Monday, September 25, 2017

Do the Leisure Class pundits know how anything works?


It's a damn chore to keep track of the Predator Class economic arguments. Which is why I am so grateful that Bill Black takes the time and effort to do those ugly chores. That the banksters are a gang of thieves is no surprise. After all, Veblen's core definition of the Leisure Class is that of the people who fasten themselves on the backs of the productive segments of society through force and fraud in the often successful attempt to get something for nothing. These people contribute nothing to society yet fancy themselves extra-smart because by their definition, cunning is the nearest synonym to human genius they have.

The great scene in Wall Street where Gekko gives his "Greed is Good" speech was hardly original. After all, the whole point of Leisure Class intellectualism is to come up with justifications for plunder. But what made that movie moment interesting is the number of movie-goers who actually thought that speech was wise, bordering on profound.

There are many who believe that such as Gekko should be accorded positions of leadership in democratic societies. Wrong! When the casinos are run by greedy crooks, the rest of us don't much care. It we don't want to do business with such people, we simply don't enter their establishments. But when those same greedheads start messing with the affairs of state, then what they do becomes everyone's business. And if these people decide that some easy money can be made by deindustrialization, the whole economy staggers. And if these people decide to rip off the system by deferring maintenance, sooner or later bridges start to fall down.

And if there is a crying need for massive infrastructure upgrades to avoid the calamities of climate change and the greedheads decide this is something we cannot afford, why then the necessary investments will not be made and the planet heats up to the point where human life becomes essentially impossible. Dangerous racket you got there, greedheads.

Is Politico or Third Way More Divorced from Reality?

William K. Black, September 11, 2017

The Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party (Third Way) is relentless in trying to bring back the days in which the Democratic Party’s leaders buried the Party in Wall Street’s pocket under the label “New Democrats.” That period led President Clinton and Vice President Gore to implement disgraceful policies that made Wall Street executives fabulously wealthy at the expense of people. To deliver on their promises to Wall Street, Clinton and Gore had to betray much of what the Democratic Party stood for. Clinton and Gore’s destruction of effective financial regulation, which President Bush exacerbated, created the massively criminogenic environment that blew up the global economy.

I have written several times and documented that Third Way is a creature of, and devoted to, Wall Street’s CEOs. Third Way’s con is describing itself as “centrist.” Wall Street CEOs are not centrist. They include the world’s most powerful and destructive predators and parasites. The “left, right, center” metaphor does not apply to a group like Wall Street’s CEOs. The latest media sucker to fall for Third Way’s con is Politico. Politico fell whole hog, calling Third Way a “center-left think tank.” Fortunately, Google’s recent purge of New America Foundation scholars has proved that “think tanks” financed by elite corporate CEOs are oxymorons run by regular morons. The one thing you can never do as a scholar at a faux “think tank” like Third Way is actually think – and then make public the perfidy of the corporate CEOs that fund the non-think tank.

Third Way is Wall Street on the Potomac, so it is preposterous to call it “center-left.” It keeps its corporate funders secret to maximize their corrupting influence. It is one of many Pete Peterson front groups.

Politico compounded its error of falling for Pete Peterson’s false flag operation through its uncritical regurgitation of Third Way’s latest propaganda about jobs. The title of the article was “Third Way study warns Democrats: Avoid far-left populism.” A Third Way “focus group” prompted the article. Focus groups rightly became infamous when the Clintons’ based policy not on the merits or principles, but on political popularity as expressed by tiny groups of people discussing their impressions about a matter. One of the reasons Hillary Clinton was so unpopular with many people was that they believed that she based too many of her policies on their popularity in focus groups rather than any principled beliefs. Politico’s analytics-free article ignored that sad history and the political stupidity of basing a Party’s principles and policies on focus groups.

The Third Way memorandum that prompted the Politico story has one strength. It confirms what progressive Democrats have long argued – the key is jobs. That fact confirms that the anti-jobs Wall Street agenda that Third Way and the New Democrats have been pushing is not only terrible policy but also terrible politics. Politico is oblivious to these facts. It turns out that the actual statement by focus group participants strongly support Senators Sanders and Warren’s pro-jobs policies. Third Way, however, as a Wall Street front group, opposes their pro-jobs policies and supports Wall Street and the New Democrats’ anti-jobs policies.

The Third Way memorandum is even more dishonest in its treatment of President Trump’s policies. The memorandum also shows why focus groups are so unreliable in revealing anything other than the participants’ perceptions. Third Way shows how perceptions can be divorced from reality.
The fact is that the Democratic Party faces a grave perception problem: voters do not believe it is the party of jobs. Pre- and post-election polls confirmed that Democrats trailed on the issue of jobs in 2016. In the lead-up to Election Day, Republicans led by six points on jobs. Even worse, a post-election poll put Republicans’ edge at 16 points on “creating more good-paying jobs in the U.S.,” while another looking at working-class whites gave Republicans a 35-point advantage on which party will “improve the economy and create jobs.”

[T]his perception took shape during the 2010 midterm election—in which Republicans swept to power—and has existed in varying degrees since.
The focus group participants’ perceptions of Trump’s fake pro-jobs promises reveal that lying relentlessly to a subgroup of our population works. Trump’s agenda is hostile to jobs, but he said he was pro-jobs and would produce miracles. Trump is a notorious liar. Lying works with a significant portion of the electorate. It shapes their perceptions, which are often divorced from reality.

Third Way claimed that the focus group’s participants perceived Democrats as not putting enough emphasis on jobs for three reasons. Their actual results demonstrate that this is not true. First, the results show that the statement is imprecise. The more accurate statement is that white working class voters for Trump perceived Democrats as not focusing on providing jobs to the white working class. Second, the white working class Trump voters were frequently willing to display openly their intense hatred for the “other.”
Focus group participants were palpably angry about this perceived neglect. At times, this anger boiled over into vitriolic attacks on people they perceived as “others.”
In full disclosure, some participants’ comments were offensive to the core, and these people may be true Trump believers who are simply lost to the Democratic Party.

They’re angry because they believe the system rewards everyone but them, and this anger manifests itself in vicious attitudes toward outgroups. Some participants in our focus groups were not shy to convey overtly racist, xenophobic, and homophobic attitudes.

