Europe’s Fiscal Dystopia: The “New Austerity” Road to Neoserfdom

By Michael Hudson

Europe is committing fiscal suicide – and will have little trouble finding allies at this weekend’s G-20 meetings in Toronto. Despite the deepening Great Recession threatening to bring on outright depression, European Central Bank (ECB) president Jean-Claude Trichet and Prime Ministers from Britain’s David Cameron to Greece’s George Papandreou (president of the Socialist International) and Canada’s host, Conservative Premier Stephen Harper, are calling for cutbacks in public spending.

The United States is playing an ambiguous role. The Obama Administration is all for slashing Social Security and pensions, euphemized as “balancing the budget.” Wall Street is demanding “realistic” write-downs of state and local pensions in keeping with the “ability to pay” (that is, to pay without taxing real estate, finance or the upper income brackets). These local pensions have been left unfunded so that communities can cut real estate taxes, enabling site-rental values to be pledged to the banks of interest. Without a debt write-down (by mortgage bankers or bondholders), there is no way that any mathematical model can come up with a means of paying these pensions. To enable workers to live “freely” after their working days are over would require either (1) that bondholders not be paid (“unthinkable”) or (2) that property taxes be raised, forcing even more homes into negative equity and leading to even more walkaways and bank losses on their junk mortgages. Given the fact that the banks are writing national economic policy these days, it doesn’t look good for people expecting a leisure society to materialize any time soon.

The problem for U.S. officials is that Europe’s sudden passion for slashing public pensions and other social spending will shrink European economies, slowing U.S. export growth. U.S. officials are urging Europe not to wage its fiscal war against labor quite yet. Best to coordinate with the United States after a modicum of recovery.

Saturday and Sunday will see the six-month mark in a carefully orchestrated financial war against the “real” economy. The buildup began here in the United States. On February 18, President Obama stacked his White House Deficit Commission (formally the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) with the same brand of neoliberal ideologues who comprised the notorious 1982 Greenspan Commission on Social Security “reform.”

The pro-financial, anti-labor and anti-government restructurings since 1980 have given the word “reform” a bad name. The commission is headed by former Republican Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson (who explained derisively that Social Security is for the “lesser people”) and Clinton neoliberal Erskine Bowles, who led the fight for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Also on the committee are bluedog Democrat Max Baucus of Montana (the pro-Wall Street Finance Committee chairman). The result is an Obama anti-change dream: bipartisan advocacy for balanced budgets, which means in practice to stop running budget deficits – the deficits that Keynes explained were necessary to fuel economic recovery by providing liquidity and purchasing power.

A balanced budget in an economic downturn means shrinkage for the private sector. Coming as the Western economies move into a debt deflation, the policy means shrinking markets for goods and services – all to support banking claims on the “real” economy.

The exercise in managing public perceptions to imagine that all this is a good thing was escalated in April with the manufactured Greek crisis. Newspapers throughout the world breathlessly discovered that Greece was not taxing the wealthy classes. They joined in a chorus to demand that workers be taxed more to make up for the tax shift off wealth. It was their version of the Obama Plan (that is, old-time Rubinomics).

On June 3, the World Bank reiterated the New Austerity doctrine, as if it were a new discovery: The way to prosperity is via austerity. “Rich counties can help developing economies grow faster by rapidly cutting government spending or raising taxes.” The New Fiscal Conservatism aims to corral all countries to scale back social spending in order to “stabilize” economies by a balanced budget. This is to be achieved by impoverishing labor, slashing wages, reducing social spending and rolling back the clock to the good old class war as it flourished before the Progressive Era.

The rationale is the discredited “crowding out” theory: Budget deficits mean more borrowing, which bids up interest rates. Lower interest rates are supposed to help countries – or would, if borrowing was for productive capital formation. But this is not how financial markets operate in today’s world. Lower interest rates simply make it cheaper and easier for corporate raiders or speculators to capitalize a given flow of earnings at a higher multiple, loading the economy down with even more debt!

Alan Greenspan parroted the World Bank announcement almost word for word in a June 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed. Running deficits is supposed to increase interest rates. It looks like the stage is being set for a big interest-rate jump – and corresponding stock and bond market crash as the “sucker’s rally” comes to an abrupt end in months to come.

