Are Central Bankers Pirates with a Conscience or simply Clueless?

I get feeds from conservative websites. This lets me see "what the other side" of arguments are. Usually I find that whatever they are saying reflects a point of view I disagree with. But they have to argue based on facts, and any argument based on facts is subject to debate. No article reflects this more than the article I'm reviewing here:

"Do Central Bankers Know What They're Doing Anymore?" by Kevin Dowd

Review

If you accept his central premise, then his arguments are on point. However I cannot accept his central Premise, and indeed I think anyone in the Modern Money Theory (movement) or who is a Post Keynesian would argue that his central premise is really what is wrong with Banking. Moreover it is why the Bankers are caught in no-win situations. They have no clue because the industry they regulate is self-destructive and all that they do as long as they accept that central premise will fail.

Separation of Money and State

He tries to put it in government principles:

"Separating Money and State" [Dowd]

The Tory Revolt

For the Pirates, Kevin Dowd describes how the "Tories" wanted the Bank of England to "be operationally independent of governments":

"We [the Tory “survivors”] decided not to demur. In private, we had considered doing the same thing ourselves. The idea that central banks should be free of political pressures and the electoral cycle as they set interest rates had become a prevailing one across the world — with good reason after the many wild swings in inflation and interest rates over previous decades." [Dowd]

The problem is that the Tory Bankers don't really want the bank to be free of politics, they want it free of "popular considerations" and to serve their "private, separate interest" first. That this is the definition of Tyranny according to Locke Doesn't occur to them. Of course John Locke was a Whig and these are Tories, a word that derives from a word for highwaymen and pirates ("toraidhe"). So this should be no surprise. But Tories dominate Banking and Finance world-wide and they especially dominate Central Banking, which has roots in pirateering and colonialism.

So separating the central banks from "political concerns" is really letting the central banks govern money for, by and of the interests of the banking system, without considering concepts of commonwealth, common-weal, or common sense. With pretty much inevitable results.

Inevitable results

Dowd rightly notes that PM Brown and the Tories got what they wanted. And seem to be misusing it. Referencing William Hague he notes how:

"Hague goes on to suggest that central bankers have badly misused the powers that were granted them and are “now in deep trouble,” continuing to pursue “emergency policies” that are “becoming steadily more unpopular and counter-productive.” Unless a course correction comes soon, central bankers “will find their independence increasingly under attack.” [Dowd]

He continues by noting that:

"In 2008 the central banks reacted to a massive crisis they had completely failed to foresee by cutting rates to record lows and embarking on “quantitative easing” … The trouble is that eight years later they are, to varying degrees, still doing it. Like doctors keeping their patients on a drip many years after an operation, they are losing credibility and producing very dangerous side effects." [Dowd]

Clearly quantitative easing isn't removing liquidity traps, freeing investment, putting workers back to work or much of anything except slowing a slide to misery for just about everyone, including the Tory Class. Therefor the question becomes;

"why are these “emergency policies” counter-productive?"

Wrong Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription

I think we can agree with Dowd and Hague that they aren't working. Indeed and naturally Tories like Dowd and Martin Hutchinson would use the failures to justify doubling down on destructive policies. Indeed they claim the "Overton Window" is moving in their direction, which is code for the willingness of the general public to swallow painful "medicines." They might be right. The Tories have done this before. It doesn't work, but it appears to improve things when Central Bank policy is failing. Dowd is right that "central banks are facing a legitimation crisis." But while he borrows Marxian language (actually term coined by Jürgen Habermas) but his prescription is anything but Marxist!

He rightly points out:

"He then outlines no less than 10 serious drawbacks from ZIRP and QE that could be “politically explosive or economically unwise if continued indefinitely”:

1. Savers find they can’t earn a worthwhile return and are driven into riskier assets whose prices rise further.
2. Asset holders get much richer, but others are left out, seriously exacerbating social and political divides and fueling the anger behind populist campaigns.
3. Pension funds have poor returns and therefore suffer huge deficits, causing businesses to have to put more money into them rather than finance expansion.
4. Banks find it harder to run a viable business, a problem very evident now in Germany and Italy.
5. Those who are able to save more do so, because they need a bigger pot of savings to get an equivalent return, i.e., low-interest rates cause those people to spend less, not more.
6. Companies have an incentive to use borrowed money to buy back shares rather than spend the money on new productive investments. Central banks are buying up corporate bonds, not just government bonds, so they are acquiring risky assets themselves and giving preference to some companies over others.
7. Zombie companies are allowed to stay in business only because they can borrow so cheaply, which drags down productivity. Pumping up the prices of stock markets and houses without an underlying improvement in economic performance becomes ever more difficult to unwind and ultimately threatens an almighty crash when it does come to an end.
8. When people see emergency measures going on for nearly a decade it undermines their confidence in central bankers, whom they think have lost the plot.