In plain English, Third Way found that bigotry explained why many white working class voters voted for Trump. Third Way describes the “overtly racist, xenophobic, and homophobic attitudes” as “vicious,” “palpably angry,” “vitriolic,” “shocking,” “appalling,” and “offensive to the core.”
Third Way falsely describes how it treated the “vitriolic” racism.
Throughout the memo, we determined it was important to convey participants’ words in an unfiltered format—even where we found their words shocking or appalling.
In fact, the racism was so ugly that Third Way does not quote a single example of it even though their report contains dozens of quotations from the forum participants. The fiction that Democrats, from 2010 on, sought to create jobs for blacks and Latinos but not the white working class provided these racist participants’ (false) excuse for voting for Trump and for proclaiming their hate for the “other.” The “homophobic” attacks demonstrate that tying Trump voters’ to supposed job favoritism by Democrats for blacks and Latinos is simply an excuse for bigotry.

It is relatively hard for participants in a three-day long focus group to express racist views in front of others. The racists know, and hate, the fact that other members of the group that they will have to interact with disdain their racism. Most moderate racists are unlikely to utter their true hate for the “other” in such a setting. Third Way did not report the number of focus group members that displayed intense racial animus or quote them because these facts did not accord with their agenda, but the number would have substantially understated the actual number of participants who held such views.

Third Way’s memo unintentionally demonstrates the absurdity of Trump voters’ perceptions. Third Way finds that Trump voters agree that the system is rigged – but on behalf of the people who lose under that system!
The root cause of voters’ anger is the political system they perceive as rewarding the poor and the rich.
Note that they list the poor first as the fictional greatest beneficiary of the rigged system. Anyone who knows the history of the United States will recognize the strategy used by white elites for centuries to ensure their political and economic domination by creating racial solidarity with poorer whites by casting poor blacks as villains. Trump’s white identity strategy reprises the same disgraceful demonization. It is no surprise that it worked for Trump; it has worked for over 150 years.

Third Way shows how spectacularly the strategy of demonizing blacks worked for Trump in attracting white working class votes.
Some participants also communicated resentment over special breaks for the rich, but there were fewer of these comments and they were less vitriolic in tone.
Third Way says it mentioned the poor first as the fictional greatest beneficiaries of the rigged system because the Trump voters rarely mentioned that the system was rigged to enrich further the wealthy. Even in the few cases they did so they were “less vitriolic in tone.” The Third Way’s memo about its focus group is so unscientific that it does not provide any numbers on how many participants expressed particular views. Third Way is also disingenuous in its “less vitriolic” description. The sole example Third Way provides of Trump voters’ perceptions of the system being rigged in favor of the wealthy is the phrase “many tax cuts/credits have been given to the upper class.” Using the word “vitriolic,” even with the modifier “less,” is absurd to describe that comment. The Trump supporters’ “vicious” racist language attacking poor blacks and Latinos” stands in complete contrast to the rare, milk toast lament about the wealthy.

Third Way provides a dishonest and crude explanation for how the system is rigged in favor of the victims that is understandable only if the reader realizes that Third Way shills relentlessly for Wall Street CEOs and regularly promotes many of Trump’s lies. Third Way’s highest priority is defeating the re-imposition of the rule of law on Wall Street CEOs and ending their massive frauds that have enriched them by devastating our Nation and much of the world.

I have spoken to and with thousands of the white working class. They know that Wall Street CEOs rig the system to benefit those CEOs. It enrages them. It enrages them even though President Obama failed to prosecute any of those CEOs. Those prosecutions could have transformed the political situation because they would have explained to the public how the frauds worked, how they drove the crisis, and how they enriched the CEOs. The working class is enraged at Wall Street CEOs even without this information, but consider how motivated they would be if they could read the revelations produced by over 1,000 convictions of elite bankers. Then consider how supportive they would be of the political party that had the courage to bring those prosecutions.

President Obama did not simply fail to prosecute the Wall Street CEOs who led the largest frauds. His Justice Department failed to prosecute even the not-so-elite mortgage banker CEOs and SVPs who led the making of millions of fraudulent mortgage loans. Even worse, to the extent Obama and his DOJ officials said anything about elite bank fraud they virtually always spoke to downplay it and to express their fear that prosecuting fraudulent bankers could harm the world. Obama’s unprincipled failure to restore the rule of law to Wall Street was terrible policy and terrible politics.

Third Way, of course, ignores Wall Street elites’ crimes as the ultimate form of rigging the system. Third Way, like Trump, presents a false dichotomy. The Democratic Party must choose to be “pro-business” and abandon being “anti-business.” As Third Way and Trump spin the issue, pro-business means pro-jobs and anti-business means anti-jobs. Third Way wants both major parties devoted to serving the interests of giant corporations’ CEOs. It advises the Democratic Party to further weaken the government and embrace deregulation again to complete the evisceration of the rule of law. Wall Street created, and runs, Third Way to ensure that it shills for Wall Street’s greatest wishes.

Democrats should be the party that supports honest businesses. Only by vigorously enforcing the rule of law can we avoid the “Gresham’s” dynamic that makes it impossible for honest business to compete with their criminal rivals. George Akerlof received the Nobel Prize in Economics in large part for his 1970 article on markets for “lemons” that introduced and named this perverse dynamic to economists.
[D]ishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market. The cost of dishonesty, therefore, lies not only in the amount by which the purchaser is cheated; the cost also must include the loss incurred from driving legitimate business out of existence.
Only government can break this perverse dynamic through regulation and prosecution – the enforcement measures essential to establishing an effective rule of law. The Gresham’s dynamic is terrible for jobs because it drives our most destructive financial crises and recessions. Effective regulation and prosecution is essential to expanding jobs – and preventing criminal employers from defrauding their employees. The Democrats should become the pro-honest business party by re-establishing the rule of law. It would be good for jobs, good for America, and good politics. If the Democrats return to shilling for Wall Street they will be destroyed. Even Third Way admits that voters would support such a principled, pro-jobs policy were the Democrats to adopt it.
It is true that voters want the government to crack down on business abuses….
There are other pro-job policies that the Democrats should make their own. First, the Democrats should be the party of full employment through a federal employer of last resort program. Everyone who wishes to work and is capable of working will have a job. Jobs, not simply a basic income, are essential to the sense of fulfillment of those who can work. Such a program would also put the lie to the claim that the poor do not want to work.

Second, the U.S. puts its firms at a competitive disadvantage relative to international competitors by placing the cost of health care on many firms. A significant number of the largest firms provide the so-called “Cadillac” health insurance plans that spur the severe inflation of Americans’ health care costs. Single-payer and national health system programs are much cheaper than our systems and provide equivalent or superior care. Both effects, removing the medical care costs from U.S. firms and reducing overall U.S. health care costs, would lead to more U.S. jobs.