The idea is to create an artificial financial crisis, to come in and “save” it by imposing on Europe and North America “Greek-style” cutbacks in social security and pensions. For the United States, state and local pensions in particular are to be cut back by “emergency” measures to “free” government budgets.

All this is quite an inversion of the social philosophy that most voters hold. This is the political problem inherent in the neoliberal worldview. It is diametrically opposed to the original liberalism of Adam Smith and his successors. The idea of a free market in the 19th century was one free from predatory rentier financial and property claims. Today, a “free market” (Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand style) is a market free for predators. The world is being treated to a travesty of liberalism and free markets.

This shows the usual ignorance of how interest really are set – a blind spot which is a precondition for being approved for the post of central banker these days. Ignored is the fact that central banks determine interest rates. Under the ECB rules, national central banks can no longer do this. Yet that is precisely what central banks were created to do. As a result, European governments are obliged to borrow at rates determined by financial markets.

This financial stranglehold threatens either to break up Europe or to plunge it into the same kind of poverty that the EU is imposing on the Baltics. Latvia is the prime example. Despite a plunge of over 20% in its GDP, its government is running a budget surplus, in the hope of lowering wage rates. Public-sector wages have been driven down by over 30%, and the government expresses the hope for yet further cuts – spreading to the private sector. Spending on hospitals, ambulance care and schooling has been drastically cut back.

What is missing from this argument? The cost of labor can be lowered by a classical restoration of progressive taxes and a tax shift back onto property – land and rentier income. Instead, the cost of living is to be raised, by shifting the tax burden further onto labor and off real estate and finance. The idea is for the economic surplus to be pledged for debt service.

In England, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has described a “euro mutiny” against regressive fiscal policy. But it is more than that. Beyond merely shrinking the economy, the neoliberal aim is to change the shape of the trajectory along which Western civilization has been moving for the past two centuries. It is nothing less than to roll back Social Security and pensions for labor, health care, education and other public spending, to dismantle the social welfare state, the Progressive Era and even classical liberalism.

So we are witnessing a policy long in the planning, now being unleashed in a full-court press. The rentier interests, the vested interests that a century of Progressive Era, New Deal and kindred reforms sought to subordinate to the economy at large, are fighting back. And they are in control, with their own representatives in power – ironically, as Social Democrats and Labour party leaders, from President Obama here to President Papandreou in Greece and President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in Spain.

Having bided their time for the past few years the global predatory class is now making its move to “free” economies from the social philosophy long thought to have been built into the economic system irreversibly: Social Security and old-age pensions so that labor didn’t have to be paid higher wages to save for its own retirement; public education and health care to raise labor productivity; basic infrastructure spending to lower the costs of doing business; anti-monopoly price regulation to prevent prices from rising above the necessary costs of production; and central banking to stabilize economies by monetizing government deficits rather than forcing the economy to rely on commercial bank credit under conditions where property and income are collateralized to pay the interest-bearing debts culminating in forfeitures as the logical culmination of the Miracle of Compound Interest.

This is the Junk Economics that financial lobbyists are trying to sell to voters: “Prosperity requires austerity.” “An independent central bank is the hallmark of democracy.” “Governments are just like families: they have to balance the budget.” “It is all the result of aging populations, not debt overload.” These are the oxymorons to which the world will be treated during the coming week in Toronto.

It is the rhetoric of fiscal and financial class war. The problem is that there is not enough economic surpluses available to pay the financial sector on its bad loans while also paying pensions and social security. Something has to give. The commission is to provide a cover story for a revived Rubinomics, this time aimed not at the former Soviet Union but here at home. Its aim is to scale back Social Security while reviving George Bush’s aborted privatization plan to send FICA paycheck withholding into the stock market – that is, into the hands of money managers to stick into an array of junk financial packages designed to skim off labor’s savings.

