Stephen Lendman

In his April 8 article headlined, "The Economic Crisis in Iceland: 'IMF Medicine' is not the Solution," Michael Hudson asked:

"Will Iceland Vote 'No' on April 9, or commit financial suicide," their choice being:

>

Reject debt bondage or "subject their economy to decades of poverty, bankruptcy and emigration of their work force."

In other words, destroying the nation for profit, extorting its wealth, selling off its natural resources and public enterprises, raising taxes on working Icelanders, and transforming the country into a dystopian nightmare, what Merriam-Webster calls "an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives," the opposite of utopia under conditions of deprivation, poverty, disease, violence, oppression, and terror, like in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

In other writing, Hudson called debt bondage "as deadly as outright military" defeat. Loss of livelihoods and assets leave people vulnerable to sickness, despair, and early deaths, much like what happened in post-Soviet Russia under Washington-imposed "shock therapy" when:

● 80% of farmers went bankrupt;
● around 70,000 state factories closed;
● unemployment became epidemic;
● a permanent underclass was created;
● poverty rose from two million in 1989 to 74 million by the mid-1990s, and in half the cases it was desperate;
● alcoholism and drug abuse soared;
● so did HIV/AIDS 20-fold;
● suicides also and violent crime four-fold; and
● the population declined by 700,000 a year; by 2007 it was 10% lower than in 1989 because of sharply reduced life expectancies.

In March 2010, Hudson explained that 93% of Icelanders rejected bailout terms. Otherwise, they faced repayment for billions in banking fraud. In fact, they've already been mercilessly hammered by "a falling GDP, rising unemployment, defaults, foreclosures," and housing prices down 70% from their peak valuation, heading for mortgaging their futures unless freed from perpetual debt bondage.

More »

Stephen Lendman

On February 3, New York Times writers Helene Cooper and Mark Landler headlined, "White House, Egypt Discuss Plan for Mubarak's Exit," saying:

His administration is "discussing with Egyptian officials a proposal for (Mubarak) to resign immediately and turn over power to a transitional government headed by Vice President Omar Suleiman with the support of the Egyptian military," including Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, armed forces chief, and Field Marshall Mohamed Tantawi, defense minister. [...] The alleged plan includes constitutional reform, a transitional government with opposition groups like the Muslim brotherhood, and "free and fair elections in September." [...] Testifying during a February 3 Senate hearing, senior CIA official Stephanie O'Sullivan said earlier tracking of Cairo instability showed conditions were "untenable," but "we didn't know what the triggering mechanism would be."

On February 4, Times writer David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Egyptian Government Figures Join Protesters," saying:

During Friday protests, "(c)racks in the Egyptian establishment's support for (Mubarak)" emerged with Amr Moussa, Arab League head, and other notable figures appearing on Cairo streets, including defense minister Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, the first member of Egypt's ruling elite to do so.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Make no mistake. He didn't quit. He was pushed, the final straw perhaps being the January 18 FCC-approved Comcast-NBC Merger. Its chairman/CEO Brian Roberts co-chaired the 2000 Republican Convention host committee, and COO Stephen Burke/now NBC Universal CEO tilts heavily to Republicans. According to Public Citizen and Think Progress, he raised at least $200,000 for Bush's 2004 campaign, served on his Council on Science and Technology, and may wish to make MSNBC another Fox, despite pledging no "interference with NBC Universal's news operations."

Think Progress asked:

"Why would Comcast be interested in silencing progressive voices?" Because it opposes issues they support, including Net Neutrality, stiffer media regulation, and restraints on being able to buy telecommunications and media companies freely.

Despite having MSNBC's highest ratings, Olbermann's gone like (once top-rated) Phil Donahue ahead of Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the time, a leaked network February 25, 2003 memo to All Your TV.com, said he presented a

"difficult public face for NBC in a time of war....He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." It outlined a nightmare scenario of his show becoming "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity," promoting war, not diplomacy and peace.

For those on the far right, Olbermann, like Donahue, became too hot to handle, personality issues mattering less than staunchly right wing politics. Expect MSNBC to feature more of it, shifting more to the right like Fox and CNN, racing to the bottom to see who's more pro-business, pro-war, and anti-left of center ideologically. MSNBC's remaining prime time hosts take note.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Wall Street predicts blue skies. Economic recovery will continue. Stocks will deliver double-digit gains. On January 14, the Wall Street Journal's Economic Forecast Survey headlined, "Economists Optimistic on Growth," expecting in 2011:

● 3.3% GDP growth;
● unemployment declining to 8.8%;
● inflation contained at 1.9%;
● crude oil at around $90 a barrel;
● improved housing starts in a depressed market;
● on average, 180,000 monthly jobs created;
● no Fed interest rate hike until 2012 at the earliest;
● continued QE II buying of $600 - $900 billion in government bonds; and
● an overall upbeat sentiment for economic recovery and growth.

