by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyRailroad executive Chauncy Depew asserted that the guests of the great dinners and public banquets of New York City represented the survival of the fittest of all who came in search of fortune. They were the ones with superior abilities. Likewise railroad magnate James J. Hill defended the railroad companies by saying their fortunes were determined according to the law of survival of the fittest.—Hofstadter, Richard; 1959; Social Darwinism in American Thought, Braziller; New York.These were most certainly the 'robber barons' who wished to be photographed wearing laurel wreaths, pretending to be emperors. Elsewhere, the term is attributed to Herbert Spencer who inspired a generation of radicalized, latter-day robber barons. Few of them evinced the "...quality of mercy" so immortalized with but a few words by Shakespeare --'The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven". By contrast ...
[Herbert] Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because they encouraged legislation.—Social Darwinism and American Laissez-faire CapitalismA fallacious corollary to "Social Darwinism" is often phrased this way: the rich are rich because they are better, work harder and are more intelligent. George W. Bush put it more crudely: “The poor are poor because they are lazy!” So --why was Bush Jr not poor?
"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."—Scrooge, A Christmas Carol
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
Subscribe
Add to Google
Add Cowboy Videos to Google
by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyIn fact, some Fed policymakers on Tuesday raised the specter of a permanently higher jobless rate for the U.S. economy, suggesting that many more workers will struggle to get back on their feet even as the economy continues to grow.To be expected, consumer spending will drop. People who have less money or, worse, no job at all, will cut spending. They have no choice. The very, very rich i.e, the ruling 1 percent, are just fine, thank you for asking! You made it possible. But --the party is over.
The Fed's forecast is an acknowledgment that the "healing process in the economy has slowed to a crawl," said Ethan Harris, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
The central bank's predictions were released Tuesday as part of the minutes of its early November meeting, when the institution also approved its controversial bond-buying program to spur economic growth.
The nation's unemployment rate has been stuck at 9.6% since August.
Just a few months ago, Fed officials were more optimistic about the road ahead — for jobs and the overall economy. But now they see the economy growing by about 2.5% this year, not enough to make a dent in unemployment.--Gloomy Fed employment forecast overshadows upbeat GDP data
Confidence remains low, and unemployment benefits, which have helped prop up spending, probably won't be extended by lawmakers, given the new political sensitivity to big government deficits. Hundreds of thousands of jobless workers will see their benefits expire this month.This is the 'ruling elite' so favored of late by bailouts and Wall Street. We should have driven the money changers from the Temple! Instead, we bailed out this 'New World Order', patted the money changers on their heads as we greased their extended palms.
But the biggest single drag on growth may be the state of the labor market. Even the more optimistic independent economists say unemployment will decline slowly, starting most likely in the second half of next year.--Los Angeles Times, Gloomy Fed employment forecast
So help me, I can perceive nothing but a conspiracy of rich men procuring their commodities in the name and title of the commonwealthThis is not an isolated case. This is not a temporary screw-up. This is a fundamental flaw in the system. This is a flaw that favors crooks and fast-buck artists, latter-day 'Enrons', money changers, the 'new world order'. The entire financial system of the United States is a Ponzi scheme, a scam: 'You give me real money and I will give you a worthless piece of paper in exchange'.
--St. Thomas More, Utopia
In a sad reminder of the sorry state of our country and in particular the sorry, heartless state of the modern Republican Party today Unemployment Insurance will end for hundreds of thousands of workers left out in the cold by Republican policies that crashed the economy. Yes, fresh off a victory in which the American electorate showed mass amnesia the very folks who crashed our economy are cutting off the aid to those folks who have suffered most for their policies. Even more outrageous than this is the priorities shown by Republicans after the election. You see, while they will let the unemployed suffer their incompetence, the one folks they constantly watch out for is their own, the very wealthy. Yes, Republicans have chosen to side with those who crashed the economy over those who suffer it.--The Unemployed Suffer the Real Cause of DeficitsAs John Maynard Keynes had said of 'pound notes' in England, the U.S. government might have done better had it put the $billions$ in mason jars, buried them in a land fill and let 'private enterprise' (real people) dig them up. Had that been done, real people would have spent those monies in ways that might have revived an economy on life support.
Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroys spirituality."--Micheal EllnerAnother lesson that might have been learned but will not be is that neither banks nor governments create 'wealth'. Wealth --as every credible economist from the conservatives Adam Smith and Ricardo to the left-leaning Karl Marx has said --is created by labor. That's worth repeating: labor creates wealth. Else, capitalists could not have made profits and fortunes upon the backs of those whose labor in fact created the wealth in the first place. Investments are made after the fact, by those wishing to skim some of the wealth off the top but only after it has been created and the major 'stockholders' made happy.
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy The cost of Bush's war on Iraq, left to Obama to 'finish' and clean up, passed the one trillion dollar mark some time ago but has yet to support or prove the old lie that 'wars are good for the economy'. Where is the evidence that the $Trillion$ spent murdering and torturing people in a nation that was, in fact, no threat to the United States, has created a single job on the home front? In fact, those $Trillion$ blown up in Iraq are lost forever --not having created a single new job.What is often overlooked is the military example Bastiat uses in the essay. He discusses the demobilization of one hundred thousand soldiers from the French army – a prospect many entertain with dread, for what will these men do for a living? And what about the foregone stimulus to French businesses previously provided by the military’s expenditures on wine, clothes, and weapons for these men? Of course, such critics are focusing once again only on what is seen. They fail to consider that the money that had previously been confiscated from the taxpayers in order to support the soldiers will now be available for other purposes, including expenditures on goods that these demobilized soldiers can devote themselves to producing. Likewise, the money the military once spent on wine, clothes, and weapons can now be spent on other things, so here again economic activity is none the worse for the soldiers’ demobilization--Thomas Woods, Jr., The Neglected Costs of the Warfare StateOnly the Military/Industrial complex benefits from war; what is good for the MIC is NOT good for the country. The MIC is a drag on the economy, an economic black hole into which is drained the economic and creative resources of the nation. War itself is a Faustian bargain in which the soul of a nation is eagerly exchanged for short-term war booty, in this case, oil! When the U.S. itself produced oil, jobs were created in the 'drilling industry'. Stealing the oil resources of a foreign nation which had nothing whatsoever to do with 911 has surely created a net deficit of jobs as the final figures, I am sure, will prove.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has blamed the Iraq war for sending the United States into a recession. On Wednesday, he told a London think tank that the war caused the credit crunch and the housing crisis that are propelling the current economic downturn. Testifying before the Senate's Joint Economic Committee the following day, he said our involvement in Iraq has long been "weakening the American economy" and "a day of reckoning" has finally arrived.--Is the Economy a Casualty of War?Now --war critics have the economic data and models proving that military spending 'diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment.' This thesis is likewise confirmed in a paper by Thomas E. Woods at: http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/woods2.pdfSadly, few progressives have had the courage to state the obvious: the war against Iraq is 'instant Karma', its own revenge upon the deterioration of American values and its converse: the rise of imperial arrogance and the resulting fascist state! While still in office, Bush stated that "spending on the war might help with jobs"! Consider the psychopathic arrogance betrayed in that one statement alone! Bush said, in effect, that it is OK to murder people abroad if it provides jobs at home. It is OK to wage war upon civilians in order to juice up jobs on the home front. Doubly tragic, it failed even that. Chalk up yet another cold-blooded lie to Bush and his crime syndicate --the GOP!
White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was the exception to the rule, offering an "upper bound" estimate of $100 billion to $200 billion in a September 2002 interview with The Wall Street Journal. That figure raised eyebrows at the time, although Lindsey argued the cost was small, adding, "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”--Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillionThe U.S. has been in a state of perpetual war since the so-called Spanish-American war made of this nation an empire. But it was, specifically, according to Gore Vidal in The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, the moment at which the US became a net debtor nation that the US empire ceased to be a viable nation. It is fair to ask: is America a 'failed state'?