So Mr. Obama is hypocritical in warning Europe not to go too far too fast to shrink its economy and squeeze out a rising army of the unemployed. His idea at home is to do the same thing. The strategy is to panic voters about the federal debt – panic them enough to oppose spending on the social programs designed to help them. The fiscal crisis is being blamed on demographic mathematics of an aging population – not on the exponentially soaring private debt overhead, junk loans and massive financial fraud that the government is bailing out.

What really is causing the financial and fiscal squeeze, of course, is the fact that that government funding is now needed to compensate the financial sector for what promises to be year after year of losses as loans go bad in economies that are all loaned up and sinking into negative equity.

When politicians let the financial sector run the show, their natural preference is to turn the economy into a grab bag. And they usually come out ahead. That’s what the words “foreclosure,” “forfeiture” and “liquidate” mean – along with “sound money,” “business confidence” and the usual consequences, “debt deflation” and “debt peonage.”

Somebody must take a loss on the economy’s bad loans – and bankers want the economy to take the loss, to “save the financial system.” From the financial sector’s vantage point, the economy is to be managed to preserve bank liquidity, rather than the financial system run to serve the economy. Government social spending (on everything apart from bank bailouts and financial subsidies) and disposable personal income are to be cut back to keep the debt overhead from being written down. Corporate cash flow is to be used to pay creditors, not employ more labor and make long-term capital investment.

The economy is to be sacrificed to subsidize the fantasy that debts can be paid, if only banks can be “made whole” to begin lending again – that is, to resume loading the economy down with even more debt, causing yet more intrusive debt deflation.

This is not the familiar old 19th-century class war of industrial employers against labor, although that is part of what is happening. It is above all a war of the financial sector against the “real” economy: industry as well as labor.

The underlying reality is indeed that pensions cannot be paid – at least, not paid out of financial gains. For the past fifty years the Western economies have indulged the fantasy of paying retirees out of purely financial gains (M-M’ as Marxists would put it), not out of an expanding economy (M-C-M’, employing labor to produce more output). The myth was that finance would take the form of productive loans to increase capital formation and hiring. The reality is that finance takes the form of debt – and gambling. Its gains therefore were made from the economy at large. They were extractive, not productive. Wealth at the rentier top of the economic pyramid shrank the base below. So something has to give. The question is, what form will the “give” take? And who will do the giving – and be the recipients?

The Greek government has been unwilling to tax the rich. So labor must make up the fiscal gap, by permitting its socialist government to cut back pensions, health care, education and other social spending – all to bail out the financial sector from an exponential growth that is impossible to realize in practice. The economy is being sacrificed to an impossible dream. Yet instead of blaming the problem on the exponential growth in bank claims that cannot be paid, bank lobbyists – and the G-20 politicians dependent on their campaign funding – are promoting the myth that the problem is demographic: an aging population expecting Social Security and employer pensions. Instead of paying these, governments are being told to use their taxing and credit-creating power to bail out the financial sector’s claims for payment.

Latvia has been held out as the poster child for what the EU is recommending for Greece and the other PIIGS: Slashing public spending on education and health has reduced public-sector wages by 30 percent, and they are still falling. Property prices have fallen by 70 percent – and homeowners and their extended family of co-signers are liable for the negative equity, plunging them into a life of debt peonage if they do not take the hint and emigrate.

The bizarre pretense for government budget cutbacks in the face of a post-bubble economic downturn is that it will help to rebuild “confidence.” It is as if fiscal self-destruction can instill confidence rather than prompting investors to flee the euro. The logic seems to be the familiar old class war, rolling back the clock to the hard-line tax philosophy of a bygone era – rolling back Social Security and public pensions, rolling back public spending on education and other basic needs, and above all, increasing unemployment to drive down wage levels. This was made explicit by Latvia’s central bank – which EU central bankers hold up as a “model” of economic shrinkage for other countries to follow.

It is a self-destructive logic. Exacerbating the economic downturn will reduce tax revenues, making budget deficits even worse in a declining spiral. Latvia’s experience shows that the response to economic shrinkage is emigration of skilled labor and capital flight. Europe’s policy of planned economic shrinkage in fact controverts the prime assumption of political and economic textbooks: the axiom that voters act in their self-interest, and that economies choose to grow, not to destroy themselves. Today, European democracies – and even the Social Democratic, Socialist and labour Parties – are running for office on a fiscal and financial policy platform that opposes the interests of most voters, and even industry.

