Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 19, 2011
Turn Away From Neoliberalism Or Lose Government Legitimacy

Neoliberal deregulation, captive oversight, too low interest rates and outright criminality within the banks led the "western" world into a financial crisis. A very wrong step was taken when governments stepped in to rescue failed banks and to guarantee their bad debt. Central banks again showered the shattered financial markets with even more liquidity increasing speculation. (This, through oil and food price increases, led to the Arab spring revolutions.) While some stimulus programs where launched these were too small to restart the economic growth process while the serious underlying problems stayed unsolved.

Private bad debt was turned into government bad debt. The financial crisis of the banks was thus turned into a financial crisis of governments.

Still the wrong steps get taken. Attempts to save Greece and other European countries will be fruitless. They will default and leave the Euro zone as they can not economically survive within a strong currency.

The "western" world will now fall back into recession while an insetting austerity ideology will prevent more Keynesian programs. Unchallenged this will lead into the second world depression.

To change the direction a change of mind and ideology must take place. There are signs that this is starting though it might well turn out to be a rather slow process, too late, or even fail.

Charles Moore, a conservative commentator of the Telegraph and official Thatcher biographer, recently wrote: I'm starting to think that the Left might actually be right (recommended). In Germany Frank Schirrmacher, publisher of the German "paper of record", the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine, joined in (in German). (In France „Indignez vous!“, a bestselling political essay written by the 93-year-old former resistance hero Stéphane Hessel, earlier went into a comparable direction.)

These people now see and state that traditional conservatism has been taken over by neoliberal ruthlessness. This is a betrayal of the values and morals true conservatives (die Bürgerlichen) once held high. The same can be said for major former social-democratic parties, New Labour in Britain, the Democrats in the U.S. and in Germany the SPD, all of whom have slaughtered worker rights they once fought for on the altars of the neoliberal free-trade religion.

Should the change of mind within the ruling elite away from neoliberalism back to the original post world war II values not happen, the question of government solvency will soon turn into one of government legitimacy. The riots in the UK were one of the first signs for this to happen. But the loss of legitimacy will not only be in the eyes of the street rabble. It will also be in the eyes of conservative intellectuals like Moore and Schirrmacher and the likes of Hessel. That might be the real threat to the ruling cast.

Comments

For those thinking that b‘s indictment of the banksters might be overdrawn, this
still not completely resolved example of collusion between the West’s spooky establishment and outright
financial crooks
bears mention. The Wikipedia resumé is not bad for an overview, although it certainly leaves much to be said about some of the participants.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Aug 19 2011 16:03 utc | 1

I’m very suspicious of the pundits (e.g. C Moore) that sorta change their minds.
Not that they are per se insincere – they might be heartfelt or opportunistic .. Hessel certainly wrote from the heart, but he is a special case – but that they are fiddling about about with ‘models of society’, political orientations, principles, in an outdated semi – vaccum that is defined by largely past, yet still present, ideology.
C. Moore’s piece, for ex. is extremely thin. The drift itself is clumsy, beyond the adjustments one would expect for a large audience.
He got the free market is a set up right (he musta read it on a blog somewhere) but then goes on to quietly laud Thatcher it was the trade unions that were holding people back. Bad jobs were protected and good ones could not be created.
This passage is beyond bizarre and attributes junking Marx to working ppl (2):
Working people wanted to throw off the chains that Karl Marx had claimed were shackling them – and join the bourgeoisie which he hated. Their analysis of their situation was essentially correct. The increasing prosperity and freedom of the ensuing 20 years proved them right.
Nobody can deny that the switch away from coal (started by Winston Churchill 1, Moore mentions the miner’s strike..) to oil and gas, in an ramped up hype, after the discovery of North Sea Oil, marginally changed the employment picture in England, which came to a head under Thatcher. How was that handled? ‘Good jobs‘ – what is he talking about? It is, imho, ignorant, pandering rubbish.
OK, there are better sentences that could be quoted.
1. see for ex http://www.epmag.com/archives/digitalOilField/5911.htm
2. All this has nothing to do with Marx as a theoretician.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 19 2011 16:53 utc | 2

Thanks for that b, this thread needs to be read by the American public, of course, it won’t be. You nailed it.
And then, there’s this: WASHINGTON — Iraq has agreed to keep American troops in Iraq beyond a year-end deadline for their withdrawal, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday.
Well, I’m shocked….NOT!

