shared over the next few days.

------

State Issue 1

The main provision of Issue 1 calls for an earlier filing deadline for citizen-initiated statewide ballot issues from 90 days before an election to 125 days. It also establishes deadlines for county board of elections to validate citizen petitions. Its last provision calls for streamlining citizen-initiative petition legal challenges by bypassing lower courts in favor of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Citizens concerned about their power to directly create laws (i.e. called a “citizen initiative”) should be extremely skeptical whenever any proposals are offered to amend the citizen initiative process.

It was the 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention, which created 3 direct democratic tools — the initiative, referendum and recall. These tools permitted citizens to create and undue laws considered to be unjust, as well as to replace public officials between elections acting against the interests of the people. These democratic tools were added to the state constitution as a way to counter the corporate influence to mold, shape, and create public policies...and politicians. These tools are still needed today more than ever.

Anyone who has ever been involved in any citizen initiative campaign knows the extreme difficulty in collecting valid signatures. The more grassroots the initiative, the fewer the resources and petition circulators. Every single day is needed to collect names with the goal of gathering at least 50% more than the number of valid signatures required to account for those that will be tossed for any number of reasons.

Under current state law, completed citizen initiative petitions need to be submitted 90 days before the November election to qualify for that election. For those keeping track, that means early August. Issue one would move back the deadline 35 days — to the middle of June.

This stifles democracy.

It’s much more difficult to collect signatures in the winter and spring than during the summer here in Ohio. A mid-June deadline for signature submissions would effectively reduce the ability to organize a successful petition drive.

One might argue that petition circulators should just move indoors. Unfortunately, inside spaces are increasingly corporate spaces. One is generally not permitted to circulate petitions in workplaces or in corporate establishments — including malls. The first amendment right to petition doesn’t exist on corporate property. The corporate enclosure of what formerly had been public town squares significantly reduces the ability to speak, organize...and petition.

Issue 1 is being promoted as a means to increase efficiency and effectiveness of boards of elections to count and verify citizen petitions. Such is the perspective from the top looking down.

For citizens dedicated to making creating rules and laws that bypass legislative and executive bodies (people at the bottom looking up), making it more difficult to organize a successful citizen initiative petition is a step in the wrong direction.

An Interesting Response to the Economic Crisis

A Catalan militant, Enric Duran, has defrauded 39 Spanish banks of 500,000 Euros, using some of same techniques as the Wall Street scammers. He used the money to fund social movements and produce 200,000 copies of a free newspaper called CRISIS, describing the fraud as well as the nature of the money system and alternatives to capitalism. For the English on-line version see: http://polaris.moviments.net:8000/crisi

Thanks to Peter Gelderloos for this information. See http://www.counterpunch.org/gelderloos10162008.html

It Pays To Rebel!

From the time we are old enough to understand language more complex than Mummy or Daddy, we are told that rebellion is a sure road to ruin. In most families if you express a desire to do something "out of the ordinary", such as become a muscian, artist, or writer out pours a litany. "You won't make any money." "You will be wretched and poor." "That's not for our kind of people." Then all the stories about the poverty, drug addiction and alcoholism of noted artists. Later on in high school or university, if you take an interest in peace, and the environment or join a socialist or anarchist group, then comes, "You will never get a good job with ideas like that." "Be practical." "You'll end up behind the eight ball." "Idealism is fine, but it won't pay the rent." "Wait till you are 40, you'll think different." It seems that unless you do what you are told, keep your thoughts to yourself and join the sheep, your future is toast. But, in reality, how good is the pay back from conforming?

Examine even briefly the history of the past hundred years and the results of doing what you are told don't seem so great. One result is premature death. Millions of men died in obeying the bosses call for victims in their wars. Many millions more were seriously injured or came back emotional wrecks. Then there was that little episode in Germany with the funny mustache guy. Genocide and a war that killed maybe 50 million people. All the work of obedient "good Germans." Roll ahead a few years. The men of the 1950's and 60's who worked obcessively all their lives because that was what they were supposed to do died in droves before or shortly after retirement.

The good little 1950's-60's housewives ended up alone in old age with no interests other than TV and bingo to comfort them. The people today who obey the media propaganda and simply must have three cars, a mini mansion and every new gadget that comes along, find themselves worked to death and in debt peonage. Then cigarettes, diet sodas, junk food, all consumed by the lemming masses whose pay back is obesity and cancer. And so on...

The vast majority of rebels who headed for the hills or took off to Mexico rather than get themselves killed in the trenches, survived. The socialists, anarchists and trade unionists who remained true to their convictions all their lives – and many did – ended up in old age admired and respected by a younger generation of militants. Addicted or alcoholic artists certainly existed, but they were always in the minority. Their misery was the product of their times, of the highly authoritarian and repressive system they lived under.

I do not personally know a single artist, musician, writer or social activist who is miserable, or an addict or drunkard. The vast majority of fellow rebels I have known and grown into middle age with, have been successful and managed to live lives, that while not up to the 3 car, McMansion "standard", are by no means impoverished. They have become respected in their fields, such as art, journalism, crafts, music, poetry, film, photography, teaching, medicine, research, politics or trade union work.

The real route to success is doing what you really want to do. To excel, one must push at the boundaries, to go beyond what was done before. Pushing the boundaries means refusing to do what you are told - in other words rebelling.

But it makes sense that the rebels do well and the sheep suffer. That is the whole point of the authoritarian structure that demands obedience and conformity. The rulers want the people to obey so they can be easily exploited. If everyone rebelled and thought for themselves the bosses would no longer be able to control the population. The "good worker" is supposed to be fleeced. Obedience is a suckers game.