Comments on: Counterparties: The global economy’s Scarlet A

By: JayCM

JayCM — Wed, 02 May 2012 13:05:51 +0000

@MrFox: Yeah, the system has been falling back on its third line of defense (riot cops) more than usually lately. Still, the main challengers to the system, OWS and TEA, are divided along the usual American political faultlines, and aren’t likely to start working together. I have a hard time imagining Tea Party activists taking OWS types seriously. OWS, for its part, seems to actively try to prevent leadership from emerging that could organize it into anything capable of challenging the powerful; squatting just doesn’t get it done.

Like I said earlier, I think the best analogy is the Soviet Union circa 1970. The system is losing legitimacy, but it will be a while before it comes down. Just as well, because it’s very likely that what comes next will be worse.

By: MrRFox

MrRFox — Wed, 02 May 2012 03:54:16 +0000

@JLRII, @JayCM -

JLR, you wrote – “I do hope that both organizations take to the streets… develop their objectives … so that the rest of us may determine to embrace … or reject them rationally. The discourse will be good for the country.”

Discourse amounts to nothing so long as all levers of power remain in the hands of a self-perpetuating elite. Restructuring the electoral system is an indispensable first-step to progress of any sort, and something substantially all citizens of all political views support. It’s not a matter of anarchic destruction of society – it is a matter of returning ultimate control over government to the general population.

JayCM, you wrote – “The system’s second line of defense against bottom-up change is the two-party system; most people support a party they dislike to keep power away from the party they loathe. It’s a divide-and-conquer strategy, and it mostly works.”

Never in US history has there been more utter disgust with both parties. The view that they are in fact one-in-the-same – owned, taking orders and serving the interests of a moneyed elite, is predominant. The public’s broad and growing rejection of the legitimacy of the existing political process is the fertile soil from which change can emerge.

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:49:23 +0000

Strych09, and what exactly are they saying then?

By: Strych09

Strych09 — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:32:40 +0000

JLRII, all you have to do to convince yourself that JayCM is correct – rational discourse is completely divorced from political issues in this country – is read Danny_Black’s comment above that Occupy Wall Street is somehow the same as people who think that people richer than me should give more of their money to me”, when OWS hasn’t said anything like that.

It’s just a way to use rhetoric to undercut what OWS really IS saying.

By: JayCM

JayCM — Tue, 01 May 2012 17:52:06 +0000

@MrFox: The system’s second line of defense against bottom-up change is the two-party system; most people support a party they dislike to keep power away from the party they loathe. It’s a divide-and-conquer strategy, and it mostly works.

The first line of defense is complexity. There’s a reason bills in Congress are hundreds of pages of extremely obtuse verbiage. The first step in controlling something is paying attention to it, and the American public rarely gets past this first gate.

@JLRII: I’d like to move to your home planet. On this planet, rational discourse has as much to do with politics as whales have to do with the internet.

By: JLRII

JLRII — Tue, 01 May 2012 17:01:53 +0000

MrRFox, History note. Each state had its own Constitution and independent sovereignty. It took 8 years after Yorktown to write the Federal Constitution. It was principally driven by a move to federalize the massive war debt. The movement was started and controlled by the elites and their bankers. Yet, it seems to have worked relatively well.
For those who believe that we must tear it down before we rebuild, I suggest a review of the history of the french revolution. A good read to counter this was of thinking is Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Destroying society in the interests of vague ideals like liberty, fraternity, and equality creates perfect democracy–mob rule. This is often referred to as anarchy. That is always and everywhere followed by severe repression.
I do hope that both organizations take to the streets. I do hope that they can develop their objectives into clear prose so that the rest of us may determine to embrace the objectives or reject them rationally. The discourse will be good for the country.

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:51:57 +0000

MrRFox, utter rubbish. Tea party had many thousands of people out in support and drove elections. OWS had a few hundred out and achieved sweet FA except give left-wing journos and academics orgasms. 39% supported OWS? Really? in any concrete way or just in the a vague “people richer than me should give more of their money to me” – which by the way shows at least 61% of americans are not morons.

By: MrRFox

MrRFox — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:29:41 +0000

@JayCM – You hit all the big issues in just a few sentences. Gonna need more than that to respond to you. Take yours from the bottom up -

We’re talking revolutionary change here – nothing less will amount to anything. That’s not going to happen unless there’s intense distress felt by the general population, and until there is – nothing happens. When will that come to pass? – IDK, maybe never, but sooner than most of us suspect IMO. (If you’re wondering, yes – it is possible to accelerate the process, but that’s another subject.)

The system has no defenses to change imposed from the bottom up, Jay. The US isn’t China or Russia – when the general population insists on something it gets it, one way or the other.

IMO both movements can be united in a package of reforms that removes big money from the electoral process, eliminates career legislators, enforces conflict of interest and other ethical standards, and imposes some obligations on the very richest among us to get us past the current crisis. A program composed of those ingredients will get the job done, and should alienate no one but the 1%.

What happens after that is up to whoever is elected under the revised system. That’s when all the divisive issues can be addressed – after we take decision-making authority away from those who have it now. Like you say, people are reluctant to embrace the unknown and untested, but when times get tough enough – they will.

By: JayCM

JayCM — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:31:00 +0000

@MrFox: I’m also not a fan of the “tear it down now and we’ll worry about what to build later” school of thought. Revolutions tend to get away from their roots, and we could easily wind up in a much worse situation that way. And I can’t help but think that whatever amendments get proposed are likely to divide the movements.

Basically, I see us as the Soviet Union circa 1975. We’re failing, and it’s becoming evident to most people, but it will take a few decades before things get bad enough that the system’s defenses can’t cope.

By: MrRFox

MrRFox — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:22:54 +0000

@DB, The Street’s Black Knight –

Thanks for asking, Danny – The high-water mark for Tea
Party was 36% in April’11. OWS was consistently at 39% approval in Q4’11. That’s pretty close to 75% combined. They can each get back there, and more IMO – and will when things get bad enough.

Between now and then, plans should be laid. Wanna’ help, Danny?

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Tue, 01 May 2012 09:31:34 +0000

How does OWS and the tea party have 75% of public support?

Given the number of people who turned out for OWS – even when it was sunny – a closer estimate would zero, rounded to the nearest 0.1% of the population.

By: MrRFox

MrRFox — Tue, 01 May 2012 04:00:50 +0000

@JayCM – you got it right. Addressing debt relief, or really any other substantive issues at this time, will accomplish nothing except to divide and destroy the insurgent movements – OWS and Tea Party. The only hope for progress is for them to stand together, and the only issues they agree on are “out with the status quo” and “in with Constitutional reform of the electoral process”.

The Founders didn’t write the Constitution until like 6 years after Yorktown. Today’s insurgents should deal with matters of substance only after they have deposed the current ruling elites. The intellectual beacons of both movements (Niall Ferguson and Lawrence Lessig) have to prepare a package of Constitutional Amendments and legislations that all insurgents can embrace. And when the time is right, millions descend on DC and Wall Street and compel the immediate enactment of the package.

OBTW: Keep the book – just please return – “a slice of lime in the soda” – to the page-header, thanks.

By: JayCM

JayCM — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:43:40 +0000

Debt relief is one area where Occupy and the Tea Party have wildly divergent interests. Occupy represents the young, who resent the debts that constitute the retirement plans of the older Tea Party types. Focussing on debt relief immediately mobilizes a huge resistance to Occupy (“They’re going to take our retirement savings away!”) and guarantees that the movement will stop dead in its tracks.