The explanation, of course, is that today’s economic planning is not being done by elected representatives. Planning authority has been relinquished to the hands of “independent” central banks, which in turn act as the lobbyists for commercial banks selling their product – debt. From the central bank’s vantage point, the “economic problem” is how to keep commercial banks and other financial institutions solvent in a post-bubble economy. How can they get paid for debts that are beyond the ability of many people to pay, in an environment of rising defaults?

The answer is that creditors can get paid only at the economy’s expense. The remaining economic surplus must go to them, not to capital investment, employment or social spending.

This is the problem with the financial view. It is short-term – and predatory. Given a choice between operating the banks to promote the economy, or running the economy to benefit the banks, bankers always will choose the latter alternative. And so will the politicians they support.

Governments need huge sums to bail out the banks from their bad loans. But they cannot borrow more, because of the debt squeeze. So the bad-debt loss must be passed onto labor and industry. The cover story is that government bailouts will permit the banks to start lending again, to reflate the Bubble Economy’s Ponzi-borrowing. But there is already too much negative equity and there is no leeway left to restart the bubble. Economies are all “loaned up.” Real estate rents, corporate cash flow and public taxing power cannot support further borrowing – no matter how much wealth the government gives to banks. Asset prices have plunged into negative equity territory. Debt deflation is shrinking markets, corporate profits and cash flow. The Miracle of Compound Interest dynamic has culminated in defaults, reflecting the inability of debtors to sustain the exponential rise in carrying charges that “financial solvency” requires.

If the financial sector can be rescued only by cutting back social spending on Social Security, health care and education, bolstered by more privatization sell-offs, is it worth the price? To sacrifice the economy in this way would violate most peoples’ social values of equity and fairness rooted deep in Enlightenment philosophy.

That is the political problem: How can bankers persuade voters to approve this under a democratic system? It is necessary to orchestrate and manage their perceptions. Their poverty must be portrayed as desirable – as a step toward future prosperity.

A half-century of failed IMF austerity plans imposed on hapless Third World debtors should have dispelled forever the idea that the way to prosperity is via austerity. The ground has been paved for this attitude by a generation of purging the academic curriculum of knowledge that there ever was an alternative economic philosophy to that sponsored by the rentier Counter-Enlightenment. Classical value and price theory reflected John Locke’s labor theory of property: A person’s wealth should be what he or she creates with their own labor and enterprise, not by insider dealing or special privilege.

This is why I say that Europe is dying. If its trajectory is not changed, the EU must succumb to a financial coup d’êtat rolling back the past three centuries of Enlightenment social philosophy. The question is whether a break-up is now the only way to recover its social democratic ideals from the banks that have taken over its central planning organs.

20 Responses to Europe’s Fiscal Dystopia: The “New Austerity” Road to Neoserfdom

  1. I agree with a lot of your analysis of the situation. I live in France. Here, we had our own New Deal, in 1945, with the reconstruction of French society after WW2 in order to create social solidarity, and our institutions, and our concept of public service STILL hark back to that period, and what emerged at the end of the war.Austerity is the biblical equivalent of burying that one talent in the earth, and going to dig it up when the "master" returns… It is sheer idiocy, because austerity, by depressing PEOPLE, and creating the PERCEPTION of going down, along with FEAR and insecurity, contribute to taking the economy down IN FACT. Psychology is very important here. As Keynes knew.I say… if Europe goes down, well then, the U.S., as the ultimate Enlightenment experiment, will go down with it. I hope that Barack keeps that one in mind. The U.S. can not survive without its ideological and political ROOTS. That's… REALITY for you. In my opinion.Something else that is currently under attack is the LEGITIMACY OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF (vs… the corporation, as political decider), in its current accepted form, the nation state.The bottoming out of TAXATION in the minds of all of us is a dismal symptom of the bottoming out of the government's legitimacy IN OUR OWN EYES.And this is serious. As is the idea that government needs to balance its budget like John Q. Public.This is the result of a serious ignorance of the nature, and mission of government, as well as a prejudice that indeed THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between the rights and responsibilites of John Q. Public and the government.Pretty shaky assumptions for anybody with one iota of political thought. Who wants to have multinational PRIVATE corporations decide our lives for us because WE have also delegitimized government and have become isolated, UNGOVERNABLE atomic INDIVIDUALS ?Really, I think serfdom could be preferable to a globalized pseudo government by the corporations, seconded by the banks, because at least the serfs worked the land, and feudalism was LOCAL AND SMALL. It was not totalitarian. As far as rolling back three centuries of Enlightenment social philosophy, well… I could make the point that Enlightenment egalitarianism, for example, is rooted in the Gospel itself, and the Enlightenment values are necessarily succumbing to… the increasing secularization of our Western society. And a growing anhistorisation that makes us incredibly ignorant of where we come from, our political, historical, religious, ideological roots. I don't know about you, but I think we're going to have to move beyond the industrial revolution anyway. Or get bumped off the planet…