[Dowd]

A Classic Liquidity Trap

All of these are caused by the inability of the banking system to move investment into actual capital spending and out of reserves. My friend Kimbal Corson ties this to hoarding of liquidity. This creates a classic and persistent overall liquidity trap as described by John Maynard Keynes, but not amenable to using the banking system to fix under current rules. It requires fiscal measures, but those are constrained by the need for governments to borrow to pay for those measures. Around the world entire nations are trapped by bad central banking policies. Why?

Well for Dowd, Hague and Hutchinson the solution requires pain. hard choices:

"I am not an economist but I have come to the conclusion that central banks collectively have now indeed lost the plot. The whole point of their independence was that they could be brave enough to make people confront reality. Yet in reality, they are blowing up a bubble of make-believe money to avoid immediate pain, except for penalizing the poor and the prudent." [Dowd]

Reality for Tories = Pain

Make people confront reality == foreclosures, layoffs, business closures. Yet QE just draws out that same process into a slow torture. The solution they want is for a condominium of Central Banks to

"no single central bank could reverse these policies without causing a recession for their own country, unless there was a coordinated move by all central bankers to gradually raise interest rates." [Dowd]

Doing it in Concert might cause World Wide Depression

Not only are the central bankers clueless, but so are Dowd, Hague and Hutchinson. Their "solution" would benefit the financial sector but not necessarily do anything for workers, small business or others. But they face a situation where the money supply is not sovereign anywhere! And this is the result of not having liquidity in the system. Bankers don't lend because they know they won't get returns. People can't borrow because they don't have the credit. They don't have the credit because they don't have the money. They don't have the money because those who have it won't invest. That is a Keynesian liquidity trap on a world scale. He notes:

"The policies of any one central bank may well be perfectly rational ... But so is a decision by any one sheep to run with the flock when in danger. The trouble is that the whole flock might be heading for a cliff." [Dowd]

And if they act in concert their is no guarantee that raising interest rates will not send the whole world off that cliff. To the Tories of banking not raising interest rates is the disaster. But the real disaster is that bankers are being forced to deal with Governing issues they are incompetent to fix. Everyone in the Post Keynesian/MMT movement knows that this trap requires Fiscal spending and money going to the right hands for the right purposes. QE just goes to the wrong hands for the wrong reasons.

Wrong Hands for Wrong Reasons

"I have bad news for them. The accumulating effects of loose monetary policy globally are intensely political. When pension funds renege on promises, or inequality widens further, or savers become desperate, huge public and political anger is gong to burst over the heads of the world’s central banks."" [Dowd]

The real problem is that the "loose money" is in the hands of people not prepared to spend on actual capital or things that will break the worldwide liquidity trap. QE puts printed money in the hands of privateers, speculators and lenders with no one to lend to. Without a means to dry out excess reserves it just adds to the reserves of banks and lets them concentrate their businesses even more.

Dowd quotes Hague's prescription:

"The only way out is for the US Fed to summon the courage to lead the way to higher interest rates, and others to follow slowly but surely. If they fail to do so, the era of their much-vaunted independence will come, possibly quite dramatically, to its end." [Dowd]

One of my friends demonstrated mathematically that such increases in interest rates drive inequality and commodity inflation (though they depress wages). However if interest rates in the commercial sector go up while Governments have the resources to spend money into existence and invest in needed services and infrastructure, then that is no longer such an issue. Using MMT principles; farmers are fronted the money for seed and tools rather than having to borrow in such a way that they get no benefit from a mediocre harvest. Cities fix roads and highways without running out of money because the money lent is paid for with tax collections at the end of the seasons. The Tories consider such "funny money" but I'm sure they'll pay their taxes with it if it is actual legal tender.

