The Sinking Ship

I am letting go of what I can't control

the sinking ship that I once loved.

Is breaking apart before my eyes.

She was beautiful and sleek,

and moved at a clip over the water

But now she's worn and full of holes

And the water is pooling where once I proudly sat.

She is sinking, and I must go.

 

Oh I would raise her sails and empty her bilges if I could.

I would fix her with steel and wire and glue, yes I would.

But she is slipping below the waves, and there is nothing I can do.

I can't save her, and that is it.

 

Breathe deeply, and mourn as much as needed.

And move on as best I can.

A sinking, stinking, broken ship is something anyone can understand.

I am letting go of what I can't control

Christopher H. Holte 10/31/2014

Orpheus and the Reactor

Orpheus went into the reactor,

to rescue his love.

He found her there in constant hell.

When he gazed into the reactor well.

What a beautiful blue! Such an etherial hue!

But he was forced to remain as well.

Blood welled from every orifice.

and melted away his material shell.

 

What a strange dream was that love.

Playing his harp across the world.

His love was volatile and capable of beautiful violence.

Her hair burning brightly rising high in the sky

While her feet destroyed all who knew.

 

Yet he dreamed of saving her and embracing her beauty

Though all he found was death and sickness.

In the end the harp plays alone, with no one to play it.

And his dream melts like fire into the earth deep below.

While smoke rises slowly, poisoning the material world.

Christopher H. Holte 10/31/2014

The Great Deformation -- Introduction to the "Good Money" debate

In my previous essay I introduced his book and talked some about what he was saying. As I noted a lot of what he says is on the money, though not completely for the reasons he says. Where he is right is when he as he says "zeros in on the skunk in the woodpile" (page xv) of AIG. It's a theme in his book. Time and time again the Federal Reserve, it's shill economists and the corrupt Security Exchange Commission (SEC) used the excuse of "protecting" the economy to bail out fat cats and protect their cronies on Wall Street -- at the expense of the economy and main street. But the common reality is that our modern Wall Street ran a multilayer and ongoing con on the American people. He traces it back to Roosevelt, which is not surprising considering he despises Keynes, despises Democrats and despises Roosevelt. But I'd trace it all the way back to Alexander Hamilton and the founding generation, and specifically what happened when Alexander Hamilton was removed from the scene and lesser lights took over his project. If I can I'll talk about some of the same subject but call it "Hamilton's Revenge" and discuss the subject from a very different POV. His shibboleth of "Good Money" is actually part of the problem. And the alternatives he seems to feel would save the economy are so unrealistic and crazy that they are the reason that the cons felt they had to run cons and fool people instead of come up with an economic approach that was fair to everyone.

In his opening paragraphs he despises Paulson's "150 billion one-time tax rebate", Noting:

"President Reagan's great accomplishment had been the burial of the Keynesian predicate: the notion that Washington could create economic growth and wealth by borrowing money and passing it out to consumers so they would buy more shoes and soda pop."

Which of course is a misrepresentation of what Keynes actually said. (Though he fleshes out that even Reagan hadn't buried that notion at all later in the book). He then proceeds to blame Obama's 800 billion stimulus for the red ink that in later chapters he will note had already been spilled by George Walker Bush. But I can forgive him for this. He's talking about his "road to Damascus" moment in realizing that the whole country was being swindled and conned by his colleagues on Wall Street -- which after all is where he worked as a private equity investor.

Then he lays out his "revisionist history of our era" blaming the whole thing, of course, on FDR and making a Neo-Liberal/Austrian case for the why's and wherefores of the mess:

"At the heart of the Great Deformation is a rogue central bank that has abandoned every vestige of sound money. In so doing it has enabled politicians to enjoy 'deficits without tears' by monetizing massive amounts of the public debt.