Third, the other key to U.S. jobs is improved education and skills training, particularly for those who lose their jobs.

Fourth, better child care could allow more young parents to work outside the home.

Progressive Democrats favor each of these four pro-jobs programs while Third Way and Republicans oppose each of the policies. Third Way’s memo does not mention any of the four programs, presumably because Trump voters do not understand or support them. That suggests that Hillary Clinton and the DNC have done a poor job of supporting each program and explaining how valuable each is in creating jobs. The New Democrats controlled the DNC and they opposed jobs guarantee programs and single-payer health care. They opposed Senator Sanders’ bold educational program even though the white working class would have been the primary beneficiaries of a well-designed program providing public funding sufficient to allow anyone able to meet university standards to study for a degree. Buried deep inside the Third Way memo came an important admission and a deliberate misstatement about polls showing Democratic Party members’ dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton because they perceived her policies as anti-jobs.
Comparing polls from 2012 and 2016, 90% of African Americans felt Obama’s economic policies would be good for them, compared to 62% who felt the same about Clinton’s. Among Millennials, 57% felt Obama’s economic policies would be good for them, compared to only 38% for Clinton’s.
It turns out that the Democrats’ choice of a New Democrat, Hillary Clinton, as their candidate led to the perception that she was not as committed to jobs as were other elected Democrats such as President Obama. As a New Democrat, Secretary Clinton was less committed to jobs than Senator Sanders. Third Way has, implicitly, admitted that the anti-jobs perception it claims to have identified with “Democrats” was actually a perception of the candidate that Third Way relentlessly pushed – Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton was far weaker on jobs than were progressive Democrats like Senator Sanders for the reasons that I have explained.

One of the most important pro-job education programs that progressive Democrats pushed was ceasing direct and indirect federal subsidies to for-profit schools that defrauded students and the public. Such frauds have dominated the for-profit sector. They result in substantial costs to the public and educational programs that are so poor quality that they leave the typical graduate unprepared to work at the promised jobs. The programs also lead to very high dropout rates and frequent (federally guaranteed) loan defaults. Trump, of course, ran one of these notorious educational frauds. His fraud was so crude that even the existence of the fictional “Trump University” was a fraud. Unfortunately, for-profit schools also made Bill Clilnton wealthy, so the New Democrats have been weak on stopping such frauds. Trump, unsurprisingly, is removing any rule of law restraining these frauds even though fraudulent for-profit schools are major job killers.

Third Way ignored two of the most destructive anti-job policies pushed by many New Democrats for an excellent reason – Third Way was wildly enthusiastic about those policies. Even when it quotes a focus group participant’s statement attacking trade deals as job killers, the Third Way memo ignores the point. The quotation stated the participant’s perception that Trump was pro-jobs because he was “ending trade agreements that are not in our favor.” The New Democrats and Third Way passionately pushed those trade agreements, which Third Way now implicitly admits Americans broadly perceive as anti-jobs.

The second, and far more destructive, job killer pushed by New Democrats and Third Way is the Grand Betrayal, which they called the “Grand Bargain.” In 2010, at a time when the economy desperately needed a far higher level of fiscal stimulus, the New Democrats and Third Way achieved domination of the Obama administration’s fiscal policy. President Obama recruited a senior Third Way leader, Bill Daley, as his Chief of Staff. Daley, a former Wall Street banker, promptly made the Obama administration’s top domestic policy in 2011 the attempt to shred the safety net in a deal with the Republicans. Pete Peterson’s fondest dream is the privatization of Social Security, which would increase Wall Street investment fees by tens of billions of dollars. The Grand Bargain would have also inflicted the economic malpractice of austerity at a time when we were just beginning to recover from the Great Recession.

Had President Obama and Daley succeeded in negotiating this Grand Betrayal of the American people and the Democratic Party’s principles, the economy likely would have been thrown back into recession and Obama would have been a one-term president. Fortunately, the Tea Party members of Congress made demands that were so extreme that the Grand Betrayal failed. Unfortunately, because the Obama administration endorsed austerity the job and wage recovery was slow and the public tended to blame the party in power. Third Way was the most fervent supporter of the Grand Betrayal, including austerity – the most lethal job killer. more

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Exxon-funded climate science


While most environmentalists tremble in rage over the fact that Exxon knew a very great deal about climate change already in the 1970s yet has funded a serious climate change denial effort since then, I happen to think that this is really a nearly perfect example of what Institutional Analysis can teach us.

IA would postulate that since climate change theory is based on sound science, and since Exxon can afford to hire and pay for the finest scientists on the planet, we should not be at all surprised that their scientists would probably know more about climate change than almost anyone else—including most emphatically the academics. The following is an essay written by one of those super-bright people who had her climate science project funded by Exxon.

Ms. Hayhoe also writes about why Exxon decided to become a climate change bad boy although she spends most of her time grappling with the ethical dilemmas of accepting funding from such a source. This is an interesting question, of course, but I don't believe it is nearly as interesting as the question of why Exxon would publicly deny a science that they deemed so important, it became part of their internal planning.

I have already written on this subject and will probably make several more runs at it. But mostly I believe that Exxon changed their minds when they became aware of how mind-boggling difficult it would be to actually rebuild the world so that finding and burning fossil fuels would become unnecessary (not to mention bad for their core businesses.)

Monday, September 18, 2017

The German auto giants face an existential challenge


A few weeks back, a friend of mine bought himself a used Nissan Leaf. Even though it is fully electric, this car is a long way from being a Tesla—its range is less the 100 miles and quite honestly, it is kind of ugly. Even so, I am pretty sure that no purchase in his life has made him happier. It actually makes him giggle.

Based on this small sample size, I am quite willing to announce the day of the electric vehicle (EV) has arrived. Yes they are still quite expensive although his used 2015 with less than 20k miles on the odometer cost about $11,000. Yes their low range and high recharging times make them still something of a hardship to own. But the upside is a luxuriously quiet ride combined with hiccup-quick acceleration and premium handling due to a very low center of gravity. This is in addition to a seriously reduced need for routine maintenance, lower costs for fuel, and the satisfaction of knowing your vehicle is arguably the cleanest set of wheels around. But just to make sure my friend has plenty to giggle about, Nissan has built in an incredible electronic feature set. His favorite seems to be the announcement of available chargers whenever his range drops below 20% complete with directions for finding them.