Recession as a "Cure" for QE that is worse than the disease

To the wealthy Tories of banking, the only solution that is acceptable is for the USA to raise its interest rates so that other countries will be forced to follow suit and bankers can begin loaning at usury again. Raising interest rates will not work. It will simply start to hurt folks who need to borrow money and depress the ability of local government to spend on local needs. Which just drives the centralization and impoverisment cycle.

But they are right that all the countries need to work in concert. What they need to do is to:

1. raise taxes uniformly and progressively on unearned incomes from rent and speculation while protecting basic income.
2. Issue notes at zero interest to local and general government backed by expected tax collections or for productive projects.
3. Use MMT principles to invest in infrastructure, markets and tax back unearned profits from the money privilege.
4. Tax monopolies out of existence or into management as public utilities for the general good.
5. Protect resources put back into the economy from taxation so that there is incentive not to hoard liquid wealth.
6. Enable governments to engage in fiscal policy without usurious burden on their citizens.
7. Give countries credit for their exports at zero interest and let them spend that on imports.

This is in draft form -- I have a couple of related pieces to write before it will be a finished product.

Tories and Whigs

"Word Tory derived from the Irish toraidhe ‘outlaw, highwayman,’ from tóir ‘pursue.’ The word was used of Irish peasants dispossessed by English settlers and living as robbers, and extended to other marauders especially in the Scottish Highlands. It was then adopted circa 1679 as an abusive nickname for supporters of the Catholic James II." Also describes pirates, including legal pirates (privateers).

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/09/tories-and-whigs.html

"Do Central Bankers Know What They're Doing Anymore?" by Kevin Dowd

https://fee.org/articles/do-central-bankers-know-what-theyre-doing-anymore

Draft published 11/3/2016

Front Money First then tax the Money Privilege

Sustaining an Economy that has the feature of Commonwealth Via MMT principles

Source: [Levy]

When Hillary talks about balancing the budget without adding to the national debt, I disagree a bit with her. She and her advisors are still under the sway of certain myths about money and economy that are deeply entrenched in American Academia, Business & Finance. Although thanks to the influence of the Post Keynesians and Modern Money Theory (MMT), less so than before. This is a reason for guarded optimism. I hope she'll listen to what he has to say. If Trump wins, heaven help us. If we can develop an economy with sovereign powers over our money we can do everything we want to, within reason, well. This is because most of what we've been taught about balancing budgets is false.

Project Alamo Trump Builds an explicitly Fascist movement

Trump & Bannon aren't planning to go away after the election. Joshua Green writes in Bloomberg in an article called "Inside the Bunker" about Trump's long term plan to transform his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States (POTUS) in an Alt Right movement, whether Trump gets elected or not. He explains how Trump Staffers like Brad Parscale are using database, direct marketing driven methods to create and maintain, a network of followers that will, hopefully for the Trumpster, outlast the election. This is a less benign effort similar to what the Obama Campaign did in 2008 but with a different set of objectives.

Trump Channels Jeff Davis at Gettysburg

I had trouble finding Trump's Gettysburg address. One article that claimed to be about it was actually the transcript of one of his Florida speeches. The second was his prepared remarks, which he referenced but didn't read straight. I was trying to avoid actually listening to him so I wouldn't throw a shoe at my TV. He tried to sound like Gingrich. He wants another contract on America. I look at his contract and some of it might be acceptable, but most is not.

● FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

The best way to impose term limits is by having public, well resourced and transparent elections.

● SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

This slanders Federal workers. It also is a hollow thing since the agencies wind up hiring more privateering contractors instead of permanent employees, which generates increased corruption and conflict of interest. But it sounds good to his base.

● THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

This caters to the corrupt and lazy business establishment which blame regulation for their inability to squeeze more money out of unemployed and underpaid workers.

● FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

This has already been tried. It doesn't work. The best way to avoid this is, counterintuitively, to reward public service and reduce the value of corporate lobbyists by increasing the power of ordinary citizens to lobby their government, to use ordinary courts to deal with disputes and to input on regulatory decisions and record grievances.

● FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

He'd have to fire his staff.

● SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

Same

Disrupting our Economy

● FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

For all the complaints about NAFTA withdrawing from it would disrupt our economies and probably plummet our society into a depression.

● SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

So much for that.

● THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

This is presumptuous, ignores the most basic rules of due process, and would provoke the Chinese to retaliate. A trade war with China would hurt us.

● FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

This is something all our Presidents already do.

● FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

Great idea, more communities to be poisoned, disrupted and then shut down when the Grifters leave town. We already are producing at a maximum.

● SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

Keystone would have served an export market for Canada. Done nothing for US jobs.

● SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

This sounds like a lot of money, but the country needs to invest nearly a billion dollars. Not the millions we contribute are nowhere near "billions".

This list is mostly symbolic, based on lies about the causality of our economic issues, and much of it would hurt the people who are screaming for it.

The Really Scary Stuff

The rest of his list is a mix of lies, unfunded promises and some really scary stuff. So I'll skip to the really scary stuff and hope I don't have to finish explaining why the rest of his garbage is demagoguery.

● FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

He calls them "unconstitutional" but that his his opinion.

● SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

Which means to him and fellow Cons, putting someone who will deny the right to privacy implied by "secure in ones papers and personal effects, and key to Roe Versus Wade

● THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

That would take a statute. But essentially he's promising retaliation to cities where Democrats are a majority.

● FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back

Rolling the cattle cars.

● FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

War on Muslims. Applying the "bad skittles" fascist argument. Again with the cattle cars and concentration camps!

10 Legislative faux promises and Privateering

His ten legislative proposals are all things that benefit his corporate sponsors or things the GOP will not pass, because the GOP created most of them in the first place.

1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act.

He claims this is a plan that would benefit the middle class: "An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy." He claims that "the largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut." Which sounds good but such tax cuts are always tied either to revenue cuts to programs that pay out to the middle class. So essentially this sounds good but it is like lead acetate -- really a poison.

When he says "The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate." he is talking about the bulk of his "middle class tax cuts" going to the top 1%, even more to the top .1% and to the billionaire classes, who really don't need it and will only hoard money and loan it at interest and use that to knock more people out of the middle class. It is a plan for destroying the middle class not helping them.

2. End The Offshoring Act Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

Since the GOP refuses to pass anything like this now, I doubt they'll do it for Trump. Although once he destroys the middle class they'll be willing to work for less than Chinese workers.

3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act.

He claims he'd "Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years." His claim that "it is revenue neutral" might be true in the short term, but shifting incentives to the private sector, privateering, shifts the revenues from energy and infrastructure to the pirates. And most our infrastructure and energy repair and upgrade needs that require public sustainment need to be directed in the public interest, or instead of lifting "all boats" they will simply aggravate our already oppressive economic inequality and boost it to new levels of misery.

4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act.

"School Choice" "Redirects education dollars" in a fashion that gives some parents privileged access to public money, while denying the same right to others. Seeking to establish a "right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice" winds up starving public schools and denying resources based on income. His promise to "end common core" claims to offer to "bring education supervision [back] to local communities" but it won't do so as the centralization it legitimately criticized is generated by State power not Federal power. Trump claims he'll "expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable" but he's planning to cut funding for these efforts -- so he's lying.

5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act.

Likewise Trump means it when he promises to "Fully repeals Obamacare" but when he promises to "replace it with Health Savings Accounts" and "the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines" is a give-away to upper middle class and wealthy citizens but is at the expense of blue collar workers as is letting "states manage Medicaid funds" which they do presently under regulations that prevent them from stealing them. Trump's plan would continue the trend to deny healthcare to the working poor and tradesmen. Ironically, most of whom are eating up this proposal as if it will help them. Trump would also protect snake oil salesmen like himself: "Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA" Trump seems to think that cutting the red tape on the "over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval" will speed "the approval of life-saving medications." But either the FDA vets those drugs or people will find the unvetted medications life destroying.

Health Savings accounts and the like do nothing for folks making low wages or with unsteady jobs. Most people can't afford them, and most small employers won't be able to afford them even for themselves. His "reforms" are simply a return to the status quo ante and a means for denying access to health care.

6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act.

His proposal to "Allow Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes" is a give away to the upper middle class and the wealthy. It will do nothing for blue collar workers and most tradesmen. It sounds nice to "incentivize employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families" but these programs don't deliver to low-income families and are actually more costly than simple single payer approaches.