But I don't see this bait and switch reality as a switch that rewards politicians or common folks. It rewards Wall Street executives and a few mega-rich folks at the expense of a short term pile of debt that will eventually crash. Yes AIG was running a corrupt derivatives operation, but the "politicians" bailed out the monied class not the ordinary people. Yes, we did away with sound money, but we did away with "sound money" because it created centuries of deflation and depression for ordinary people and really didn't do that much for the rich except putting an artificial and weak check on banks, bankers and their ability to print money for free and lend it at interest. If "Sound money" had been such a great concept it wouldn't have been permanently abandoned. And if "Eisenhower in the White House" and "William McChesney Martin at the Fed" brought back "sound money and Fiscal Rectitude" it was by investing in good capital investments by creating our interstate highway system and not breaking much. Yes, defaulting on the "Bretton Woods gold standard" ... "was the starting point for the present era of floating money" and "massive debt creation" but Stockman, sociopath that he is, is blithely uncaring about the consequences of the alternatives. He describes a world of policy where Low wages and long hours are what the rest of us 99% should expect and only his class of wealthy investors and silver spoon legacy babies matter in deciding economic affairs. What he inadvertently is describing in his book is an investor/political class that shamelessly looks out for the top tiers of the investor/political class -- and doesn't give a snit about who gets hurt by their fights as long as they are paid in Gold. I would even agree that the collapse of fixed exchanges and the fake Gold standard of the Bretton Woods system was not an optimal situation. But his notion that a fixed rate alternative and the Gold Standard was a viable alternative is unrealistic.

The IMF notes about Bretton Woods:

"During the 1930s states had experienced a series of connected problems: shortage of gold, exchange rate instabilities, the movement of "hot" money in and out of their realms, and the lack of a mechanism to adjust balance of payments problems. The IMF was designed to deal with these difficulties by putting in place an international monetary system that contained a stable exchange rates regime with some scope for revaluation ("pegged but adjustable"), provided for the convertibility of currency, provided a mechanism for overcoming short-term liquidity crises and an organizational actor for managing the system (J. Williamson, The Failure of World Monetary Reform, New York, 1977, pp. 2-28). The World Bank was designed to help the economic and industrial reconstruction of Europe and to help developing countries achieve industrialization. The purpose of the ITO was to propel states down the path of free trade, to stop them from defecting to protectionism as a way of responding to balance of payments problems (e.g. by imposing import quotas as an alternative to devaluing their currency). The ITO never emerged, because of US concerns. Instead, a weaker agreement known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade took its place. In this grand plan for international institutions in the postwar era tax, as an object of regulation, was absent. Keynes' letters and reports around the time of Bretton Woods do not discuss the coordination of tax policy between states. Tax policy, the implication seems to be, would be retained by the nation-state."

Bretton Woods in other words was Keynes creation. He apparently believed in "Good money" too. Stockman talks about his subjects in isolation as if our trade deficits had nothing to do with the breakdown of Bretton Woods and as if we could have stayed on the Gold standard without some coordination of tax policy between nations and without dislocations at home. Stockman does talk about those things but he doesn't seem to make the connection to why Nixon wasn't "perfidious" because he ended the gold standard (he was for other reasons) and couldn't maintain a gold standard or why FDR had to do what he did with our Gold Supply. [More later] The IMF article quoted goes on:

"It is an exaggeration to say that the whole Bretton Woods system broke down. What did break down was the rules of cooperation for the convertibility of the dollar into gold and the exchange rates regime. After the war, the US dollar became the international reserve currency. The US also went from being in surplus to running trade deficits. States at first wanted US dollars to meet their trade obligations. They were also happy to let the US run deficits since this provided liquidity in the international monetary system. This situation led, however, to a crisis first anticipated by the economist Triffin in 1960 (R. Triffin, Gold and the Dollar Crisis, New Haven CT, 1960). The problem was that if the US attempted to correct its balance of payments deficit it would cause a liquidity crisis. If it allowed its deficit to continue, other states would lose confidence in the dollar as a reserve currency and seek to convert their dollars into gold. US deficits continued to increase, partly because the US had to pay for its war in Vietnam. Confidence in the dollar started to slide. States began to seek, as the gold standard allowed them to, the conversion of their dollars into gold. The US reacted by announcing in August 1971 that it was going to abandon the convertibility of the dollar."[https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/209/42675.html]

Now Stockman does explain the string of bad policies that led to Nixon being forced to abandon Bretton Woods. And Nixon comes out smelling like Nixon always comes out smelling (machiavellian & ruthless). But Stockman's narrative doesn't hold up to even a cursory examination. Yes, the trainwreck that is our current deficit and the 2008 collapse was a long time coming. No it had nothing to do with the Gold Standard. Yes, it had everything to do with the class of vulture privateers that Stockman exemplifies, and the politicians they pay off and bribe. Pirates always want to be paid in Gold.

