Pauper wages

*

I saw the video embedded below linked on Eschaton by one Avedon Carol (an Atrios confederate who lives in Merrie Olde England). I'm certain it's worth 13 minutes of time to anyone who tiptoes around an inner dread about America's future---especially the health of the economy for ordinary people and the outsized influence of excessive wealth on public policy.

The "hook" for this interview is that the marginal income tax rate on top earners during the Eisenhower administration was 90%. I'm certain that fact would shock the vast majority of Americans today, especially with a general knowledge of how prosperous America was during that era. As you watch the video, consider whether Michael Hudson's words, as alien as they are to the conventional wisdom today, are relevant to your everyday status as a wage-earner, provider, and citizen.

Take note of the term "pauper wages" to roll around inside your noodle next time you hear news about the extermination of the nation's few remaining viable labor unions. To whatever extent Hudson is correct on this topic, it should be difficult for any American worker to understand how he or she will benefit from government-driven downward pressure on union pay and benefits; or from creating trillion-dollar federal deficits by cutting taxes on the wealthiest (and most powerful) Americans.



The gist of Hudson's viewpoint expressed here is that two dominant beliefs central to free-marketeer conventional wisdom are demonstrably wrong. Those two beliefs are that (1) higher wages reduce worker productivity and (2) higher taxation of top earners hurts the economy.

For supporting evidence, Hudson refers to readily accessible data and asserts his credentialed perspective on classical economics as founded by philosophers like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill). And further, he makes an unexpected statement (to me at least) that doesn't sound completely outlandish: that modern free-market "neoliberal" economists have falsely co-opted Smith and his successors while ignoring major aspects of classical economics that don't fit neoliberal ideology. That's an argument I've never heard or read in either corporate-sponsored news media or public broadcasting. In fact, the first hint of that idea only came to me this morning when reading this blog post by Paul Krugman.

As a wildly alternate viewpoint on the timely topic of US wages and taxation---at least compared with Beltway conventional wisdom---Hudson's words express a general and consistent logic to my ears. Nothing he says strikes me utterly at odds with either reason or observable reality, and the sources he refers to can readily be checked by anyone with the time to look at public economic data and read a book or two by the founders of modern economics. You and I don't have that kind of time or intensity, though, so we have to rely on the interpretations of others, and fair argument between alternate viewpoints.

Before this afternoon I'd never heard of Hudson. More importantly, I'd never heard this particular point of view expressed with this level of clarity on the radio or any corporate-sponsored news outlet. On the rare occasions when a genuine liberal or progressive point of view is even examined on air, a competent spokesman for that point of view may not be present in the studio. And meanwhile, the mouthpiece for the standard neoliberal viewpoint---who happens always to be present---is allowed by the moderator to rebut the alternate perspective simply by branding it as "liberal" or "socialist."

It really doesn't matter whether you and I are persuaded by what Hudson has to say here. What does matter is that content providers are deliberately shielding news consumers from important, credible ideas that seriously challenge or even explain away the conventional wisdom that happens to be failing most ordinary working people today.

"Hold it! Next man makes a move, the 'nigger' gets it!"

*

Today the Standard & Poors "credit rating agency" borrowed a slick comedy move from Bart, Cleavon Little's character in Blazing Saddles. Specifically, S&P made a hollow threat to cut the rating of U.S. Treasury securities this morning---in effect, Wall Street holding a cap gun against its own head---which I assume is supposed to scare the President and the Democrats into doing whatever the right-wing deficit peacocks demand, such as abolishing Medicare and Social Security so rich assholes can have more tax cuts.

Right on cue, naturally, lame duck Senator Joe Lieberman was on my car radio this afternoon spewing turgid nonsense about the existential threat posed by current US debt levels and why it's important to cap federal spending at some absurdly low percentage of Gross Domestic Product. (I can't find a link to this, so you don't have to listen to his putrid, quavering voice here.) Why do I call it "turgid nonsense"? Because like most talk about federal deficits and debt in the corporate media today (including NPR), the somber generalities preached by deficit peacocks immediately break down to gibberish when real macroeconomists insist that the discussion include valid historic data, meaningful contexts, and other scary evidence-based features.

Nobel macroeconomist Paul Krugman, for example, quickly authenticated this S&P stunt as another episode of Wall Street's tiresome Saturday matinee serial entitled Uncle Sam and the Phantom Bond Vigilantes. It's fair to ask why I might put stock in anything Krugman and other neo-Keynesians say. My reason is simple: because his analysis have been consistently correct (i.e., consistently predictive about what would happen to the economy in the future) since I started following his New York Times blog 5 or 6 years ago, around the time he was was warning readers about the runaway US housing bubble and related phenomena. And he always backs his arguments with verifiable economic data and simple numerical models that every economist and most people with a high school diploma can understand.