7. End Illegal Immigration Act

Trump claims he can "Fully-fund the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall" -- Which can only be enforced if Trump invades Mexico; "establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation" -- which also would divide mixed families and create the usual problems of injustice, along with his "5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations" -- I suppose the private prison system would like this. We already have "penalties for overstaying" and deny "open jobs" to undocumented or poorly documented aliens. These laws, without enforcing penalties on those who hire undocumented workers or put in the infrastructure to document workers better -- are worse than useless. They are designed to establish a pool of cheap labor either by driving more people underground or through prison camps.

And Trump pretty much threatened to wage war on Mexico in his Gettysburg Address.

8. Restoring Community Safety Act.

He wants to do yet another round of "Reduc[ing] surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars." So much for decriminalization, treatment and rehabilitation. The more people we put behind bars the more it costs us, short term and long term. This sounds good to Sheriffs, however, as they need the funds.

9. Restoring National Security Act.

Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

We presently spend more money than any two or three of our largest rivals combined.

10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act.

Repeats Newt Gingrich's fake reforms to "Enact new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics." These do little good without the power to enforce them, transparency and public financing of the electoral process.

Malice towards everyone -- Channeling Jeff Davis

I didn't want to do a point by point critique. But I couldn't help myself and someone needs to do it. And this is just the stuff his handlers wanted him to say. Daily Mail notes:

Trump "aired more grievances against the journalism profession and the parade of women who have accused him of unwanted kissing and groping years – and in some cases decades – ago" and said "after the election, he plans to sue them." Quoting Trump:

'Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never,' Trump declared. 'All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.'

Trump is also promising to persecute the Democrats for allegedly starting fist fights. So we'll be arrested and beaten up for letting Trump thugs arrest us and beat us up at his rallies. What makes this a bit dicey is that if Trump wins he'll also have the FBI, IRS, Secret Service, and his minions in local police, going after US!

His comments warning he won't accept the electoral outcome unless he wins, and promising insurrection, rebellion and retaliation, are more reminiscent of Jefferson Davis in 1860 than Abraham Lincoln in 1862 or 1863 when he gave the Gettysburg address. The Southerners invaded the North every year from 1862 to 1864. The last time they did so they tried to attack Washington and nearly shot Abraham Lincoln at the battle of Fort Stevens. Despite that Lincoln called for "malice towards none." Trump reeks of malice.

Prepared Remarks

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/CONTRACT_FOR_THE_VOTER.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3861392/Trump-prepares-Gettysburg-address-unveiling-100-days-agenda-aides-say-Hillary-just-waiting-clock.html

Hannah Arendt on Donald Trump's Mob

Trump's Mob

Watching this election made me pull out my copy of "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt.

Here is what she wrote about Trump's followers:

“The mob is primarily a group in which the residue of all classes are represented. This makes it easy to mistake the mob for the people, which also comprises all strata of the people. While the people in all great revolutions fight for true representation, the mob will always shout for the “strong man,” the “great leader.” For the mob hates society from which it is excluded, as well as Parliament where it is not represented.” [Origins]

bait and switch confidence scheme of conservatism

A friend of mine noted that "Trump rose on GOP's 3 pillars" [Trumps 3 Pillars]:

racism(birtherism),

xenophobia(build wall)&

Islamophobia(Muslim ban).

"Anybody who sez otherwise is full of sh!t",

....and I have to agree. But that is only part of what is going on. If you go to one of the Conservative Websites designed to recruit students. They will tell you that the "four pillars of Conservatism" are:

Bait:

1 liberty / freedom

2 tradition & order

3 rule of law

4 belief in God

Source: https://home.isi.org/pillars-modern-american-conservatism

This sounds nice, except the constitution explicitly prohibits inserting religion into politics, since it is generally divisive and there is no true catholic and orthodox religion unless authorities resort to authoritarianism and impose it; or religious authorities have the wisdom to stay out of areas where their knowledge fails to be helpful.

But nobody can argue with concepts like liberty and freedom. Nothing is wrong with tradition & order, except that imposing it on others means abrogating or infringing on personal liberty and freedom, and tradition is something that has to have some flexibility or it becomes a source for oppression.

So essentially liberty/freedom are in potential conflict with tradition/order -- so these pillars have to balance or they bring down the table they are supporting.

Conserving Things

Us Progressives argue that tradition should not be restraining on improving personal and public welfare. They'd agree on Items one and three, but argue with rigid adherence to authority. Tradition should guide us not bind us.

And of course there are religious progressives and religious conservatives. So on the whole most people are fine with all four traditions and just differ on the degree to which they feel bound by #2. Progressives included!