But even if EVs are the future, the current reality is that they still constitute less than 1% of cars on the road. And nobody is making money selling them. This leaves the auto giants with a monumental problem. If they spend the big money developing EVs, they will be manufacturing a money-loser that will take sales away from the highly profitable vehicles they already sell—a least for the foreseeable future. And so the temptation to not change anything is very high. This problem is especially acute in Germany where the automakers sincerely believe that they already make the best cars on the road.

Friday, September 15, 2017

Big dirty ships make "free" trade economically possible


Ever since the steam guys figured out that it was possible turn heat into motion, folks have been figuring out the thousands of applications for this possibility. Powering ships was one of the first uses of fire-driven power and it remains an important though small niche market (certainly in comparison to land-based transportation and electrical generation) for fuels. The niche has gotten considerably larger in recent years as traditional manufacturing nations off-shore their industrial base to places like China. All of this has been made possible by building very large ships burning the cheapest petroleum available. And they are astonishingly efficient—1/10 of a horsepower can move a ton of shipping through the water at commercially viable speeds.

Until now, no one has seemed to much care that these mega-ships are filthy when it comes to exhaust because for most of their water-borne lives they are out of sight of land. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter where air pollution originates, it is all being dumped into the same atmosphere. When it comes to building a fire-free world, big shipping will be one of the more difficult problems. Giving up mega-ships burning bunker oil will be extremely hard to do. And one of the problems is that impediments to trade like changing the economics of shipping will be viewed with horror by the serious acolytes of "free" trade.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Who murdered the peace movement?


In the essay below, Paul Craig Roberts asks a damn good question, "Who murdered the peace movement?" when discussing the current runaway warmongering in official Washington. As someone who spent a significant fraction of my life before 30 involved in various forms of the peace movement, I'd like to take a crack at that one.
  • Peace movements are automatically the weaker party. It is a thousand times easier to gin up the warlike animus than to teach folks (especially young men) that no one wins wars and that everything from sex to the economy is much better under conditions of peace. Peace movements are only successful when there are highly intelligent and charismatic leaders (like Bertrand Russel) who can make the peace arguments. It also helps to have religious movements (Quakers, Mennonites) that can do the heavy lifting of training successive generations of young men why the peace arguments are superior.
  • The antiwar activities associated with the Vietnam War were notoriously empty intellectually and ideologically. In my experience, a minimum of 95% of the young men who participated in the antiwar movement were merely trying to keep their own asses safe. The day after the first draft lottery I had occasion to visit the Quaker-run Twin Cities Draft Information Center. The place was empty except for the lone woman who had shown up to unlock the doors. 2/3 of their "clients" had gotten their good news and didn't need the help of the dreary folks who liked to stress the moral illiteracy of the warmongers.
  • After Vietnam, the military types learned their lessons on how to avoid the influence, such as it was, of the peaceniks. With their all-volunteer forces and a well-thought-out strategy of spending their money in every congressional district, they would never again lose a political battle over any war they wanted to start. After the last great unsuccessful peace marches opposing the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the peace types realized their situation was utterly hopeless and pretty much gave up.
That's what murdered the peace movement. Which is sort of ironic when one considers that the peaceniks have ALL the good rational arguments. But in the face of the unrelenting propaganda that the warmongers have at their disposal, even people who know and fervently agree with the outcome-based facts of a peace philosophy find it just a whole lot easier to shut up and fume at the unrelenting stupidity of those who still believe that warfare solves anything.

Monday, September 4, 2017

Stone on USA "intelligence"


As hurricane Harvey dumped up to 52" on parts of Texas, our elected officials ponder the grave and soul-searching question "Is my hatred for Russia pure enough." The latest sanctions bill against Russia passed the Senate 98-2. That folks is the Gulf of Tonkin vote. 2% is also about the percentage of folks with a minimal clue compared to the 98% sheep who will believe almost anything and must follow their emotions because their intellects were never properly developed. I mean, seriously, are their any sentient Americans who want to risk nuclear war over Crimea, or Syria, or Iran. And yet the vote was 98-2.

And of course, while we fight over Confederate-era statues and other forms of utter irrelevance, the big problems like climate change go unaddressed. This is absolutely insane. And Oliver Stone and Paul Craig Roberts cannot figure out why there is so much insanity. Of course, they are part of the awareness 2% so they cannot intrinsically understand.

Monday, August 28, 2017

McCoy on the CIA


McCoy is a Yalie who not especially surprisingly got involved with the intelligence services. Skull and Bones is at Yale and the bright and well connected often join forces to become what has lately come to be called "the deep state." McCoy is not well-connected but as can be seen from his beautiful writing, he is obviously very bright. This combination has often led to some scathing outsider critiques and McCoy's here is a doozy.

I have two comments on his expose:
  • McCoy is appropriately outraged that during the Vietnam War, the CIA moved so much heroin into South Vietnam that an estimated 34% of USA forces became regular users. Well yes, wartime profiteering in hard drugs probably doesn't have a lot of support. But I had a neighbor in St. Paul who was one of those users. He was a poor farm kid from northwest Minnesota who had managed to get a degree in French from a St. Paul college. The army turned him into a translator who was assigned to get information from captured Viet Cong. The guys doing the actual interrogation were South Vietnamese army but he was in the room when the torture took place. He never really recovered from that experience and halfway through his tour, the army realized their mistake and reassigned him to Saigon where he spent the rest of his time making sure the hookers with USA clients got their regular shots. This wasn't much of an improvement as he became witness to another wartime-related form of human degradation. Soon he was consuming the readily available heroin. His favorite method involved a regular cigarette that had been soaked in a heroin bath and dried. He reported that the advantage was that he could consume his drugs in the presence of his commanding officers and no one seemed to notice because they looked and smelled like normal cigarettes. In his opinion, heroin was the only reason he survived Vietnam without going insane and committing suicide. So strange as it may sound, getting smack to USA troops may have been one of the more virtuous acts in CIA history.
  • McCoy has done us all a serious service by telling us what some of our taxpayer money has been spent on. On the other hand, one can only wonder at what might have become of such a talented person if he hadn't wasted his life chasing the bad guys. It is MUCH better than being one of the bad guys, of course, but in the end it is still just mostly Leisure Class silliness.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The total triumph of the idiot classes


The absolute WORST feature of Identity Politics is that it trivializes everything. There are BIG problems like climate change, the fact that folks with schoolyard bully mentalities have access to doomsday weapons, the general collapse of the biosphere, and the reality that the global economy is being run by sociopathic lunatics. Yet there are those who believe that I should be most concerned about the sort of statuary found in obscure parks in mainly the Old South. Now I understand that this sort of symbolic posturing is about all most people can muster as a public gesture. And I know it is WAY beyond the abilities of your typical mainstream journalist to write about anything more complex or important than transgender bathrooms. But sooner or later, we must address the big problems or humanity will cease to exist on the third rock from the sun.