Microeconomics

*
President Barack Obama made a unilateral commitment to economic stimulus Tuesday evening before a joint session of Congress by delivering the largest shovel-ready project of his two-year administration to date: the 2011 State of the Union address.

Businesses do *not* create jobs; please make a note of it

*

The title of this post is one of the holiest shibboleths in the rhetorical arsenal of free-market capitalists. I never quite swallowed the associated line and sinker, and about 10 or 15 years ago I slowly started to disgorge the hook. With the stock market and worker productivity continually climbing to all-time highs, I said to myself, why do we so often have unacceptably high unemployment? And why are so many of the jobs that are available crapwork in the food and retail sectors that can't really support one householder, let alone a family? And furthermore, how can anyone claim that burgeoning corporations create jobs when every major acquisition or merger results in 10 or 20 percent of their combined workforces losing their jobs?

This recent Bob Herbert column from the Times is worth a careful read, especially, I think, to people who are confused about economics as reported by the corporate media. Herbert reports on comments by Boston economics professor Andrew sum:

The recession officially started in December 2007. From the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2009, real aggregate output in the U.S., as measured by the gross domestic product, fell by about 2.5 percent. But employers cut their payrolls by 6 percent.

In many cases, bosses told panicked workers who were still on the job that they had to take pay cuts or cuts in hours, or both. And raises were out of the question. The staggering job losses and stagnant wages are central reasons why any real recovery has been so difficult.

“They threw out far more workers and hours than they lost output,” said Professor Sum. “Here’s what happened: At the end of the fourth quarter in 2008, you see corporate profits begin to really take off, and they grow by the time you get to the first quarter of 2010 by $572 billion. And over that same time period, wage and salary payments go down by $122 billion.” 

What that means, Herbert says, is this: "Many of those workers were cashiered for no reason other than outright greed by corporate managers." And I'll append Herbert by stating my opinion that small businesses (which officially includes companies employing up to 500 people) are every bit as dirty as transnational corporations. Many do it even in good times by keeping the majority of employees working 30 hours or less, so they aren't entitled to full benefits; and also by basically putting them on call instead of giving them a reliable schedule. Those practices are especially egregious in big box stores and restaurants, based on my conversations with people who work there.

"What a surprising development!" we who have jobs may say to ourselves, going straight for the humorous irony angle. But doesn't this information nevertheless make you wonder why this disconnect between worker productivity and full employment isn't reported nationally at least on a weekly basis by the "liberal media"?

The sure knowledge that businesses do not create jobs --- when it transmutes beyond the point between irony and dawning outrage --- leaves a question in its place to answer. If businesses don't create jobs, then what do they create? Answer: profits for executives, period. It has been moving in that direction for decades, and now we're there. Shit: businesses barely even make anything any more --- they sub that out to the Chinese and the Indians (who of course are rapidly learning to sub the making of stuff out to the Fourth World).

Roaring 20s President Calvin Coolidge is often erroneously quoted as having vacuously said "The business of America is business." Even if had said that, as dumb as it is, it might still be thought to convey a generic fact about American corporate and individual industry. Today, not even Silent Cal's alleged dumb remark can hold water. Because today, the business of American is multi-level marketing schemes. Just like Amway. (Don't call them "pyramid schemes" because you might hurt their feelings.)

Incidentally, here's what calvin-coolidge.org tells us that the 30th president really did say:

The quote is really: "After all, the chief business of the American people is business." However, Coolidge goes on to say that, "Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence."

And what are we to make of this statement by Herbert Hoover's predecessor:

We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want very much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization. The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists. That is the only motive to which they ever give any strong and lasting reaction.

The guy sounds like a fucking Obamunist to me! I say we dig him up and lynch him! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The power elites are sissies

*

This Balloon Juice page has been hanging open in a Firefox tab on my machine for the past week. I wanted to link to it here for two reasons.

First, the author points out a corporate media meme that should be troubling all of us these days: the idea that us everyday slobs have no business criticizing individuals and corporations who turned the global financial system into a pyramid scheme or whose possibly criminal negligence is responsible for runaway pollution of the Gulf of Mexico, and by extension that the President of the United States --- our First Among Equals --- is an unseemly "bully" for threatening to hold them accountable for their acts. That meme, of course, does not extend to a president's nakedly unconstitutional breaking of international treaties, the instigation of illegal wars, the elimination of habeas corpus on demand, or the bulk wiretapping of electronic communications by innocent civilians --- it only applies to picking on corporations and the man-children who direct them.