  2. What is there to say, but great article? Irrefutable and enlightening description of a continental choice of a dark future. The only suggestion I make is that when something like this is posted at counterpunch or elsewhere too, readers there might want to be directed here (from their about the author description at the end) where they could comment and find much more in the same vein.

  3. Here, we had our own New Deal, in 1945, with the reconstruction of French society after WW2 in order to create social solidarity, and our institutionsDebra, That Jean Monnet was an impressive man. During the war he was instrumental in organizing the US economy to be "the arsenal of democracy" (a Monnet phrase that FDR adopted).http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/prof_jeanmonnet.htmlhttp://tinyurl.com/2wj49jn

  4. Social democratic policies were put in place after WW2 because of competition from Socialist block. Once such competition is no more in place…..what the heck; lets go make money big again.The question is: Can capitalism work otherwise (I mean far from neoliberal policies) for an extended timeframe?.I dont think so. The dynamics in the system are tilted towards the haves, no towards the havenots. And once the havenots get organized; whats the need for capitalists?

  5. While this analysis is largely reasonable, as usual it omits the biggest and most important aspect of the current situation.This is that a a plurality or even a majority of voters have been enthusiastically supporting or even demanding policies to depress wages and increase capital gains, for the past 20-30 years.Most of these voters are middle aged or older, amazingly dumb and greedy, who fancy themselves as WINNERS as petty rentiers as owners of (modest) retirement accounts and real property, and who don't want anything but huge capital gains to retire into a luxurious retirement attended to by LOSER servants paid as little as possible.These hordes of "F*ck you! I am fully vested" petty rentiers are just the tools of the big rentiers, who are effectively asset stripping them (and exporting those assets to growth economies in Asia), but still being unreasoning and deluded they just pursue their dream to become the new squires, the latter day Lords of the Manor.«To sacrifice the economy in this way would violate most peoples' social values of equity and fairness rooted deep in Enlightenment philosophy.»This kind of statement makes me laugh sadly. These may be *your* values, but the values of those petty rentiers are simply "F*ck you! I am fully vested". This is what "aspirational" politics means.In the UK we have even seen a Labour minister boasting that allowing mass immigration of workers from poorer countries was having the intended effect of driving down low end wages (because doct and administrator jobs are heavily protected both formally and informally) in the National Health Service allowing lower taxes and higher benefits for the well off native voters.That is what middle aged and retiring or retired "aspirational" voters want to hear and reward at election time.

  6. A query, Dr. Hudson. On two occasions in this article you point to the sterility into which European Social Democratic parties have fallen, to that of Papandreou who, remarkably, heads the Socialist International. This impotence almost tempts one to call to memory Stalin's condemnation of these parties as "social fascists" in the early 1930s. Broad representation of working class interests – even the interests of workers when taken together with those of industrial employers which have been subordinated to the claims of the rentier class – is now a thing of the past, clearly. In the United States, how likely would you consider the early appearance of mass demonstrations and strikes to be in the circumstances? Would you consider such developments inevitable?Andrei Vyshinsky

