Why the right loves a disaster

Cypress

Well-known member
Here we see why the legacy of Reaganomics/DLC economics still hold sway in DC. It's not about solving deep seated structural problems; it's not about helping Main Street. Notice that the government ignored the pain of consumers and working americans and did nothing until the underlying structural problems started adversely impacting Wall Street (hat tip to USC, Desh and others, for pointing out the structural problems years ago). Edwards and Hillary Clinton have proposed modest pseudo-keynesian stimulus packages, but they ain't in power. Obama is offering the garden-variety DLC/Neoliberal stimulus package.

Which is why the long term structural problems won't be fixed. I could be wrong, but we might be in for a bad ride, and we might rue the day we didn't elect a president that puts Main Street and the public interest, above the interest of the multinational financial consortiums.


Why the right loves a disaster

Ideologues use times of crisis as an opportunity to foist their economic policies on desperate societies.

Naomi Klein

More than a decade ago, economist Dani Rodrik, then at Columbia University, studied the circumstances in which governments adopted "free-trade" policies. His findings were striking: "No significant case of trade reform in a developing country in the 1980s took place outside the context of a serious economic crisis." The 1990s proved him right in dramatic fashion. In Russia, an economic meltdown set the stage for fire-sale privatizations. Next, the Asian crisis in 1997-98 cracked open the "Asian tigers" to a frenzy of foreign takeovers, a process the New York Times dubbed "the world's biggest going-out-of-business sale.".....

Moody's, the credit-rating agency, claims the key to solving the United States' economic woes is slashing spending on Social Security. The National Assn. of Manufacturers says the fix is for the federal government to adopt the organization's wish-list of new tax cuts. For Investor's Business Daily, it is oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, "perhaps the most important stimulus of all."

But of all the cynical scrambles to package pro-business cash grabs as "economic stimulus," the prize has to go to Lawrence B. Lindsey, formerly President Bush's assistant for economic policy and his advisor during the 2001 recession. Lindsey's plan is to solve a crisis set off by bad lending by extending lots more questionable credit. "One of the easiest things to do would be to allow manufacturers and retailers" -- notably Wal-Mart -- "to open their own financial institutions, through which they could borrow and lend money," he wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal.

Never mind that that an increasing number of Americans are defaulting on their credit card payments, raiding their 401(k) accounts and losing their homes. If Lindsey had his way, Wal-Mart, rather than lose sales, could just loan out money to keep its customers shopping, effectively turning the big-box chain into an old-style company store to which Americans can owe their souls. ...

Do the free-market policies packaged as emergency cures actually fix the crises at hand? For the ideologues involved, that has mattered little. What matters is that, as a political tactic, disaster capitalism works. ...

Yet while managing (barely) to hold the line, the House Democrats appear to have given up on extending unemployment benefits and increasing funding for food stamps and Medicaid as part of the stimulus package. More important, they are failing utterly to use the crisis to propose alternative solutions to a status quo marked by serial crises, whether environmental, social or economic. ...

The disaster capitalists have held the reins for three decades. The time has come, once again, for disaster populism.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-naomi27jan27,0,3813752.story
 
Here we see why the legacy of Reaganomics/DLC economics still hold sway in DC. It's not about solving deep seated structural problems; it's not about helping Main Street. Notice that the government ignored the pain of consumers and working americans and did nothing until the underlying structural problems started adversely impacting Wall Street (hat tip to USC, Desh and others, for pointing out the structural problems years ago). Edwards and Hillary Clinton have proposed modest pseudo-keynesian stimulus packages, but they ain't in power. Obama is offering the garden-variety DLC/Neoliberal stimulus package.

Which is why the long term structural problems won't be fixed. I could be wrong, but we might be in for a bad ride, and we might rue the day we didn't elect a president that puts Main Street and the public interest, above the interest of the multinational financial consortiums.


This happens from both sides all the time though and is pretty standard fare. You think the New Deal would have happened without the Great Depression? The bottom line is that when there is a problem, everyone wants a solution that is in their interest, not necessarily in the public interest. It works that way on the left and the right.
 
This happens from both sides all the time though and is pretty standard fare. You think the New Deal would have happened without the Great Depression? The bottom line is that when there is a problem, everyone wants a solution that is in their interest, not necessarily in the public interest. It works that way on the left and the right.


Naomi Klein has written about this, and I haven't seen anyone in the MSM talk about, what's been going on in New Orleans. Of course they keep us well informed on what Fred Thompson's cologne smells like, or the color of Hillary Clinton's pant suits.

I didn't realize this until recently, but the Neocons used Katrina to privitize the public schools in new orleans, fire all the teachers, shred the union contract, and then hire some of the teachers back at lower wages.

New Orlean's public housing and public commons are being auctioned off to private developers to gentrify the city. And it's not even going on under the radar. It's entirely happening in front of everyone's eyes.
 
Naomi Klein has written about this, and I haven't seen anyone in the MSM talk about, what's been going on in New Orleans. Of course they keep us well informed on what Fred Thompson's cologne smells like, or the color of Hillary Clinton's pant suits.

I didn't realize this until recently, but the Neocons used Katrina to privitize the public schools in new orleans, fire all the teachers, shred the union contract, and then hire some of the teachers back at lower wages.