Second, the post hints at just how unaccustomed to criticism and populist anger these elites have become after 30 years of The Good Life. There are PR campaigns, executed not only though advertising but by marquee-name news commentators, that scold citizens for "vilifying" financiers and oilmen for the destruction they have sown. Why would the captains of industry bother with such nonsense? Because we make them nervous. They do not like their parasitic livelihoods and lifestyles to be criticized, because they're important people and therefore entitled to anything they wish: unearned income, untaxed riches, unwarranted power, and immunity from accountability. They are nervous because many, many people are beginning to understand that they are parasites out of control. And that they are terrified sissies. There's not a man among them; candy-ass jabronis. Revel in their fear.

Economic fundamentals that are ridiculously simple

*

It's Friday evening so I don't want to get too deep into anything, but here's what I consider to be a huge idea that is simple enough for a high school economics student to understand. It's called The General Theory of Second Best, the title of an article explaining an economic model referred to by economists as "Lipsey-Lancaster." I first heard of it a week or two ago on Eschaton in a sort-of throwaway post by Atrios (who is an economist). I'm a nonspecialist in pretty much everything except Simple Country Editing (TM), but this theory is so darn simple that it seems impossible to argue with. That is, I don't see why it's not declared a Law instead of a mere Theory.

The crux of the theory, as I understand it, seems to be this: we don't exist in a perfect world, so therefore it is inevitable that many aspects of it are unavoidably non-optimal. That seems like a noncontroversial statement. Well, so what?

This: for 30-plus years U.S. public policy has been driven primarily by the myth of the perfect free market, and how this myth applies not only to economics but purportedly every other domain of life (such as "the marketplace of ideas"). The ideologies of laissez-faire economics (and its pernicious soul sister, Libertarianism) are based on the concept that if we all just leave everything alone, selfish individuals will collectively behave in the greater interest of society because the Free Market Faeiries (as Atrios calls them) will make everything function perfectly. Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate and fan of all things dumb such as South Park, refers to certain shibboleths of free market economics as The Underpants Gnomes Theory of [Fill In]: Phase 1 --- declare that free markets are perfect; Phase 2 --- ???; Phase 3 --- a ideal economy!

The unwavering belief in the failed ideas of free-market economics by our ruling elites has poisoned the public discourse, bankrupted governments, and enabled financial services corporations to loot the wealth of the U.S. middle and working classes... repeatedly... for decades. And these ideas are based on a demonstrable (if not provable) fallacy: that free markets always function perfectly without government intervention or regulation. But it seems that over 40 years ago, some guys named Lipsey and Lancaster put forth the outlandish idea that we don't live in a perfect world, but instead in a second-best world. Nothing can always be "optimal." And sometimes, lots of things are very sub-optimal indeed. And that unless your idea of an ideal market is one that deliberately creates speculative bubbles to scam wealth from middle-class investors, and your idea of enlightened self-interest is to profiteer while almost 20 percent of the population is unemployed or severely underemployed, then someone has to do something about it.

Lipsey-Lancaster seems like such a simple, bulletproof idea in its basic form that it's hard for me to understand  (1) why a well informed person like me never heard of it until 2 weeks ago and (2) why it isn't invoked as a knockdown argument every time some know-nothing wingnut policy wonk lectures us about "government takeovers."

[Editor's note: the previous essay was hastily written and not meticulously sourced because the author is late for his Friday Evening Prayer Meeting. Also, it's too long because he didn't have time to write a short one.]

Wise sayings

*
It is awesome when the stock market surges on the prospect that healthcare reform will fail, but it's an abomination when the stock market retreats because there's talk of restoring bank regulations that, if the Republican Congress and Clinton hadn't dismantled them, would have prevented the current U.S. economic depression.

Trashy little friend of the business world

*
As seen on Atrios, Scott Simon's "friend from the business world, Joe Nocera," clearly demonstrates the odious nature of celebrity journalists with some intervention by a blogger named Matt Browner Hamlin. Nocera believes it is right and proper that there should be two different kinds of contracts for each of the nation's two principal social castes (i.e., Masters Of The Universe and All The Rest Of Us Slobs) --- one type that is sacrosanct versus another type that is merely a short-term serving suggestion to trick the rubes.

What a trashy little whore a man must be to write such things for open consideration by the general public. When celebrity journalists and pundits are not held accountable by their publishers for spreading lies or demonstrably ridiculous opinions, they need no credibility in order to earn a giant payday. It makes a guy wonder why the New York Times keeps people like that on salary.