  7. «In the United States, how likely would you consider the early appearance of mass demonstrations and strikes to be in the circumstances?»That's so unrealistic (for now) that it is almost funny. 70% of voters are homeowners and stockowners. Are they going to demonstrate and strike against their own retirement assets? Only when they realize that they have been asset stripped, and even then, like most con trickster victims, will try hard to avoid acknowledging the fact.The mass petty rentier/landlord class is close to corporatist fascism. If they do mass demonstrations it will be against workers and immigrants, which they see as their class enemy, as parasites and exploiters.I'll let Grover Norquist explain:«The 1930s rhetoric was bash business — only a handful of bankers thought that meant them. Now if you say we're going to smash the big corporations, 60-plus percent of voters say "That's my retirement you're messing with. I don't appreciatethat". And the Democrats have spent 50 years explaining that Republicans will pollute the earth and kill baby seals to get market caps higher. And in 2002, voters said, "We're sorry about the seals and everything but we really got to get the stockmarket up.»«The growth of the investor class–those 70 per cent of voters who own stock and are more opposed to taxes and regulations on business as a result — is strengthening the conservative movement. More gun owners, fewer labor unionmembers, more homeschoolers, more property owners and a dwindling number of FDR-era Democrats all strengthen the conservative movement versus the Democrats.»

  8. Just wondering, since it looks like we're headed for an austere future here in the US, is there anything the average person can do about it? Especially since contacting our congress people and voting don't seem to be working out very well.

  9. I think that it is a big mistake to oppose "socialist" European welfare states to the U.S. model from an ideological standpoint. As an American born woman who has lived my adult life in France, I have the feeling that many French people, at least, are more politically and historically conscious than their American counterparts. And there is STILL more social cohesion here. More MIXITY among classes. Because the classes are still not living TOO far away (geographically) from each other.Let's not confuse.. social COHESION which is a necessary prerequisite for the social contract with SOCIALISM. Doing that will lead to NO political thought at all. Blissex, your cynical take on the older middle class neglects the fact that older people approaching retirement tend to be politically and economically conservative. They are getting OLD, after all, and they are… TIRED. Time to let the young fight the battles.Our society will not run without social cohesion, and our lifestyles have been steadily destroying it for quite a while now. Think about it… how many people do you talk to IN YOUR CAR while you are driving ALONE to work (or biking alone too) ? Not many, huh (this is changing, this is changing…, but it used to be the norm)And if you don't TALK to people, well, then, you get used to spending a fair amount of time alone, and then your neighbor tends to become a big nuisance right ?? He gets on your nerves for the smallest reason ?And then you have no reason to even talk to him, right ??Bye bye social cohesion. See the way it goes ?

  10. This is an excellent and lucidly presented analysis. Michael writes, "The problem is that there is not enough economic surpluses available to pay the financial sector on its bad loans while also paying pensions and social security. Something has to give." As the financial sector schemes to bury "lesser people" in debt and poverty, however, we face the predicament of sustainability, most prominently the issue of peak oil. How much will millions of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico cost us? Yes, something's got to give, and any victory by finance will be short lived and pyrrhic.

  11. Blissex,Allow me to tell you something that's truly funny, blissex, calling upon Grover Norquist to provide the commentary on whether or not the unemployed and foreclosed-upon are prepared to demonstrate any time soon. Even if we are to accept the statistics you provide concerning stock and home ownership and I don't, fully 25% of home owners are now underwater and even more have watched the value of their 401K investments go up in smoke in the last few years. A nation of entrepreneurs out to protect the property that causes them to identify with Rockefeller? You entertain, son. More likely a nation of debt peons who, short of forgiveness, will be joined at the hip forever with the maggots that scammed them.Andrei Vyshinsky

  12. Great blog and great comments.Debra, I don't think Blissex is cynical. I think he is right on. That social cohesion you talk about is long gone here in the US, and has mostly been replaced by blissex's petty rentiers' f/u-I-got-mine mindset. They are not just harmless "old" people. They are the most politically active and powerful constituency in the country, and they are fully brainwashed by Faux News. I "talk" to these idiots everyday. Sorry, but you can't get thru to them. God has put his seal of approval on their ideology by making them prosperous. Until/unless that changes, the Titanic will continue full speed ahead into the iceberg.