Posted by: ben | Aug 19 2011 20:07 utc | 3

I’ve been looking all day and I cannot find a post which says it better than this on the entire internetz…)

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Aug 19 2011 21:36 utc | 4

I couldn’t agree more with you, b. The post-WW2 situation led to an economic expansion unknown in human history. The release of the poor from hunger had a value which today we can’t imagine.
It is not surprising that the rich now want to take back the advantages they were forced to give.
Today is a period of pillage. So much was built up in the wake of WW2, that it is now more interesting to pillage the wealth, than to build anew. I fear for those who have private pensions for their retirement, like my sister. But also for myself, who has a public pension. Will it be paid to the end?

Posted by: alexno | Aug 19 2011 22:06 utc | 5

@5, of course it won’t.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Aug 20 2011 0:34 utc | 6

I don’t agree with the “strong currency” noise, but all the rest is true.
Mainstream economists are telling it, but nobody wants to listen.
Here is Nouriel Roubini telling that Marx was right and capitalism may be destroying itself, in the WSJ:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/649635/mainstream_economist%3A_marx_was_right._capitalism_may_be_destroying_itself
Paul Mason, economics editor from BBC, yesterday (recommended):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14579710
Anyway, it’s getting late and it seems that a new depression is the only way to get a new set of politicians able to cope with the situation.
Labour has to win to finance to get the world working, and even then, the challenges are very serious…
I don’t count in retirement…
I puke

Posted by: auskalo | Aug 20 2011 2:35 utc | 7

Looting with the lights on
Naomi Klein

As if the massive bank bailouts never happened, followed by the defiant record bonuses. Followed by the emergency G8 and G20 meetings, when the leaders decided, collectively, not to do anything to punish the bankers for any of this, nor to do anything serious to prevent a similar crisis from happening again. Instead they would all go home to their respective countries and force sacrifices on the most vulnerable. They would do this by firing public sector workers, scapegoating teachers, closing libraries, upping tuitions, rolling back union contracts, creating rush privatisations of public assets and decreasing pensions – mix the cocktail for where you live. And who is on television lecturing about the need to give up these “entitlements”? The bankers and hedge-fund managers, of course.

meanwhile, U.S. Intelligence Budget: $75 Billion, 200,000 Operatives. Fusion Centers Will Have Access to Classified Military Intelligence
Fusion Centers…
are the perfect cover device for operations domestically in this lawless, privatized secret state. While they loot the wealth (it goes hand in hand) …
An American Stasi? The Surveillance State

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 20 2011 5:36 utc | 8

I am over a half century old. We have been at war my entire lifetime either covertly or overtly. The CIA was committing acts of war in Iran as my mother was giving birth to me. There is only one issue that matters and that issue is stopping the wars so that the societies can heal. War makes everyone crazy; we in the West have gone insane.
Peace, prosperity, and voluntary cooperation are the worthy goals of any society but those goals are forever unobtainable as long as you are at war.
Stop the killing and you might have a chance for peace, prosperity, and mutual cooperation.

Posted by: joseph | Aug 20 2011 10:10 utc | 9

Cont’d from above (had trouble trying to post this)–
The series continued with a segment titled Americans Facing More Inequality, More Debt and Now More Trouble?, which goes into some economists’ thoughts on why there is so much inequality and whether it is damaging to the society and the economy. It’s kind of a usual cast of Very Serious People, a NewsHour staple, but one Harvard economist was interveiwed who said he’d found an alarming correlation between income inequality and economic crashes. The chart is shown at about 5:10 into the video. The segment runs about 10 minutes.