Progressives believe that "order" should not be an excuse to infringe on people's private behavior. We are the conservatives on matters of personal liberty, mostly.

So in theory conservatives would be environmentalists, conserving the traditions of public access to parks and recreation, our harmony with nature, and man's role as Gardner of the planet tending to God's creation. Conservation of Nature is a conservative value.

In theory conserving the public good would be a conservative principle. The bible enjoins conservatives to look out for "widow's and orphans" to help one's "brother", and to contribute to the public welfare. Under a conservative regime paying tithes would be mandatory and public welfare would be administered through the churches. In our secular society it is too much for Churches, who have no one to enforce their tithes. So those advocating dismantling the welfare state are not conservatives. They look for other excuses to nullify the constitutionality of such programs -- saying the Church should do them. But upholding that tithes should not be mandatory. Thus defenestrating Churches from doing that role.

I point that out because there is nothing conservative about building giant walls, abrogating treaties, or doing away with public welfare, privatizing public services and education, or turning over our resources to rich people. All that is not conservatism.

The Confidence Scheme

So what it is is that modern conservatism is a confidence scheme. Read the offered link and you'd think that conservatism is all about liberty and tradition, upholding the constitution and establishing order over criminals and terrorists seeking to invade and trouble the country.

But the sales of conservatism are aimed at convincing people that a particular religious ideology, a particular tradition and peculiar ideas of who, what, how and why we get and keep order in our society. Modern conservatives complain about Donald Trump, but he's only pushing ideas that the GOP has developed and used over the past 50 years in order to win elections by stoking fear, paranoia and anger. I could go into detail but I won't. I have other things I need to be doing right now.

Besides, I wrote on this 2 years ago, talking about Lee Atwater:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/southern-strategy-and-war-on-poor.html

People should read my article and it's references

But of course the 4 pillars are the bait in a confidence scheme!

The Switch

Unfortunately, the reality, the "switch" of the conservative confidence game is that the only thing conservatives are actually conserving is wealth.

Their economic distress is diverted, using scapegoating, to bigotry. Part of the con! Sell them on "conservatism" hook them with hate!

switch:

1 No liberty unless white

2/3 order & law = authoritarianism

4 belief in God unless Muslim.

So essentially the "4 Pillars of conservatism" translate to nativism and authoritarianism.

Trump is the creation of Lee Atwater, Reince Priebus and the GOP

I have a lot more to say, but I need to work on some other things right now.

Further reading

https://home.isi.org/pillars-modern-american-conservatism

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/southern-strategy-and-war-on-poor.html

bait and switch confidence scheme of conservatism

A friend of mine noted that "Trump rose on GOP's 3 pillars"

[Trumps 3 Pillars], Grifters, Oligarchs and Pirates:

racism(birtherism),

xenophobia(build wall)&

Islamophobia(Muslim ban).

“Anybody who sez otherwise is full of sh!t”,

....and I have to agree. But that is only part of what is going on. Conservatism might have started out "conservative" but it has become more and more authoritarian over time.

Four Pillars

If you go to one of the Conservative Websites designed to recruit students. They will tell you that the "four pillars of Conservatism" are:

Conservative Bait:

1 liberty / freedom

2 tradition & order

3 rule of law

4 belief in God

Source: https://home.isi.org/pillars-modern-american-conservatism

The Trouble with These So Called Pillars

Hypocrisy on Liberty and Freedom

The Conservative movement obsesses about Liberty and Freedom the same way that the Fascists did in the 30s. But they obviously don't want freedom and liberty for everyone. Like their libertarian allies, they want liberty for the privileged, but economic slavery for labor and no rights for immigrants, brown people and anyone they decide to scapegoat. In otherwords their profession of being for "liberty" is hypocritical. Freedom for the wolf is death to the lamb.