New Orlean's public housing and public commons are being auctioned off to private developers to gentrify the city. And it's not even going on under the radar. It's entirely happening in front of everyone's eyes.


Iraq was their grand experiment. One of the first orders of business was to disband the labor unions.
 
Iraq was their grand experiment. One of the first orders of business was to disband the labor unions.

indeed ....and privitize the state oil company and their assests. And a flat tax, no tarriffs, and all manner of neocon wet dreams.
 
And to set up FEMA camps far enough away from New Orleans to make sure that people got jobs else where and never came back to New Orleans. Which by the way will completely change the political complexion of Louisiana. New Orleans was the Democratic strong hold of Louisiana and at least insured a congress creature from that party.
 
And to set up FEMA camps far enough away from New Orleans to make sure that people got jobs else where and never came back to New Orleans. Which by the way will completely change the political complexion of Louisiana. New Orleans was the Democratic strong hold of Louisiana and at least insured a congress creature from that party.


good call. I didn't know about that.

People like Naomi Klein are a blessing. Our beloved mainstream media has, and never will report on the shit that's going on in new orleans. It's absolutely a classic case of disaster capitalism, and of the profound corruption of our legislative political system that is in bed with powerful corporate special interests.
 
good call. I didn't know about that.

People like Naomi Klein are a blessing. Our beloved mainstream media has, and never will report on the shit that's going on in new orleans. It's absolutely a classic case of disaster capitalism, and of the profound corruption of our legislative political system that is in bed with powerful corporate special interests.

Symptoms of Corporatism

Fervent nationalism/patriotism - the country is more important than the individual!
Public agencies being run like businesses, segregated and less accountable.
Monopolies and Oligopolies
Large corporations successfully lobbying Governments.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Favours given to campaign contributors.
People in power receiving perks or freebies from large corporations
Limited sources of media.
Governments pressuring other Governments to make legislation which benefits corporations, but not citizens

Root Causes of Corporatism

At the root of the issue is the lust for power and money, and the insufficient checks and balances in a society to prevent the abuse of this power..."

http://www.corporatism.org/

this is nothing new, the founding fathers were strict about it, Lincoln warned about it, the coal miners fought against it, and it hates unions. It does not believe in society or democracy and has proven it over and over again.
 
you can be wrong. LOFL
you are way wrong.
Damm, dems don't have to be ignorant on economics. At least not like you Cypress.
 
If Naomi Klien was on the right she would definitely qualify under the Cypress definition of a "wingnut".

It's not to say she is wrong about everything she says but she is so far to left economically that it's not a surprise the mainstream media doesn't pick up on her.

She wants economic populism? What's her model for success? We can clearly look to many countries in South America over the past century to see the results of economic populism.
 
Naomi Klein has written about this, and I haven't seen anyone in the MSM talk about, what's been going on in New Orleans. Of course they keep us well informed on what Fred Thompson's cologne smells like, or the color of Hillary Clinton's pant suits.

I didn't realize this until recently, but the Neocons used Katrina to privitize the public schools in new orleans, fire all the teachers, shred the union contract, and then hire some of the teachers back at lower wages.

New Orlean's public housing and public commons are being auctioned off to private developers to gentrify the city. And it's not even going on under the radar. It's entirely happening in front of everyone's eyes.

Pre-Katrina New Orleans was among the worst school systems in the country. God forbid a new approach is taken to help change that. To me the concern more about union jobs for teachers than the results produced in the classroom falls under serious ideologue.
 
If Naomi Klien was on the right she would definitely qualify under the Cypress definition of a "wingnut".

I think Naomi Klien and Paul Krugman have been far more right about the last 7 years, then the people you supported: George Bush, Karl Rove, and Alan Greespan. Therefore, I wouldn't call krugman and klien nuts.

It's not to say she is wrong about everything she says but she is so far to left economically that it's not a surprise the mainstream media doesn't pick up on her.

I have no idea what "too far left" means, so I can't respond. If universal healthcare, a decent social safety net, clean government, and a regulated market place is "too far left", that's your opinion. She might not ever make in on Fox News, but a lot of americans support that type of agenda.

She wants economic populism? What's her model for success?
Liberal, social democratic democracies; probably most akin to the scandinavian countries.

We can clearly look to many countries in South America over the past century to see the results of economic populism.

Naomi Klein has been one of the harshest critics of the fascist, authoritarian, and totalitarian dictatorships of south america.
 
Populist Bryanite economics are never going to be popular in America again. If Liberals want to survive, at least without the right going off and doing stupid stuff like getting into wars, they need to refocus themselves around individualism. People just don't buy that collectivist nonsense bullshit anymore.
 
I think Naomi Klien and Paul Krugman have been far more right about the last 7 years, then the people you supported: George Bush, Karl Rove, and Alan Greespan. Therefore, I wouldn't call krugman and klien nuts.



I have no idea what "too far left" means, so I can't respond. If universal healthcare, a decent social safety net, clean government, and a regulated market place is "too far left", that's your opinion. She might not ever make in on Fox News, but a lot of americans support that type of agenda.

Liberal, social democratic democracies; probably most akin to the scandinavian countries.



Naomi Klein has been one of the harshest critics of the fascist, authoritarian, and totalitarian dictatorships of south america.


What have Krugman and Klein been right about over the past seven years that Greenspan or myself haven't been? I'd love to see this one.
 
Back
Top