Others disagree, including long-time insider/market analyst Bob Chapman, calling current economic policy destabilizing enough to have profound future social costs. Sometime in 2011, he says conditions are "going to be nasty. The handwriting is on the wall," but no one's listening.

On January 20, the Financial Times headlined, "US States Face a Fiscal Crunch," saying:

"Undue budget tightening will jeopardize recovery whether applied at the federal level or lower down....The squeeze is not upon them; the federal stimulus is fading away, and the gimmicks are all used up. For state finances, the year of reckoning has arrived, and the timing could hardly be worse."

More »

Stephen Lendman

"Another Wall Street Cannibal," by Pat Bagley

On January 7, New York Times writer Jackie Calmes headlined, "Obama Promises Full Recovery for Employment," saying:

Visiting a window-manufacturing plant "to promote his economic policies and his new team of advisers," he said:

"We will not rest until we have fully recovered from this recession."

Another promise, another to be broken by a scheme to create ruler-serf societies globally, especially in America and the West. Obama's citing a "foundation" for growth is political blather, his specialty like other key team players around him.

Yet Calmes called his new appointees "pragmatic liberals with experience in the policy-making bureaucracy - and negotiating with Republicans in Congress."

Like his Geithner/Summers/Emanuel-led team, they're, in fact, hard-line pro-Wall Street, pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-populist conservatives, appointed to shift further right, embracing core neocon/Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) tenets.

They're pro-business, pro-working class austerity, anti-populist, anti-civil/human rights, anti-rule of law, anti-government of, by and for people, anti-labor, anti-welfare, militaristic, repressive, and pro-imperial for unchallengeable global dominance.

They're hardline against Blacks, Hispanics, Latino immigrants, Muslims, workers, the poor, consumer protection, progressivism, environmental protection, peace and its supporters, prosecuting corporate and government criminals, honest elections, and democratic governance.

More »

David Michael Green
The Regressive Antidote

In the spirit of the season, let us tell the tale of the Political Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future.

The Political Ghost of Christmas Present showed up in Washington this week to pass an 800 billion dollar tax cut package, a very large chunk of which goes to a very small minority of very rich Americans. That’s a real bummer, given that the distribution of wealth in this country is now so skewed that we make banana republics of the 19th century look good by comparison. I don’t know where that leaves us. Maybe a banana slug republic?

Oh well, at least that’s the total extent of the damage. I mean, it’s not like we’re in tough financial shape or anything, where such a move would represent the very height of fiscal irresponsibility. It’s not like we have to borrow the money to pay for these tax gifts to the wealthy – making them, in reality, tax burden transfers to the less wealthy, and to our children and grandchildren – or anything like that. It’s not like the histrionics of the Democrats in Congress, mounting a faux, five-minute insurrection against the deal and against their own president, don’t emphatically demonstrate once and for all that voters in America have a choice, every time they enter the ballot box, between the Party of Shameless Corporate Hack Assholes That Tries To Pretend It Isn’t, on the one hand, and the Party of Shameless Corporate Hack Assholes That Tries A Little Harder To Pretend It Isn’t, on the other.

And it’s not like there will be any real-world consequences to this latest chapter in the sordid fiscal history of the last thirty years, or anything. A month from now we’ll see the president in his State of the Union address once again linking arms with the (out) Republicans, telling us that we must cut Medicare and Social Security and infrastructure and government payrolls, so that we can afford these yet more gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy, disastrous and murderous wars across the Middle East, and a military budget the size of the rest of the planet, combined. Now we see the “starve the beast” long-haul strategy of the oligarchs about to reach its full fruition. The debt was always intentional. It was the only way to pry out of the cold, stiff fingers of Americans the programs they favor so much they are referred to as the third rail of American politics.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Besides misreporting on Obama capitulating to Republicans, major media op-eds and editorials expressed support for a deal only the devil and super-rich love.

On December 7, a New York Times editorial headlined, "Voting for an Odious Tax Deal," saying:

No matter how disgraceful, "Democrats should vote for (it), because it is the only one they are going to get....Without this bargain, income taxes on the middle class would rise. Unemployment insurance for millions of Americans would expire. And many other important tax breaks for low-and middle-income workers (wouldn't) be possible."