The Trouble with trying to push Utility into a Free Market hole

Likewise they push a peculiar definition of “free enterprise.”, they extol "competition", and will quote early economists who talked about the power of free enterprise to regulate economy based on supply and demand and market theory, but they know full well that for a market to regulate prices it needs the freedom of multiple venders with freedom of choice:

• Private Property: the property exchanged must legitimately belong to those making the exchange,
• Freedom of Choice: Both Buyer and Seller free to enter and leave markets,
• Motivation and Self Interest: Both Buyer and Seller benefit from the trades,
• Competition: People need to be free to go to another vender if they aren't satisfied,
https://quizlet.com/18136377/5-characteristics-of-a-free-market-system-flash-cards/

A parent may give a child a choice between a red or a green shirt. That is not real choice. A genuine free market offers a panoply of choices. If players can't buy or sell any color, they are not free. Vital utilities cannot be governed on the same principles as a sook because both parties are not equally free. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, service workers, need to be fairly compensated and there need to be enough of them to serve everybody and to meet emergency needs. They are utilities not free markets.

Basic to free markets is good government. Judges who are fair to both parties in disputes. Laws that protect transparency so that people aren't swindled. For Profit Hospitals and medicine are a great deal for the monopolists who can offer crappy medicine for high prices, but they can never meet the attributes of a free market. Such markets are what I call "free-booting" markets. A market where weights, measures, prices can't be trusted, where there is no real competition by price, is a free-booting market. Even more so when the seller's idea of "free market" is "buyer beware" and economics as low level warfare. It's not a free market if prices are set by anyone's fiat. Those trying to turn healthcare, energy distribution or other vital services into a free market model, are conning you. It's a swindle.

https://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/07/starve-beast-destroy-democracy.html

The Trouble with Tradition and Order

Tradition and Order = regulation and rules. There is a tension between "liberty" and order. Even more so between tradition and liberty. Traditional societies didn't provide people with much liberty. They had to tythe to the church. They had to follow rules. Some of those rules are important. Some need to be updated to fit with current times. Many Conservatives have trouble distinguishing those traditions and things that need to be conserved from the arbitrary and convenient rules that they prefer to live under. I don't know too many bankers who take prohibitions against charging interest seriously. Paul might have prescribed women wearing head covers, but so does the Taliban. Certainly, Jesus is not recorded to have said a word about it, except when he endorsed "the Law" of the 5 books of Moses. But he broke with the letter of the Mosaic law, over it's expressed spirit.

Worse, "tradition and order" is often a euphemism for oppression and tyranny. Tradition and Order is about setting common rules and boundaries. Many things traditional now, were not 100, 500 or 2000 years ago. In some cases tradition and order is an arbitrary thing that represents dictates of long ago tyrants. Tradition and order are important. They are meant to be founded on basic principle. When they are arbitrary, they are not worth the ink and paper used to write them down, except as a template for discussing "why not" do certain things. Fearful people cling to Tradition. The wise revise and set new traditions. The trouble with "tradition and order" is that it is transmitted through very fallible people who like to set themselves up as authority -- instead of God.

Rule of Law

When a person talks about "government" they are talking about rule of law. Rule of law is massively important. There is no genuine liberty, no genuine freedom, without people under a "common rule, that all can accept." [paraphrase Locke] Private government of things that are a common heritage, like utilities, is privateering and tyranny by definition. Law that is exercised unjustly is unlawful. Unlawful law can be extralegal but it is unjustified and arbitrary. Corruption and injustice are also dysfunction. Rule of law breaks down when those who govern property and people rule arbitrarily. This is a conservative value more honored in the breach than the fealty.

Again conservatives talk about liberty and then immediately talk about:

• Tradition, order and Rule of Law,

while protecting monopolies, privatizing utilities and other monopolies into private rule.

A Genuine Conservative respects tradition, order, rule of law; while applying the related principles reasonably and justly. It's not rule of law when judges always rule in favor of business over labor. It's not rule of law if ANYONE (like Kavanaugh or Trump) is exempt from it. A genuine conservative preserves the principles of these things, so that everyone can be free. By this definition I'm more conservative than 90% of the cons backing Donald Trump.

The Trouble with Belief in God

As a pillar of conservatism "belief in God" sounds nice. Except for two immediate points:

1. The Constitution Expressly prohibits inserting Religion into Politics.
2. Faith in a Higher Power/Ineffable One/"God" is individual, difficult to verify, and wouldn't be "faith" if any of us had full proof that there is a God, much less that His Attributes are what any particular religious tradition asserts they are. It is easy for a demagogue, narcissistic con artist or charlatan to pretend to speak for God and cherry pick scripture to assert what that person arbitrarily wants. Moreover, people go to war of whose definition of God is whose, and many of the worst Demagogues claim to speak for God, when all they really have is a "lying spirit" from God.