Washington, DC: The Center for Economic and Policy Research released a report today estimating the economic impact of increased US military spending comparable to the spending on the Iraq war. The report, presenting the results of a simulation from the economic forecasting company Global Insight, shows the increased level of military spending leads to fewer jobs and slower economic growth.America's ruling elite have found nirvana --a war which need never end, a war in which victory is impossible to define and would not be recognized, a war in which victory is, in fact, impossible. A war which achieves precisely what it is intended to achieve: the enrichment of a tiny ruling elite for whom your rights mean absolutely nothing.For the report, The Economic Impact of the Iraq War and Higher Military Spending, by economist Dean Baker, CEPR commissioned Global Insight to run a simulation with its macmacroeconomic del. Global Insight's model was selected for this analysis because it is a commonly used and widely respected model. It estimated the impact of an increase in annual US military spending equal to 1 percent of GDP (approximately equal to the military spending increase compared with pre-September 11th baseline).
The projections show the following:
-- After an initial demand stimulus, the effect of increased military spending turns negative around the sixth year. After 10 years of higher defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in the baseline scenario with lower defense spending.
-- Inflation and interest rates are considerably higher. After 5 years, the interest rate on 10-Year Treasury notes is projected to be 0.7 percentage points higher than in the baseline scenario. After 10 years, the gap would rise to 0.9 percentage points.
-- Higher interest rates lead to reduced demand in the interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. After 5 years, annual car and truck sales are projected to go down by 192,200 in the high military spending scenario. After 10 years, the drop is projected to be 323,300 and after 20 years annual sales are projected to be down 731,400.
-- Construction and manufacturing are the sectors that are projected to experience the largest shares of the job loss.
"It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy," said Baker. "In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment."
The report recommends that Congress request the Congressional Budget Office produce its own projections of the economic impact of a sustained increase in defense spending. If wars are disastrous for the economy, then why does government insist upon fighting them when clearly 'national security' is simply not at risk?--Report Shows Increased US Military Spending Slows Economy
For big government we now have "The Perfect War," everywhere and nowhere, secret and interminable. The war will justify ever expanding police powers, higher taxes, and more controls over the citizenry. You can see easily how Washington thrives on war. Since Sept 11th, there have been no nasty challenges to government spending and waste, no tedious debates over things like social security "lockboxes," nor "political" attacks upon the Presidency. Congressmen and Think Tank experts get lots of TV time and most everyone jumps to obey government orders and support more regulations. Any groups opposed to American military interventions overseas appear unpatriotic and are marginalized, while press coverage of the war is restricted, using the last Gulf War as a model. Big Government, as Orwell wrote, thrives from unwinnable wars; it doesn't get any better than this. --John Basil Utley, Alternative to Unending War, Ludwig von Mises InstituteWar is no longer waged by nations but by huge multi-national corporations. They have hijacked the apparatus of state in order to wage war, and wage war in order to maintain elite status. It's a malevolent scheme in which a ruling elite of just one percent of the population benefits from the U.S. war crime against the people of Iraq. Simply, the big corporations --of late accorded rights that should, by right, belong only to real people --make their 'living' killing real people. Real people are now victimized by a souless machine with whom the U.S. Supreme Court is complicit, ergo: illegitimate! The 'Supremes' have anointed Moloch.
A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization. The term carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who place their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials get accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy.One is reminded of John Maynard Keynes' prescription for full employment.- Tyranny
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.Certainly --there are more productive, meaningful and creative ways of keeping the genius and labor of good people employed for the greater good of our species and the precious earth we live on. Keynes was correct, however, when he proposes that just 'digging' up bank notes in a landfill is preferable to the destructive and insidious 'industry of war'!