  13. I know what you mean about not getting through to them…That's why… when irrationalism is the name of the game, no number of rational arguments will convince anybody.And getting through to people who are rejecting rationalism does not entail… multiplying your SELF PERCEIVED RATIONALITY so as to be able to thump them over the head with YOUR RATIONAL TRUTH.These people are reacting to… scientism, the BELIEF that so called "rational" scientists, and science will save US.But… are self perceived "reason" (everybody is rational from THEIR point of view, you know…) and scientific truth going to SAVE US at this point ?Uh…maybe not..And… since we ALL need to join hands to pull back from the brink, well, I feel that squaring off into camps and pointing our fingers at the, uh IRRATIONAL MOTE in the eye of our Fox News watching neighbor is not going to provide anything but self righteous satisfaction at feeling RIGHT in the long run. And we miss the BEAM in our own eye in the meantime.While… we go off the planet because WE can't cooperate.Gotta find a way so that EVERYONE can participate. It's done with those two old fashioned virtues : patience and love.Not IRRATIONAL finger pointing.

  14. Now living in the redest of the red states, South carolina and having come from the finiancial capital of the country, NY; the last comment described the US and its population perfectly. Sometime in the recent past, the Amercian motto became 'F*ck you, I got mine, everyone else scratch'

  15. I often wonder if the end of military conscription was a cause of the decline of social cohesion in the US or merely a symptom. Israel, Singapore and Switzerland are three countries that have consciously maintained their universal military service obligation, in part, for the cohesion benefits.

  16. I have to say that this echoes everything I have been thinking about what is happening here in the UK. The deceit of Cameron and his new gang is incredible and unprecedented. I have tried to summarise the UK position at http://www.diarmidweirphotography.co.uk/wealth_without_money/2010/06/camerons-deceitful-cuts-rhetoric

  17. A great essay and great comments on this blog.The Minsky moment appears when a debt-driven bubble spirals back into deflation. The Minsky moment divides the economy into two sets: those who owe more than they can pay, and those who are owed more than they can hope to receive.Those who are owed this unpayable debt are rich beyond measure. As the society struggles with unemployment we look to this group to finance new activity to supply liquidity and raise spirits. But they can't. This is not what they do. They provide collateralized debt, not loans. They don't know how to do loans. For a great essay on this point, see Andy Grove's http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/07/andy-grove-on-the-need-for-us-job-creation-and-industrial-policy.htmlBut the rich believe that they deserve to be rich. It is natural them to believe this. Otherwise they would have to accept the comfort of their lives as something temporary and accidental. I like the commentary that brings Religion into this blog, because I think this (government-sponsored) sentiment is key to the stubbornness of the debate.The rich will oppose Keynesian policies because after the restoration of the economy their riches will be mostly gone. It is hard for them to admit that their wealth is based on a Ponzi scheme. And it is even harder for them to countenance its disappearance.The way forward is to mark the current bank assets to the market value of what they own, and let the debtors repurchase their debts at their marked values. The current set of banks will go bankrupt, and their bondholders will lose everything. They made very bad bets and deserve to disappear. But they will be replaced by a new set of banks that will lend money to repurchase the debt at more sensible values. But who are the losers here? Well, for one thing pension funds will lose that part of the savings that was gobbled up in the Ponzi scheme? So perhaps this portion can be guaranteed by new government debt. Who else?

  18. And I think single-payer would be some of the best stimulus out there. No more bankruptcies from medical bills, less work hours lost from illness and injury, and demand for medical products will increase, and manufacturers of everything from bandages to x-ray film would hire more people…makes me wonder if we manufacture any of that here.

  19. EARN GLOBAL MONEY gives you instant access to a dynamic, scalable, dedicated and responsible development program – a committed to meeting the highest standards, committed to delivering on promises, and committed to ensuring every program success. make $200 per day

  20. Just wondering, since it looks like we're headed for an austere future here in the US, is there anything the average person can do about it? Especially since contacting our congress people and voting don't seem to be working out very well.