Thus this sounds nice, except the constitution explicitly prohibits inserting religion into politics, and until folks get to fighting over who owns God (no one does), which God to embrace (My God, Your God --> what makes you think you can presume to own the "ineffable one?" Thus belief in God as a litmus test is incredibly dangerous.

Worse yet, a litmus test of belief is generally divisive. There is no true catholic and orthodox religion, unless authorities can reasonably explain their authorities. So the tendency is to resort to authoritarianism, demand obedience and impose it. Religious authorities should have the wisdom to stay out of areas where their knowledge fails to be helpful.

Conclusion

But nobody can argue with concepts like liberty and freedom. Nothing is wrong with tradition & order, except that imposing it on others, arbitrarily, means abrogating or infringing on personal liberty and freedom. The reality is that tradition is something that has to have some flexibility or it becomes a source for oppression. It has to evolve!

Unfortunately liberty/freedom are in potential conflict with tradition/order -- these pillars have to balance or they bring down the table they are supporting. And unfortunately as our country transitions into Fascism, leadership is more and more con and less and less conserving anything except power and wealth. Certainly not basic conservative principles.

Conserving Things

Us Progressives argue that tradition should not be restraining on improving personal and public welfare. It should grow and evolve as people grow spiritually. We argue not with the value of traditions but with rigid adherence to arbitrary authority. Tradition should guide us not bind us.

And of course there are religious progressives and religious conservatives. So on the whole most people are fine with all four traditions and just differ on the degree to which they feel bound by #2. Progressives included!

Progressives believe that "order" should not be an excuse to infringe on people's private behavior. We are the conservatives on matters of personal liberty, mostly. To be a conservative people need to be conserving something like the Environment, or the productive livelihood of the masses.

In an ideal world conservatives would be environmentalists, conserving the traditions of public access to parks and recreation, our harmony with nature, and man's role as Gardner of the planet tending to God's creation. Conservation of Nature is a conservative value.

Instead, too many are Cons

Conserving the Public Good

In theory conserving the public good would be a conservative principle. The bible enjoins conservatives to look out for "widow's and orphans" to help one's "brother", and to contribute to the public welfare. Under a conservative regime paying tithes would be mandatory and public welfare would be administered through the churches. In our secular society it is too much for Churches, who have no one to enforce their tithes. So those advocating dismantling the welfare state are not conservatives. They look for other excuses to nullify the constitutionality of such programs -- saying the Church should do them. But upholding that tithes should not be mandatory. Thus defenestrating Churches from doing that role.

I point that out because there is nothing conservative about building giant walls, abrogating treaties, or doing away with public welfare, privatizing public services and education, or turning over our resources to rich people. All that is not conservatism.

The Confidence Scheme

So what it is is that modern conservatism is a confidence scheme. Read the offered link and you'd think that conservatism is all about liberty and tradition, upholding the constitution and establishing order over criminals and terrorists seeking to invade and trouble the country.

But the sales of conservatism are aimed at convincing people that a particular religious ideology, a particular tradition and peculiar ideas of who, what, how and why we get and keep order in our society. Modern conservatives complain about Donald Trump, but he's only pushing ideas that the GOP has developed and used over the past 50 years in order to win elections by stoking fear, paranoia and anger. I could go into detail but I won't. I have other things I need to be doing right now.

Besides, I wrote on this 2 years ago, talking about Lee Atwater:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/southern-strategy-and-war-on-poor.html

People should read my article and it's references

But of course the 4 pillars are the bait in a confidence scheme!

The Switch

Unfortunately, the reality, the "switch" of the conservative confidence game is that the only thing conservatives are actually conserving is wealth.

Their economic distress is diverted, using scapegoating, to bigotry. Part of the con! Sell them on "conservatism" hook them with hate!

switch:

1 No liberty unless white

2/3 order & law = authoritarianism

4 belief in God unless Muslim.

So essentially the "4 Pillars of conservatism" translate to nativism and authoritarianism.

Trump is the creation of Lee Atwater, Reince Priebus and the GOP

I have a lot more to say, but I need to work on some other things right now.

Further reading

https://home.isi.org/pillars-modern-american-conservatism

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/southern-strategy-and-war-on-poor.html

Started back in October 2016. I never finished this due to Trump being elected.

Trump is in no way a Conservative. He's a Confidence man.