"The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America Hardcover – April 2, 2013 by David A. Stockman (Author)"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QAdjH7ypL.jpg

Winter is coming

Winter is coming.

The grass is still green,

but all the summer life has seeded

and is putting itself into a deep deep sleep,

Husbanding energy for the dark days ahead.

 

Sleep so deep,

that one would think life is dead.

The birds have fled

Down to the south

where it will be warm far from here.

And the sun will keep it's presence high above

While the dark creeps longer into morning and evening

and shadows arise.

 

Meanwhile we are here in the north

where the sun shines more brightly,

for the cold coming near.

And when the dark days come we will remember the sun.

And soon enough the cold will pass,

and the seeded life reawake at last.

Christopher H. Holte, written 10/28/2014 while visiting the 311 Fukushima group at facebook.

The Sun sent her a ray

In reaction to the wonderful yet sad reaction to his mother's death of my friend, the activist Andy Gunderson.

The Sun Sent Her a Ray.

She lay down to sleep

begging her family not to weep

while the sun was shining in her window.

The sun sent her a ray

that drew her away

to where the light is waiting with a smile

 

Oh those gates swung open

all her loves awaiting

sending a spirit of joy echoing

with the smell of jasmines lingering

...and a breeze carrying her soul

to fresh places where this world falls behind.

 

Christopher H. Holte 10/22/2014

Fixing the Political Farm System

I've been talking about the need for progressives to run for low level offices at county, city, state as well as at Federal level. It's a great idea, but it turns out we need to fix our "farm system" as Chris Hayes just referred to it to make it more of a reality. He interviewed Brenda Carter and Jelanni Cobb today and referred to fixing our "broken farm system" for politicians. They went all the way down to the County level, cataloguing 42000 elected office holders from County to National. They found that "people of color are actually less represented at the county level".

Jelanni Cobb of the New Yorker pointed out that our use of "at large districts" allows majorities to dominate districts where there are minorities by diluting their votes.

The website "Who Leads us" notes:

71% of elected officials are men, 90% are white, and 65% are white men.

White men are 31% of the U.S. population but hold 65% of all elected office.

White men have 8 times as much political power as women of color.

They essentially are describing what used to be described as "Old Boy Networks."

And that is what we have to challenge in the Party System. They really don't tell us how to challenge this, but I have some suggestions -- Get involved in the Chambers of Commerce, in the Democratic Party, and don't be afraid to challenge the "old boys network" by creating new networks. This is why I've been talking about creating a "green democrats" or a "progressive democrats movement" to challenge insider domination of the Democratic party (and eventually use parallel orgs to do same with Republicans. But she notes that local political donors (rich people) dominate local politics along with the parties -- so this has to be a battle!! Have to break the gates open!

References and further reading:

Womens Donor Network

opensecrets.org

Sources:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/men_hold_71_percent_of_elected.html

http://wholeads.us/

More from Brenda Carter:

http://wamu.org/news/14/10/08/congress_too_white_male_and_wealthy_to_truly_represent_us_study_says

http://www.womendonors.org/brenda-choresi-carter-reflective-democracy-campaign-director/

http://www.womendonors.org/tag/reflective-democracy/

Jelani Cobb:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/bullets-ballots

We can't fix "The Deep State" til we fix this farm system of Democracy:

The Deep State:http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state

Getting Federalism backwards

Chris Edwards in his webpage claims:

"Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government was assigned specific, limited powers and most government functions were left to the states. To ensure that people understood the limits on federal power, the nation’s founders added the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” - See more at:http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fiscal-federalism

However, looking at the Constitution that might be how Chris E. and most of our cons, interpret it. But I'm not sure that it's intent was t obe "specific" or "limited" or to limit functions to the states. On the contrary in Federalist One Hamilton warns against this view:

"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government."