Perhaps the best example of a culture run by excessively trivial dimwits is the current outbreak of Russia-bashing. To listen to these cretins, we are supposed to hate the Russians because they annexed Crimea after the anti-Russian coup in the Ukraine. The Crimeans, who have considered themselves part of Russia since Catherine the Great, wanted to rejoin Russia so badly that their vote to become part of the Russian Federation was well over 90%. Crimea was also Russian by virtue of a LOT of spilled blood. Between the Nazi invasion, the siege of Sevastopol, its surrender and the pitched battles to recapture it, the Red Army and civilians, mostly Russian, lost over 500,000 in the battles for Crimea during the Great Patriotic War. That's more than the totals for all of WW II for the French, British, and USA combined. The idea that Russia was going to give up Crimea over a chickenshit coup in Kiev is beyond preposterous. Yet Crimea is reason #1 given for the current round of Russia-bashing.

Monday, August 21, 2017

Neoliberalism—the catastrophic idea that won the day despite being wrong about everything


1973 turned out to be the major economic watershed year for most people alive today. Because that was the year that the pro-growth assumptions of the Keynesians were run out of town.  I was in college when it happened. It was a college known for its Keynesian perspective. The head of the economics department, one Walter Heller, had been JFK's top economic advisor and liked to brag that he taught the principles of Keynes to the President of the USA. In fact, almost anyone who ever had Heller for a class, or had even just met him professionally, had heard this boast. I actually enjoyed his JFK stories because he told them to illustrate the point that even "mere" politicians could understand a set of ideas that had a well-deserved reputation for being difficult.

The University of Minnesota had been "Keynesian" since Alvin Hansen became a full professor in 1923. Actually, calling Hansen a Keynesian is more than a little bit misleading. The USA midwest had only recently been settled so there was a constant stream of political agitation for an economics that represented the world views of people who were attempting to claw a civilization out of some very empty places. Hansen grew up in Viborg South Dakota among people who were attempting to grow row crops and other agricultural pursuits on grassland that had never been plowed. For such people, economic plans that emphasized development were the only ones that would possibly interest them. He studied these ideas under Richard Ely and John Commons at the University of Wisconsin—another new and developing state. So Hansen already was a believer in pro-growth economics long before Keynes ever published his General Theory in 1936.

That Hansen was obviously a "Keynesian" before he ever heard of the man was not unique to him. Marriner Eccles, hands down the best central banker the USA has ever had, was "accused" of being a Keynesian because of his guidance of the Fed during the Roosevelt years. No less a figure than Ken Galbraith called Eccles the most important Keynesian in the land. And yet Eccles claimed to his dying day that he had never read Keynes. For men like Hansen and the Mormon from Utah Eccles, calling them Keynesians was merely a label used by lazy academics and journalists who weren't about to go to the trouble of understanding why folks from frontier settlements might have independently developed pro-growth economic ideas.

Below is a Guardian article that explains how the feudal / imperialist economics came roaring back when the Keynesians faltered in 1973. Their story is about the battle of ideas between Keynes and Friedrich Hayek. My story is that the Keynesians lost because by 1973 their profession had far too many Leisure Class hacks (like Paul Samuelson) and far too few giants like Hansen and Eccles who understood the importance of the Producer Classes and their interests (no matter how they were labeled).

I have written about Hansen and the USA "Keynesians" before:

Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Frances Perkins and the fight for decent working conditions


Sunday, November 6, 2011
Waking up to the relentless idiocy of neoliberalism

Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world

The word has become a rhetorical weapon, but it properly names the reigning ideology of our era – one that venerates the logic of the market and strips away the things that make us human.

Stephen Metcalf, 18 August 2017

Last summer, researchers at the International Monetary Fund settled a long and bitter debate over “neoliberalism”: they admitted it exists. Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not known for its incaution, published a paper questioning the benefits of neoliberalism. In so doing, they helped put to rest the idea that the word is nothing more than a political slur, or a term without any analytic power. The paper gently called out a “neoliberal agenda” for pushing deregulation on economies around the world, for forcing open national markets to trade and capital, and for demanding that governments shrink themselves via austerity or privatisation. The authors cited statistical evidence for the spread of neoliberal policies since 1980, and their correlation with anaemic growth, boom-and-bust cycles and inequality.

Neoliberalism is an old term, dating back to the 1930s, but it has been revived as a way of describing our current politics – or more precisely, the range of thought allowed by our politics. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, it was a way of assigning responsibility for the debacle, not to a political party per se, but to an establishment that had conceded its authority to the market. For the Democrats in the US and Labour in the UK, this concession was depicted as a grotesque betrayal of principle. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, it was said, had abandoned the left’s traditional commitments, especially to workers, in favour of a global financial elite and the self-serving policies that enriched them; and in doing so, had enabled a sickening rise in inequality.

Over the past few years, as debates have turned uglier, the word has become a rhetorical weapon, a way for anyone left of centre to incriminate those even an inch to their right. (No wonder centrists say it’s a meaningless insult: they’re the ones most meaningfully insulted by it.) But “neoliberalism” is more than a gratifyingly righteous jibe. It is also, in its way, a pair of eyeglasses.

Peer through the lens of neoliberalism and you see more clearly how the political thinkers most admired by Thatcher and Reagan helped shape the ideal of society as a kind of universal market (and not, for example, a polis, a civil sphere or a kind of family) and of human beings as profit-and-loss calculators (and not bearers of grace, or of inalienable rights and duties). Of course the goal was to weaken the welfare state and any commitment to full employment, and – always – to cut taxes and deregulate. But “neoliberalism” indicates something more than a standard rightwing wish list. It was a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals.

Friday, August 18, 2017

A German (DW) update on climate change


Climate change is a BIG issue around here—not that you would know it from the paucity of reporting on the subject. My excuse is that there is more than enough evidence of climate change—and far too little on the subjects of how we got to this place where almost everything everyone does only adds to the problem. Turns out that the technological problems caused by the total domination of fire-based economies is almost trivial compared to the cultural expressions that support them. So much so that any suggestion that the world must move to fire-free societies is greeted as the most radical form of madness imaginable—even though such an assertion is utterly true.