DAVID MOSS, Harvard Business School: As the crisis was in full swing in late 2008, November, December of 2008, I started to put together a graph, a simple chart on bank failures in the 19th and 20th century up to the present. And a really very striking pattern emerged.
PAUL SOLMAN: Striking, says Moss, was the resemblance between his bank failure chart and a graph of U.S. income inequality over the last century.
DAVID MOSS: Sure enough, the match with bank failures was remarkably strong. Inequality peaked just before the financial crisis in 1929 to 1933. And then it peaks again in 2007, just before this recent financial crisis at almost exactly the same level. And that got me thinking more and more, maybe there is some connection.
Those at the high end are putting some of their money into lending to everyone else. And those down below, who are not seeing the kind of income growth they had gotten in before and don’t have the kind of bargaining power to raise their incomes that they had before, they’re doing the borrowing. That’s creating a source of enormous instability. But, if that model is right, then there really could be a connection between inequality and financial crises. [Ya think?] (My emphasis)

The interviews with people affected by the current economic downturn are interesting and may help those watching NewsHour to feel more empathy for those losing their jobs and homes. The economists’ views, as I mentioned, tend to be within the discussion parameters allowed by NewsHour (right to center-right, with the occasional actual center, called leftist in the US, economist permitted.)
In looking for these links and transcripts, I came across a NewsHour on-line only video of economists answering viewers’ questions about income inequality. The right was represented by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute, the other side by Pomona College economist and dean Cecilia Conrad. (Just under 4 minutes.)
Mitchell says inequality per se should not be a worry, a rising tide lifts all boats (has he seen the actual stats??), and he is concerned that the poor are being held down by government policies. Huh?
Kind of fun, in an MCM kind of way.

Posted by: jawbone | Aug 20 2011 16:20 utc | 10

OK–it said the first part was posted, then it isn’t there. Second try.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about b writing about the dangers of the credit default swaps and their evil spawn, how his predictions came true, and, yet, nothing really has been done to curb the Too Big To Fail banksters’ rapacious ways. Bank of America may be brought down by an unwise purchase, with its solvent parts being picked over by the remaining TBTF banks.
I’m continually stunned that our nations’ leaders, in the US and in most of Europe, actually think they’re going to succeed by feeding their poor and middle classes to the ravenous maw of the big financial institutions.
PBS’s NewsHour had a two-part series on wealth distribution and income inequality, the first based primarily on the study done by Dan Ariely, a psychologist at Duke University, which asked people to name which of three pie charts showing three different wealth distributions best described the United States. The first had equal distribution of wealth between the five quintiles (a fantasy nation called Freedonia); the second showed a wealth distribution which is matched most closely by the distribution in Sweden; the third was the actual wealth distribution in the United States.
In the study, most Americans think the chart depicting Sweden is what the US is like, and they thought the actual US wealth distribution, Chart 3, was a Third World nation with most of its population living in dire poverty.
Paul Solman of NewsHour interviewed people waiting to get into the David Letterman Show and asked them about these charts. While this study has had some reporting done on it, and lots of commentary in left Blogistan, the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) has not covered it very much. So, this NewsHour series is something of a breakthrough for many of its viewers. The responses on the unscientific poll run by Solman with Letterman’s audience showed the import of the study has certainly not gotten through to most people. Most Americans think they live in Sweden, but, in cold hard figures, they live in…name that Third World poor nation, at least in terms of wealth distribution.
The segment, Land of the Free, Home of the Poor, continues with reactions and some explanations for the results from economists Video (about 11:45) and transcript at link.
(First part of comment above)

Posted by: jawbone | Aug 20 2011 16:22 utc | 11

Welcome to our future. It’s not digging in the dirt for turnips and potatoes, as I mentioned on another thread, it’s panning for gold that we’ll be doing outside the gated and heavily guarded estates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubJp6rmUYM&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Aug 20 2011 23:58 utc | 12