Which seems to have been the plan of cons from Aaron Burr, the man who killed Hamilton to Jefferson Davis who led the Confederacy in it's rebellion against the Nation. And it certainly seems to be the attitude of modern cons who resist the will of the people as a whole by appealing to this notion that somehow he "Federal Government" should not be a General Government with the General roles of a general government. Hamilton as an ex Staff Officer of George Washington saw this as a threat. And there is nothing in the constitution about "specific" powers, but instead the preamble says:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The General Welfare is not advanced by sectarian violence, sectional rebellion, or the misuse of the courts and misinterpretations of the constitution for the "private, separate advantage" [Locke's definity of Tyranny] of contentious oligarchs. The founders, not even Jefferson or Madison envisioned a government that would be ineffectual with only "specific" powers. They would not have created a General Executive with monarchal powers like the President if they had had such a vision. Hamilton wrote his opinion in what gets rendered as All Caps in present day type. He thought it was that important.

"THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY."

Now there was a dialogue between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists with the Anti-Federalists later joined to Republicans such as Jefferson and Madison to limit the Federal Government from becoming a tyranny. But that is not the same as intending to emasculate it's role as a general government. Limited Government is achieved best when, contrary to my other Chris, the Federal role is "General" with the specifics left to local government. Which in many case should be much more local than the "partial confederacies" of often tyrannical states.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp

The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[10th Amendment US Constitution]

I believe that Hamilton, Franklin and to a lesser extent even Jefferson and Madison, envisioned a Collaborative Federation. A place where States and the Federal Government worked together, with neither ruling over the people but all exerting their power under the watchful eyes and with the consent of ALL the people. The right forgets that "the people" are as important in the 10th Amendment as the States and that that is why it was not anymore a successful avenue of appeal for State Tyranny than it should be for Federal Tyranny.

The Right wing savants like to make appeals to their own authority wrapping that authority in the Constitution or "Founders" or some other source like it was so much "Fresh Fish."

Disenfranchising people is unconstitutional. State or Federal. And the Constitution is meant to protect people at all levels of government from doing so.

Oh and his article is chock full of misrepresentations. Yes in 1817 President "James Madison vetoed a bill that would have provided federal aid to construct roads and canals" (See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fiscal-federalism#sthash.KzUyjah8.dpuf)

"Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."

Madison vetoed the bill not because he objected to it's object or functionality but because he objected to the fact that the constitution didn't provide specifically for roads and canals. It appears that he intended that the United States would pass a constitutional amendment instead. Something that never happened. As Steve Lackner of the Free Republic notes: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2767135/posts

"Madison continued in his veto message, "and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest [i.e., the Amendment process of Article V]."

It was his last act and it through a monkey wrench into the countries modernization programs only for his term. Because the constitution did include the power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads", that would be the justification for road building for the next 200 years it didn't impede development but the purpose of that veto has been misconstrued ever since. It did make it impossible to create a national canal and railroad system as those systems were privateered instead. The author notes:

"What then could the nation do if it felt it was prudent as a matter of public policy to allow for internal improvements? To Madison, the answer was provided only in Article V of the Constitution. The Constitution would have to be amended to allow for a measure that Madison himself as a matter of public policy actually supported. This may seem perplexing to some, because as Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously said, "The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional." I would add that Supreme Court Justices all too often fall prey to this constitutional view as well. But matters of public policy, and matters of Constitutionality are not one and the same and cannot be confounded. Regardless of whether a policy is considered needed or unnecessary, we must always independently ask whether the Constitution permits it. Madison even stated, "I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity."

Many of our problems are due to the fact that our constitution is an imperfect instrument and instead of improving the constitution of our government we've used tricks and cludges to get around it's weaknesses.