I'll bet Joe Nocera is the type of person who thinks he's too important to wash his hands before returning to work. Absent gloves or hand sanitizer, never shake hands with a trashy little whore of a man. And if he touches you anyway, consider chopping off his hands. Thus Sprach StuporMundi.

Last post on AIGFP

*
People with more expertise and better analytical skills than me have gotten to the heart of the AIGFP Bonus Baby Affair, as I understand it, much more directly than I was able to. So this will be my last word on the AIGFP bonuses, at least for this week.

My concern about a retroactive targeted tax on the unethical bonuses, such as the one passed in the House today, would be its constitutionality. According to this authority, a Harvard law professor named Laurence Tribe, a tax of this sort could be crafted to comply with the Constitution. However, the first and only commenter on the Atlantic article in which Tribe is quoted suggests some chilling hypotheticals that could emerge from such a legal precedent, causing me to rethink my position on the Bonus Baby tax.

So here's an alternative approach I'd like to see, which differs somewhat from my previous suggestion. I'd like to hear President Obama say something along the lines of "OK, ya know, fuck it --- keep your bonuses. You're gonna need every cent of them when we turn the Justice Department, the SEC, and the FBI loose on your asses to fine out exactly what you've been up to for the past 10 years. And Geithner, Summers: clean out your desks by close of business tomorrow and return your keys to the four huge Secret Service brothers who will escort you to the parking lot."

Nothing will change until RICO Act investigations are initiated and the institutions of our Reaganomics-based phony economy are dismantled with extreme prejudice, brick by brick. At the moment, the count on Obama appears to be 0-2, and he's already fouled off a few. I really hope he's just presenting the illusion of impotence to fake us all out, just for dramatic effect before he pounds one out of the park.

Update before I'm done writing: OK, statements like this "Geithner is doing an outstanding job" shit from Obama on Jay Leno tonight are making me nervous. Fouled another one off; count remains at 0-2....

Drop in a bucket

*
LuMac wonders aloud (email-wise, at least):

I... wonder what this relatively little (dollar wise, not symbolic wise) spat is distracting us from.

He is referring to the "mounting populist backlash" about the AIGFP retention bonuses that were given to executives after they had already bolted from the organization. I take his point, but I don't think the dollar amount of this corporate stunt-looting exhibition is relevant, and likewise I don't think it will really distract us from issues that schmucks like this want us distracted from.

First point: I agree that the dollar amount of the bonuses is trivial when compared with a trillion dollars or two. But in the case of a bankruptcy, a broken contract, a burglary, shoplifting --- whatever --- the law doesn't make many distinctions in how the loser or the guilty party is treated based on the amount of property involved. There are distinctions between "petty" and "grand", and undoubtedly some other ones I'm not aware of, but I find it unlikely that the courts are often admonished to look the other way because the value of property involved is trivial. No: these Bonus Babies are in fact being awarded mindblowing amounts of money for a highly visible and destructive failure in competence and ethics. If we're going to make financial comparisons, these bonuses amount to 10, 20, or more years of income even for a family earning $100,000 annually. The idea that the Bonus Babies are contractually entitled to these awards should be declared officially ludicrous by AIG shareholders and all parties who hold effectively void AIG contracts or the worthless "investment products" created by AIGFP. It is highly unlikely that the IRS, the Justice Department, the SEC, etc., could not find a large handful of airtight legal reasons to "abrogate" the AIGFP performance and retention bonuses; all they need are some facts and figures to wave in front of a few warty, sweating bankers sitting on card table chairs under bright lights.

Everybody knows that the most spectacular robbery of all times is unfolding in front of us. The U.S. Treasury is being looted by people who have mounds of money and influence that they simply assume they will get their way in the end. And why not? It now appears that people in Obama's Treasury Department and the Senate are complicit in granting these toads whatever wish is their command.

This kind of thing has been happening for decades, but somehow it has never initiated a critical mass of public fury. Mike Milken became the first superstar performance artist of financial fraud during the '80s, and the son of a sitting vice president --- Neil Bush --- was up to his eyeballs in the savings and loan collapse in the late 1980s. Financial crime sprees have been swept under the rug for 30 years, and I never sensed significant public outrage about it. But never has the pure cause-and-effect of it been this naked, and never has the economic collateral damage aproached these levels (with more to come, surely). One hopeful sign, to me at least, is that even the corporate media may be losing its ability to obscure these facts now, possibly because there are legions of unemployed, underemployed, and just plain scared and angry people who have ample time to watch Stewart and Colbert every night, and are motivated to make noise about it.