False! Democrats control the White House and have large House and Senate majorities. At issue is why aren't they using it for responsible legislation, helping middle and lower income Americans, not super-rich constituents with more already than they need.

The Times, however, worries that "If angry Democrats blow up the deal, they will be left groping for something better in a new Congress where they have far less influence than they have now. The middle class and the unemployed would be seriously hurt."

False again! The 112th Congress convenes on January 3, 2011. Democrats have between now and then to enact whatever they wish, with or without Republican support.

More »

Stephen Lendman

"Since WW II, all US wars have been illegal."

Noted analysts on both left and right see America's empire in decline. In his 2009 book, "Global Depression and Regional Wars," James Petras said:

"All the idols of capitalism over the past three decades have crashed. The assumptions and presumptions, paradigms and prognosis of indefinite progress under liberal free market capitalism have been tested and have failed. We are living the end of an entire epoch (and are bearing witness to) the collapse of the US and world financial system," and with it America's empire.

On August 16, Paul Craig Roberts headlined his article, "The Ecstacy of Empire: How Close Is America's Demise," saying:

America's profligacy "is running out of time...." Yet "2010 has been wasted in hype about a non-existant recovery." Government-manipulated reality masks the internal rot. Wall Street handouts and imperial wars are bankrupting the country.

"US military spending reflects the unaffordable and unattainable crazed neoconservative goal of US empire and world hegemony....If the wars are not immediately stopped and the jobs (not) brought back to America, the US is relegated to the trash bin of history....Without a revolution, Americans are history."

Indeed so.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Warren Buffett once said:

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." (Obama's deficit-cutting agenda the latest battle).

On May 4, Hugo Radice, Life Fellow of the University of Leeds School of Politics and International Studies, headlined an article, "Cutting Public Debt: Economic Science or Class War?" asking:

"Is cutting the public debt really an objective economic necessity, or is it actually a deeply political stance, reflecting the interests of the business and financial elites?"

Analyzing historical public policies, he explained the shift from earlier Keynesianism to "the unchallenged hegemony of free-market neoliberalism since the early 1990s." In fact, over the past three decades, it was notable, beginning under Britain's Margaret Thatcher and America's Ronald Reagan, establishing practices that succeeding administrations hardened. As a result, Britain's New Labour governs like Conservatives while American Democrats mimic Republicans, especially on imperial and pocket book issues.

Radice calls it class warfare, pitting private wealth against public good, "a new common-sense" based on property rights, individualism, and notion that free markets work best so let them, including the right to demand massive public spending cuts, ones Radice says "are not, repeat not, economically necessary."

Nonetheless, for over 30 years, they've been ongoing. Since the mid-1970s, real wages haven't kept pace with inflation. Benefits have steadily eroded. High-paying jobs disappeared. Improved technology forced wage earners to work harder for less. More than ever, "free" markets work only for those who control them.

As a result, the class struggle between haves and have-nots escalated. A handful of powerful winners emerged. Wealth disparity extremes became unprecedented. Exploitation increased and successive crises, busts following speculative booms. Easy credit fueled them by excess lending and spending as well as high public and private debt levels. To heal, officials now call for "shared sacrifice," their sharing, our sacrifice.

More »

Michael Hudson
Michael Hudson's Blog

Now that President Obama is almost celebrating his bipartisan willingness to renew the tax cuts for the super-rich enacted under George Bush ten years ago, it is time for Democrats to ask themselves how strongly they are willing to oppose an administration that looks like Bush-Cheney III. Is this what they expected by Obama’s promise to rise above partisan politics – by ruling on behalf of Wall Street, now that it is the major campaign backer of both parties?

It is a reflection of how one-sided today’s class war has become that Warren Buffet has quipped that “his” side is winning without a real fight being waged. No gauntlet has been thrown down over the trial balloon that the president and his advisor David Axelrod have sent up over the past two weeks to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 per cent for “just” two more years. For all practical purposes the euphemism “two years” means forever – at least, long enough to let the super-rich siphon off enough more money to bankroll enough more Republicans to be elected to make the tax cuts permanent.

Obama seems to be campaigning for his own defeat! Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s “bottom 98 per cent” – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains). This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising.

Baudelaire quipped that the devil wins at the point where he manages convince the world that he doesn’t exist. Today’s financial elites will win the class war at the point where voters believe it doesn’t exist – and believe that Obama is trying to help them rather than shepherd them into debt peonage as the economy settles into debt deflation.

More »