If you take liberals and subdivide them into either neoliberals or paleoliberals, then you’ll know that it is the neoliberals, not the paloeliberals, who are to blame for wrecking our economy. And if you take conservatives and subdivide them into either neoconservatives or paleoconservatives, you’ll know that it is the neoconservatives, not the paleoconservatives, who are to blame for dragging us into two phenomenally expensive and ultimately unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The paleoliberals are mostly confined to the Democratic party and make up a very small percentage of Democrats elected or appointed to public office. Similarly, the paleoconservatives are mostly confined to the Republican party and make up a very small percentage of Republicans elected or appointed to public office. You can’t say the same thing about either the neoliberals or the neoconservavatives — the two have gained full control over both political parties. This gets to heart of why there’s no meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans.
And because the paleos, liberal and conservative alike, unlike their neo-counterparts, take great pride in our civil liberties and have enormous respect for the rule of law, if the paleos were to rule the roost in Washington, not only would our economy be in far better shape today and the so-called war on terrorism would be far less costly to us in terms of both blood and treasure, but also our civil liberties and the rule of law wouldn’t be hanging by a thread. On top of that, our kids wouldn’t be at or near the bottom of the ladder in terms of math and science and our public infrastructure, from our roads and bridges to our schools and parks, wouldn’t be crumbling before our eyes! So paleoconservatives shouldn’t be demonizing all liberals, nor should paleoliberals be demonizing all conservatives. What they should be doing is uniting as a single force to demonize the single force of neocons and neolibs.
By the way, you’re probably wondering how the blue-dog Democrats and the teabagging Republicans fit into this neolib/neocon axis of evil. The neolib/cons in the Democratic party have co-opted the blue dogs for the exact same reason that the neolib/cons in the Republican party have co-opted the teabaggers: To attract the gun loving, gay bashing, bible thumping voters in various swing states across America.

Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 21 2011 2:44 utc | 13

auskalo,
Karl Marx was German, but lived in the time of post-feudal Russia. In post-feudal Russia, the elite ruling class stayed in power, but, with the rise of the government class, the nobles had a buffer between themselves and the peasants (formerly serfs). This new societal configuration made it even harder for the peasants to survive than it had been for them when they were serfs.
Today, in America, we have a very powerful elite ruling class with a large and powerful government class, serving as a buffer between that ruling class and the hoi polloi. Unlike post-feudal Russia, the US did not get to this point by evolving from serfdom, but rather by destroying the middle class and devolving towards serfdom. None the less, the real relevant Marx money quote is:
“Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and the more it lives, the more labor it sucks.”
The exponential growth and concentration of capital within America’s elite class and government class have certainly been sucking the “living labor” out of the economy. America’s ruling class has now shut down 57,000 factories and destroyed or outsourced 6,000,000 full-time jobs.
Here in America, the elite ruling class owns the government, but the means of production have been outsourced. There is no way that Marx, even in his wildest imagination, could have conjured up a Jamie Dimon, Bernie Madoff or Lloyd (doing God’s work) Blankfein . Compared to guys like these, Russia’s nobles were simpletons
Heck, even Grouch Marx would have understood today’s America. After all, he grew up in the aftermath of the Panic of 1893, which gave rise to America’s Money Trust, which was later codified in 1913 by something called the Federal Reserve Act.
H/T: Black Swan

Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 21 2011 3:41 utc | 14

Reprinted from a comment from Democratic Underground, but it mirrors my feelings exactly:
All of the people who say, “if you don’t vote, then you’ll be the reason that (fill in the blank with any evil republican name) became president.
I believe that the people, most of whom call themselves good progressives, have it ass-backwards.
In my case, and I will only speak for myself, there isn’t one asshole in Washington, save for Emanual Cleaver, who has earned my vote, who reflects the human core values of the old Democratic party. This includes Obama and Biden. More than three years ago I saw our current president for what he has turned out to be; a toady for the corporate elite. Instead of getting caught up in all of the “hopey, changey” bullshit, I looked at his record as an Illinois state Senator. I looked at the deal he had cut with the Excelon corp., and how he had sold the residents of Illinois down the river. And as he became the candidate, I saw the obscene amounts of money he was getting through corporate bundling. You just don’t get that much from corporations, without a big payback. I knew that, once he became president he was not about to spit in Wall Street’s collective face. Call me a cynic, but I never had much hope when he was inaugurated, and I knew there would be no change for the better. And now the tsunami of good will that the president surfed into office on is gone, and most of us are trying to survive the riptides left in its wake. You may be wondering what I did. I did the only thing my conscience would allow; I wrote Al Gore’s name on my ballot, because I believed he was the only grown up who could direct this country where it needed to go in one of the most critical times of our country’s history. I knew it was a throw away vote, but I was goddamned if I was going to vote for another ham sandwich, just to keep another “candidate X” from getting into office.
This country, and most of you here voted for Obama with their eyes wide shut. And now I’m hearing and reading about a hell of a lot of buyer’s remorse. And, true to form, I’m reading a lot of posts that are telling me that if I don’t back Obama, then it’s my fault that a heathen republican, cloaked in Jesus’ bloody garments will become the next president. How about chewing on this: Obama doesn’t get my backing because he hasn’t done anything to fucking deserve it. Call him a Blue Dog, A new Way, Third Way or whatever kind of name you want, but in my opinion, he is not a democrat, has no business leading the democratic party, and is really the poster boy for what I say is the “Corporate Party,” which most of us ain’t members of.
For myself, I see both parties as the same. They both serve only those that can keep them in power, and that’s the corporate world. I never in my lifetime dreamed that we would now be discussing cuts in Social programs, the social programs that the Democratic party started to give those less fortunate Americans a real safety net. Yet, here we are, and it will only get worse. As I see it, both parties are nothing more than the same side of the coin. One party plays good cop, the other party…bad cop, but to keep up appearances for their constituents, the rhetoric changes. And if you want proof, you need look no further than who Obama appointed to cabinet posts, who was selected to key committees, and just exactly what got done legislatively when our party controlled all three houses of the government.
Lastly, I’ll throw the ball right back at you. It can be argued, (and I believe this to be true) that those who keep propping up this joke of a political system ARE THE ENABLERS who legitimize the corrupt way business is done in Washington, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting asswipes whose political practices are diametrically opposed to your beliefs, just because they have a D right next to their name. Nothing will ever change for the better, until all of us hold these clowns accountable and quit donating our money and our time trying to keep DINOS in office. These criminals posing as politicians just might get the message when their campaign contributions and their vast pools of volunteers dry up. I don’t give a fuck if it’s the only game in town. It’s a rigged game, most all of you know it, and so I must ask why you want to sit in and play, if you know going in that you’ll get fleeced?
And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I’ll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up. So, to be blunt, right now I don’t give a fuck about party politics. I want the whole goddamned system changed. To paraphrase Peter Finch in the movie “Network,” I’m mad as fucking hell, and I’m not about to play this fucking game anymore.”

Posted by: ben | Aug 21 2011 13:32 utc | 15

ben, good post from DU. Sidebar: Perry is not a ‘conservative’, he is a murderous opportunistic grifter. His only politics is pillage. The salient fact is that such a scum-bag is considered a ‘serious contender.’
short PDF with many ext. links on Perry by Texans for public justice. http://info.tpj.org/reports/pdf/perryprimer.fin.pdf
Inequality of wealth in the US, but more particularly so in England, has been extremely well documented in the past 30 years (before, as well.) It is surfacing now in the mainstream because it deals with basic accounting matters, and both left and right, quote unquote, find a kind of simplistic comfort in it.
Say, from: reveal all and the ppl will rise up to : different/better re-distribution, more bread and circuses, and the carnival can continue … (see Buffet on taxes.)
That the staggering divide is mis-perceived by the lowly 90%, in many US studies (not GB) shows its relative unimportance.
What people aspire to is:
social equality, fairness, justice, consideration as individuals in a cohesive ethical scheme. (will vary in different societies.)
Ppl don’t riot and kill because they think their pay packet or housing subsidy or whatever is going to be reduced. (Well they do, and might in the future, I’m only saying that such triggers obscure the real rot) – they revolt because they are treated like untermenschen, like shit, whose humanity is disregarded.
The focus on wealth / taxes disparities once again emphasises social success and freedom of action in terms of material wealth, possessions, and thus neatly veils everything else!
The link below from Huff post (short) summarizes a report about access to justice, focus on the US.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/14/access-to-justice-in-us-a_n_762355.html

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 21 2011 14:58 utc | 16

Felix Solomon: The global crisis of institutional legitimacy

It looks increasingly as though we’re entering Phase 2 of the global crisis, with 2008-9 merely acting as the appetizer. In Phase 1, national and super-national treasuries and central banks managed to come to the rescue and stave off catastrophe. But in doing so, they weakened themselves to the point at which they’re unable to rise to the occasion this time round. Our hearts want government to come through and save the economy. But our heads know that it’s not going to happen. And that failure, in turn, is only going to further weaken institutional legitimacy across the US and the world. It’s a vicious cycle, and I can’t see how we’re going to break out of it.

Posted by: b | Aug 22 2011 11:09 utc | 17