But since not a lot is getting accomplished towards this necessary goal, we still need reminders of how serious the problems caused by a warming planet really are, and that ignoring these problems will not make them go away. This little reminder from DW must do for today. After all, we simply must get back to the "serious" problem of where we site monuments to Confederate War "heroes." (NOT)

Monday, August 14, 2017

Donald Trump confronts the War Party


David Stockman is the sort that can easily inspire conflicting emotions. He is obviously very bright—he was the boy wonder head of Reagan's Office of Management and Budget who soon got into trouble by pointing out that Reagan's budget numbers were, at best, a hoax. Worse he explained it all to William Greider who wrote up the story in the Atlantic. As history so often reminds us, telling the truth is a hazardous occupation and Stockman's venture into honesty quickly transformed him from Rising Republican Star into a political pariah overnight.

While brazen honesty is an admirable and often amusing trait, it does not transform Stockman into a political genius. While his analysis is often excellent, it is usually colored by the same neoliberal assumptions that have led both major political parties (and most of the world) dangerously astray. So when he gets things wrong, he does so in boringly predictable ways.

But being a neoliberal on economics does not necessarily make someone a warmongering neoconservative—it certainly does not in the case of one David Stockman. In the following he writes about what he believes motivates the attempted establishment coup against the constitutionally elected government currently under way in Washington.

Impeaching Trump is going to be a lot harder than impeaching Bill Clinton for a sex scandal—mostly because both houses of congress are controlled by the Republicans. While not all Republicans are Trump supporters, all can remember how easily he dispatched the field in his run to the White House. Voting to impeach Trump would anger a wide slice of their political base and since elections are often won with slim margins, few wish to find out just how angry their base would get.

And yet the war on the Trump administration continues in spite of its seeming futility. Many, myself included, wonder why anyone would bother trying to remove this man from office. So the following explanation offered by David Stockman—that Trump's real "crime" is that he has threatened the War Party (a powerful group that has mostly gotten its way along with the lion's share of the state's wealth since at least 1916) actually makes a lot of sense.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

China and rare earths


Perhaps THE most annoying thing about the economics profession is that they are extremely bright people with extraordinary math skills who unfortunately know absolutely nothing about the real economy. That they could makes excuses for selling off the crown jewels of USA industrialization for pennies meant beyond any doubt that they had absolutely NO way to accurately value those crown jewels. The biggest single reason is that economists, as a group, are techno-cretins. Any tool more complex than a fork is borderline magical and having to assemble something from IKEA is an "ordeal" (yes I have actually heard one of these geniuses use the word ordeal).

So today's lesson is about how USA economic leadership never figured out how to value rare earths and what a serious problem that will be if we ever get serious about building the post-petroleum society. I think the time has come to make such abject stupidity a capital crime.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Sanctions—economics at its most destructive


Using economics to destroy is perhaps the sickest manifestation of the dismal "science." This is mostly because sanctions only really work when the target is weak. As the world is fast finding out, the Russians may no longer be a superpower but they still have the tools to counter a few sanctions. In fact, the economic adjustments forced on the Russian Federation with the latest round of sanctions may have done their economy a world of good. They have discovered that lots of folks want what they can make, grow, and sell.

The Russians have also discovered that their own economic weapons are quite effective. European agriculture is still staggering from the loss of their Russian markets while Russian agriculture is arguably doing better than at any time in the past century. And as Tom Luongo points out below, their presence in the market for the fuels that run the world's nuclear power plants is quite significant.

But lost in all the discussions of who can do what to whom is the fact that all these sanctions and counter-sanctions diminish everyone's economic possibilities. Building the sustainable civilization will be an act of cooperation—NOT confrontation. And the biggest loser of all is very likely the USA—the biggest sanctions bully on the block.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Elon Musk on education


Producer Class superstars are sort of a freak of nature. The overwhelming majority of folks who become rich and famous are resolutely Leisure Class. There are a multitude of reasons for why this is so but mainly it's because the Leisure Classes hold all the cultural levers.

Ask yourself, When was the last time you saw a movie or TV series starring an engineer or someone who builds skyscrapers (as compared to lawyers or cops or soldiers)? When was the last time you saw a competition between student architects or solar designers (as compared to football players or musicians)? Who controls the real levers of economic power—scientists or financial players?

Our schools reflect this reality. Math and science whizzes tend to be social outcasts while the captain of the football team dates the captain of the cheerleading squad. Of course, that sort of thing is forgivable and understandable. What is not so forgivable is that the academic curriculum is designed and administered by folks who absolutely cheer for all things Leisure Class.  So even if they don't know why, budding Producer superstars are going to hate such an environment. In the clip below, Elon Musk admits that he HATED school—which is odd when you consider how much he obviously loves learning.

The general public quite likes their Producer Class heroes so we shouldn't waste much time feeling sorry for the man. But even so, he has a problem—he has five sons he would like to see educated to higher levels with less pain than his own experience. People who love to learn shouldn't hate school. So he decides to create his own school. He hires a certified teacher who agrees with his goals and methods to run it. And then he invites a few other children to join in the fun.

There are some recognizable features of his school. For example, he has eliminated grade levels thereby recreating the best feature of the one-room school. Some of his innovations aren't really that odd when you think about them. For example, Musk believes that when kids understand why they should learn something, all the other problems of motivation disappear. Well, duh! But ask yourselves, when did any teacher ever give you a believable reason for learning something (beyond, you need this to get into a good college, that is)?

Musk's most prominent Producer Class feature is a nice little habit of saying, "I just want to be useful" whenever confronted with the inevitable "What motivates you?" sort of question. Hard to top that response as a refutation of the ultimate goal of total uselessness that seems to rule the Leisure Class. Apparently he wants to assign usefulness as the goal of his school. To me it sounds like a heaven for those who enjoy learning.

The clip below is from Chinese television. It covers more than his school but the school conversation is in the first three minutes.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

The Circular Economy—still one of the great ideas


One of the lightening bolts of insight that staggered me as a man in his 30s was the idea that because there is no "away" the throwaway society is ultimately doomed by simple physical reality. It is quite impossible to dig up raw materials to be sent on a journey to the landfills forever. Either you run out of resources or you run out of places to store the waste, or both. The only way out of this dilemma is to make products so they can be reprocessed into new things when the time comes for the original product to be replaced.

