prole

Move in with their children? BINGO!

Yeah, get fragged.

Unless you're "too big (rich) to fail"!

Debt is a symptom of two or three paychecks per family not being enough to afford what's shoved down people's throats as an acceptable quality of life in 21 century America.

It ain't happenin'.

WHO, IN GOD'S NAME, WATCHES MOVIES AT A SKI HUT?! THIS CANNOT STAND!

Wait for the Christmas retail sales analysis.

Body armor, private security firms, Campbell's Soup, non-lethal antipersonnel technology, the Yuan.

Rather than juxtapose "neoconservatism" and "neoliberalism", my understanding of neoconservatism has more do do with an outwardly focused activist foreign policy philosophy that would attempt to remake the rest of the world (by force when necessary)in the image of a freemarket capitalist if not always liberal democratic ideal. Clintonite internationalism of course had the same ideal in mind (they were followers of the Washington Consensus at which neoliberalism is at the heart), but attempted to go about getting there in a different manner (multilateral institutions and military humanism).

It is taking care of itself. Are You Ready For The Great Reset? I know what you mean but per usual the taxpayer is paying for the great reset so the market isn't really taking care of itself. As a matter of fact, they probably will have to nationalize banks soon. No, I was being facetious. The "free market" is not capable of taking care of itself when it is "operating smoothly", when it requires massive public infrastructure, institutions and rules to govern its behavior, internal and external coercive apparatuses to guarantee and open markets. Nor is it capable of taking care of itself when the speculative bubbles, monopolization, waste, and environmental degradation its logic results in threatens to unravel the social order as a whole.

It is taking care of itself. Are You Ready For The Great Reset?

The "fucked up economic shit" in question has been America's greatest export over the last 25 years.

Great discussion! You really are a psycho asshole. Didn't finish the rest of your post. Buh-bye.

I wouldn't compose a requiem for democracy just yet. The world has steadily marched towards democracy over the past century, most notably since the end of colonialism and the fall of the Soviet Union. Even China, officially communist, has become far more democratic since its Maoist days. Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian revolution is a temporary luxury funded by petro-dollars, not a latin American-wide movement. Most of latin America, although perhaps less aligned with the United States now, remains solidly democratic. Truly totalitarian states, once the norm for half the world, can only be found in a few backwater nations these days. I suppose you could point to Putin and Chavez as bellweathers, but somehow, I doubt they're leading some world trend. So what of the future? The future will bring more localism forced by increasingly expensive energy. Localism typically brings a more democratic system for obvious reasons, particularly when there is already a culture of democracy in place, as is the case over much of the world now. Larger national goverments will weaken as a result of this decentralization of political control brought about by resource limitations. Resource scarcity will mean less surplus with which to buy big national luxuries such as air craft carriers, space weapons, and fighter planes. The role of national goverments will shrink accordingly. That is not to say that national systems won't exist; information systems to aid in providing more efficient health care would be one consolidation that would greatly cut duplicated costs and waste, for example. But the nice-to-haves-but-don't-really-need, such as a huge offensive military (which sucks up 59% of our discresionary national budget) will no longer be affordable. In short, we in the US will probably see what seems like a contradiction; increased socialism (it's already happening, and will need to happen much more to achieve energy independence, etc) and a weaker federal goverment, primarily through shrinking a bloated military, paid for with debt, that we haven't been able to afford for quite some time now. Reaganesque federal control mechanisms, such as block grants to states, will probably go away to, leaving states to fend for themselves on most infrastructure issues. I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat with you as this is all complex, open to interpretation, and lacking in a common understanding of the terms we're using. The limits of debate in an open forum, I suppose... Anyone playing attention to Latin American politics has seen a shift to the left in the region as a whole in the wake of upheavals in the 90's caused by the Washington Consensus. Lula, Chavez, Morales, etc., some in name only, but nevertheless... This is important to consider as these countries often bore the most intense instances of privatization, deregulation, and First world corporate penetration characteristic of neoliberalism and bundled in the programs imposed from without by the IMF. That America, Europe and parts of Asia are now reaping the whirlwind from similar policies derived from the exact same ideology, I'd say it's a potential future. As people attempt to shield themselves from the systemic chaos that unfettered capitalism is wreaking (or some try to maintain it at any cost) they will choose(?) political alternatives particular to their social histories. The pendulum could swing toward the left in countries and regions where leftist politics have some historical foundation (regions where Bolivarian revolutions took place is a prime example). I would not count the US as one of these. Furthermore, I would not, as you have, place socialist politics in opposition to democratic principles or practice. The pendulum can/and is swinging to the right where authoritarianism is strong or democracy is quite weak. All of this makes "localism" quite contingent in the bigger picture. Considering the 20th century variations and its ultimate results, it doesn't look too rosy. While I understand and share the ecological concerns and rewards offered by localism, it needs to focus on the dissemination and decentralization of political power at the "local" level as you've suggested and on forging broader networks for democratic movements at the international and supranational level.

Sunsets, air, the cosmos, emotion.

In the bigger picture, when people say we're at a turning point, we're looking at the survival of democracy as a viable political system for global capitalism to expand in. These tensions have been exposed in the developing world for some time. Most spectacularly with regards to IMF imposed structural adjustments which basically remove elected governments from economic decision making. In the wake of their failure, we've seen the rebirth of socialist movements attempting to re-embed economic policy under some democratic control in Latin America and a reactionary authoritarianism in Russia. Wither America?

Under the Keynesian Economics, wealth gets transferred to those who control it and everyone else is placed under its debt, just as it is today. Eventually the debt becomes too great to keep propped up by artificial economics. It builds debt, not wealth. Except for the people who sit at the top of this system. And is so cunning in its deceit, that only one in a million understand it, just like Keynes himself said. "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some....The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920 Thomas Jefferson got it right! I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. You sir, are hopelessly confused.

Whether the current bailout deal addresses the underlying crisis or not, whether it's good for taxpayers or not, what the political chaos it's creating is telling global elites is that liberal democracies, politics, and "the people" are incapable of understanding and managing crises in the current form of global capitalism. What it means for them is that the Chinese model is looking really good right now. What it means for us is that the waves of deregulation that have occurred under the banner of "free market" ideology are inherently undemocratic and if unchecked will lead toward anti-democratic technocracy. When we gave up our oversight and regulatory systems we allowed ourselves to be taken hostage. And when our choices are depression or slowly being bled to death for generations to come, we are being held hostage.

The bailout deal might pass now that the Democrats have added some tax cuts as a sop to Republicans. Tax cuts. Hey, what's the difference between Republicans and a cocker spaniel that can't stop licking its balls? ...Nothing! The Republicans' stupidity is matched only by Democrats' spinelessness. I give up, burn it all.

In an Arnold Schwarzenegger voice: "Ahm here to lead, naht to read".

"Naw man, the real world is simple. Pass me that cocktail napkin. Now STFU and go buy an iPhone."

The rest of this amazing series can be found here.

That's harsh.

I might have to actually listen to Rush to know what Rush is saying.