Yeah.

This is one of those ideas that would require about a million times more effort, cost, and inventiveness to do than to dream up. After all, not only are most things designed and built without the slightest consideration for disposal, large numbers of products are designed to be disposed of after only one use. Designer junk, if you please. I once gave a talk at 3M, a company that has made their primary mission the production of designer junk. I chose to talk about design for disassembly, and other proposed schemes to create a less wasteful world. The assembled 3M folks were not amused. Needless to say, I wasn't asked back.

The idea of the circular industrial society is still one of the better notions to have crossed my mind so I included it in Elegant Technology. It can be found in Chapter Ten: Do Producers Have a Plan? Of course, no one ever reads a book to Chapter Ten so I might as well have never written it at all. But when I saw someone discussing this idea the other day under the title The Circular Economy That Could Save Countries Thousands, Reduce Waste (reprinted below) it made my heart glad. But first, I have decided to reproduce the section from my Chapter Ten called Closing the Loop. I hope that you readers will understand why this was the idea that made me believe a sustainable world was possible. I also hope no one minds that this was first written in 1985.

Monday, July 31, 2017

Globalisation: the rise and fall of a truly terrible idea


There is a certain beauty and nobility about the idea that we are the world and wonderful things happen when we think of the rest of humanity as our brothers and sisters. Unfortunately, some very cynical people can take this beautiful idea and turn it into empire building. The sun never sets on the greatest civilization, you know.

Of course, the Roman or British Empires were harmless play-actors compared to the ruthless plunder available to those who can control the hydraulics of electronic money. And to keep the looting of the electronic money boys on track, the world needed some philosopher-pundits to convince the suckers that usury was harmless and the "structural adjustments" that threw whole classes of people into abject poverty were necessary for growth and prosperity. And to give the practitioners of empire building with electronic money a patina of beauty and respectability, they named their wickedness "Globalization" and "Free Trade" and "Reform."

In spite of the fact that none of these schemes benefitted very many people, the Globalists kept at it because the very few it did benefit became rich beyond the dreams of avarice. But pretty predictions advanced by the expensive think tanks couldn't cover the fact that these global schemes never work.
  • Big mass markets simply cannot work without a giant middle class with money to spend. Unfortunately, the primary goal of the money plunderers is to reduce the size and income of the middle classes.
  • The money boys tend to lack all respect for manufacturing and other forms of useful work. Ship those factories to China or Bangladesh where desperate brown folks will work for $10 a day. The de-industrialization of the formerly industrial countries has triggered some of the greatest calamities in human history. These moves were deliberately undertaken by hopelessly thoughtless people.
  • While we may all be brothers and sisters sharing a big blue marble in space, the realities of life are dramatically different from one region to another. One of the things builders quickly realize is that construction practices often don't travel very far. A house built for the blazing heat of the USA Southwest will be damn near worthless during a North Dakota blizzard. In macroeconomics, the same economic scheme that works well in Sweden may not work nearly as well in India or Egypt. Yet the money boys used their institutions to enforce economic orthodoxy from Ecuador to Korea and dozens of stops in between.
So now we are seeing some of the philosopher-pundits of Globalization coming ever so slowly to the realization that they have been selling some aromatic bullshit. Not all of them, mind you. The economics profession is mostly made up of very conventional people so they have no tendency to abandon their conventional wisdom. But some, apparently with the capacity to feel shame, have recognized that the vast majority of Globalization's major theses are just plain wrong and have formulated critiques. What follows is a damn fine article written by someone who has at least seen a brief flash of light.

Monday, July 24, 2017

The economics of waste


There is no particular reason to believe that Charles H. Smith is a Veblen scholar or that he has even read The Theory of the Leisure Class (TOLC). Nevertheless, if someone had been assigned to summarize TOLC, the following would rate an A+ because these are exactly the points Veblen was trying to make. For example, Veblen includes a whole chapter on why the Leisure Classes believe that waste enhances their status, entitled Conspicuous Waste.

This essay is short and sweet, and the reader isn't required to learn a bunch of arcane terms as is the case with a reading of TOLC. Several times in my life I have been asked to "translate" TOLC into modern English. Because I am terrible at such tasks, I have begged off. But I DO think it is a good idea. And however Smith came to write the following, it will be an excellent substitute until someone actually reworks Veblen's classic.

Friday, July 21, 2017

Re-upping my Producer Class credentials (again)





The main reason for do-it-yourself home repair is that you can have something in your life that is unaffordable any other way. Pictured here is my new rest-and-towel-off area built on the site of one of the nastier basement bathrooms ever seen or imagined. Among its many features it has an ADA-approved low-slip tile floor, knurled, high-grip, stainless-steel grab bars, an ergonomically excellent bench, and an LED lighting system that delivers almost 100 lumens / sq. ft. It is safe, comfortable, and aesthetically quite pleasant. And best of all, it was built with some of the lowest-cost materials sold in the big-box building supply store in my little town—for example the ceramic wall tile only cost $1.52 / sq. ft. ($16.36 / sq. meter).

But for me, this sort of building is also (and probably mainly) an epistemological exercise. Building teaches many important lessons including:
  • Careful and extensive planning is essential.
  • There is absolutely no substitute for getting it right the first time
  • Inexpensive materials can be made to look spectacular if used with imagination
  • The instinct of workmanship works best with good tools
  • Nothing disrupts a time schedule like a non-standard design or application
No one changes the world quite like the builders. And when the builders got really serious about their applied art, they produced the Industrial Revolution. The greatest errors in economics stem directly from a deep ignorance of the tool-users and what their role in society really is. So I build because I never want to lose touch with these people. It is what separates the economic thinking of this blog from virtually every other economics site on the internet. Unless one categorizes Ben Franklin and Peter Cooper as economists, there are no historical examples of economists who were graceful tool-users. Of course the greatest political economist of them all, Thorstein Veblen, built simple things—which mostly proves my point about how rare it is for the tool-users to be even mentioned in economic debates.

Even so, I look at my rebuilt bathroom and am filled with the calm assurance that very likely no other political economist in history could have built it. And this fact alone significantly explains why so many got so much horribly and disastrously wrong. It is impossible to accurately explain human society without accounting for the tool-users. Moreover, tool-using constitutes a knowledge that is rarely found in books—this is something you must do.

I must admit that most of these lessons had been learned long ago. But this time around, I thought a lot about the intersection between competence and honesty (mostly inspired by the hilarious debate in the movie The Big Short over whether it was fraud or stupidity that drove the housing bubble that crashed in 2007-8). Besides cost containment, my main goal was to have a well-made outcome. Like any such project, there were many jobs I had not done before. When that never-been-done-before job appears, the most important assignment is to take an honest and thorough inventory of the possible assets that can bring this task to a successful conclusion.
  • Is there a Youtube of someone doing the same thing? 
  • Do I have the right tools for fabrication? 
  • Can I purchase suitable raw materials? 
  • Is the planned method within my skill set? etc.
Of course, when there isn't a relevant example to copy, you are thrown into the world of invention where all these steps must be repeated with a lot less help. In these situations where outcomes are less certain, the margin for dishonest self assessment drops to ZERO. Turns out, once again, that the most important core ingredient of competency is honesty.

Unfortunately, this will be my last such project. I recently turned 68 and physically I cannot do it anymore. Especially if only to prove an epistemological point. This project was conducted in a cellar which means everything had to be hauled down a flight of stairs. Some construction materials are pretty damn heavy and clumsy. But I DO enjoy my repaired bathroom. The details of how it was done can be found by clicking the Read more button below.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

According to the Guardian, "How economics became a religion"


If there is one position I have maintained for as long as I have been writing this blog it is that, "Far from being a science, conventional economics is just bad theology."

I grew up in a parsonage. I had religion crammed up my nose from before I could remember. I fell in love with science because it offered a refuge from that sort of thinking. In my old age, I have made peace with much religious practice—SOMEONE has to bury the dead, after all, and this is something religious practitioners do fairly well. But I certainly do NOT want religious thinking around questions that are not religious. I consider someone who would pray that their god would heal their broken brakes to be crazy.

Theological thinking applied to economics is just as crazy. And yet, we see it all the time. And this article shows that the problem has become so obvious, even The Guardian can see it. Of course, as the "left" house organ of neoliberalism, they probably aren't about to do anything meaningful about their new point of view. This probably isn't even much of a start. But as someone who has taken a great deal of flak in life for questioning the "scientific" claims of the economics profession, I do find their new awareness oddly pleasant.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

R.L. Bruckberger on American School Economist Henry C. Carey


Last month I posted a large article on American School Economist Henry C. Carey, The only economists who ever created a national economy. The article was drawn almost entirely from the 1965 Pulitzer Prize winning history book, The Greenback Era: A Social and Political History of American Finance, 1865-1879, by Irwin Unger (Princeton University Press, 1964). One of the most intriguing references cited by Unger was R.L. Bruckberger.

Raymond Léopold Bruckberger was a French priest of the Dominican order. At the beginning of World War Two he requested the order allow him to join a combat unit, and served in the French mountain light infantry and commandos. After the collapse of the French army, Bruckberger became chaplain general of the French Resistance. He was awarded the Croix de Guerre and the medal of the Legion of Honor for his role in the Resistance. After the war, he lived eight years in the United States, researching and writing his book Image of America, published by Viking Press in 1959. Prominent American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote a front-page review of the book for the New York Times Book Review, comparing Bruckberger to Alexis de Tocqueville.

One chapter of his book focuses on American School economist Henry C. Carey, and is entitled, "The Only American Economist of Importance" The title is taken from a 5 March 1852 letter by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in which they wrote that Carey is “the only American economist of importance.”

Bruckberger inlcuded some excerpts from Carey that directly assault the key tenets of conservative, libertarian, and neoliberal economic thought. And, of course, Bruckberger frames Carey’s economic thought as being distinct from, and hostile to, today’s economic thought dominated by the British school. Contrast Carey’s belief that man’s struggle to master nature necessitates the creation of a cooperative society, with neoliberals' belief  (as per Margaret Thatcher) that “there is no society.”, only a never ending struggle of personal interests mediated by the working of markets. Carey’s belief also foreshadows Veblen’s analysis of the need for organized cooperation in the industrial processes of production. And Carey's analysis of humanity's struggle to master nature reinforces the point I have made in the past that the most important economic activity a society undertakes in the creation and dissemination of new scientific and technological knowledge. In The Higgs boson and the purpose of a republic (July 2014), I wrote:
....what is wealth? Is it really hoards of cash, or stockpiles of precious metals? Consider: Why do we have computers now, when there were none 200 or 500 or more years ago? Certainly, 500 years ago, all the raw materials that go into making a computer were available. There was lots of silicon laying around, and there was a lot of petroleum, with which to make plastics, sitting in the ground. There was the same presence of germanium and silver, and copper, and whatever else is needed to make a computer, 500 years ago, as there is today. What is so different today that we can make computers now, but could not 500 years ago? The answer, of course, is knowledge - we first had to develop, acquire, and master, the various facets of science that allowed us to make use of those latent natural resources, then apply that science to actual physical processes of production, or what we call technology. So what wealth really is, is the human power of thinking: reason, investigation, hypothesizing, testing, figuring out why things are the way they are -- and then figuring out how that new knowledge can be used to change the way things are.
In other words, the knowledge required to master nature.

One more note: Bruckberger identifies Carey as a Jeffersonian (there is an article in Bruckberger's book devoted to Jefferson previous to the article on Carey). Since Carey was a foremost advocate for the neomercantalist policies of Hamilton—a protective tariff, a national banking system, and massive government investments in infrastructure—Carey thus brings together and melds the two contending factions of early American history: Jeffersonian, and Hamiltonian.

Following are excerpts from pages 156-165 of Bruckberger's Image of America. At the end of this post are more results of an index search in economics textbooks.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Tucker Carlson destroys Max Boot


Tucker Carlson used to drive me into fits of rage. So now he has a gig at Fox News and suddenly, he has almost become a voice of reason. Yesterday, (12 JUL 17) he has Max Boot on his show and proceeded to tear him a new one on the subject of foreign relations in the age of Trump. Whatever feelings I may have had for Carlson (an arrogant, overprivileged rich kid with a career path greased by well-connected parents, for example) they pale in comparison to my loathing of Max Boot, one of the nastier house neocons over at the Council on Foreign Relations whose lies have caused the deaths of thousands (if not millions) of people. As John Lennon once wrote:

There is room at the top they keep telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be just like the folks on the hill

A Working Class Hero

After Carlson got done with him, Boot was NOT smiling—even though I am certain he smiles a lot for his employers over at CFR.