Second point: I don't believe that Bonusgate (let me be the first to use the term, thank you very much) is going to distract many of the key stakeholders in the U.S. economy for very long. I don't remember a more unstable political or legal situation since the Watergate era. The current epoch differs from 1973 because there is a large, educated, highly motivated segment of the population with powerful research and communication tools. The public was never in such a strong position to pressure both their elected officials and, even more importantly in my opinion, the corporate press. Information wants to be free: if the media don't release it to the public, then it will find its way to us (and eventually the media) via independent web-based journalists and bloggers. And I don't mean bloggers like me --- I mean bloggers who are working economists, attorneys, IT specialists, and reporters.

The sanctity of contracts [updated]

*
Today on All Things Considered I heard some New York Times reporter named "Andrew Ross Sorkin" try packaging a lame apologia for criminally incompetent executives as good old American contrarian horse-sense. His point seems to be that the government can't just "rip up contracts" because we have laws, and therefore AIGFP retention bonuses (for example) "must" be paid if we (we-who, he didn't say) are to retain the fabric of trust in society. Or something.

To her credit, ATC co-host Melissa Block quizzed this fool about the difference between ripping up AIGFP executive bonus contracts and ripping up union contracts as part of the in-progress auto industry bailout. But I wish she would have told him that nobody is literally expecting the government to "rip up contracts." By failing to follow up insistently to question Sorkin's premise, she allowed him to waste 3 minutes of my time in the car that I could have been listening to "Playground Psychotics." Meanwhile, Sorkin explained to all us rubes that "we" really need to keep these AIGFP execs on board because they're the only ones how know how to "unwind" the exotic derivative securities that they conjured. Yes: they need to be paid excessive bonuses in addition to their salaries so they will continue to do the jobs they are contractually obligated to perform.

See, the way I process this in my cinder of a brain, I am convinced that both parties to an emploment contract need to honor said contract. Therefore, before we hear any more horseshit like this from reporter Sorkin, he needs to employ the Google, Nexis and Lexis, his telephone, and his Outlook address book to find out for the American public (who is an 80 percent majority shareholder in AIG) whether the AIGFP bonus recipients did in fact fulfill the terms of their contract. If he's too frightened, lazy, or unskilled to do that, then he could at least check TPM a few times a day to keep up with the facts of the story... just for appearances.

When it's time to unwind" the AIGFP mystery securities portfolio for real, we AIG majority shareholders won't need to pamper and coax reporter Sorkin's smarmy MBA pals to do that job. We will go to the real experts: auditors, bank examiners, criminal investigators, and federal prosecutors.

Update: that cute little Ezra Klein addressed a similar topic today, referencing Sorkin's NYT column as source material. There's a bit of ambiguity in his point, however, possibly due to the lack of vetting his text through a simple country editor. To make up for the ambiguity, there are a number of interesting remarks in the comments thread below the post. No, we can't confiscate money from a small, specific group of people without any valid legal framework. Yes, there are many possible ways to approach the quashing of the AIGFP bonuses, such as legislation about executive bonuses working in corporations that have accepted TARP funds or giving AIG a friendly reminder that they're fucking bankrupt and must settle up with a long line of customers and shareholders before making good on contracts that rewarded gross mismanagement or worse. One commenter suggests freezing the accounts out of which executive bonuses are to be paid pending the outcome of a fraud investigation; I like that one.

How to pay AIGFP bonuses and live happily ever after

*
I wish I could take credit for the following brilliance, but in fact it came from one Lucious MacAdoo or someone very much like him.

We're told that AIG Financial Products (AIGFP) is contractually obligated to pay almost half a billion dollars in bonuses to AIGFP execs and other "key personnel", and that there is nothing Uncle Sam can do about it even though the U.S. Treasury owns 80 percent of the corporation's necrotic corpus. Josh Marshall took aim at that concept today with bullshit detector blazing. Meanwhile, NPR dutifully spent the day explaining to us rubes that not even the federal government can force a corporation to "abrogate" a contract. (Inexplicably, NPR did not tell us why it's possible for a corporation to abrogate its contracts with unions and pensioners.)

Enter Lucious with a fine idea, possibly overheard from his own id: force the AIGFP execs to accept their bonuses in the form of the "innovative financial products" they created. In my opinion, this would represent the most elegant solution to any problem ever conceived since the dawn of human history. Think of how easily these wizards could sell their bonus portfolios at huge profits on the unregulated open market for financial derivatives, then spend the proceeds on goods and services crafted by American workers who, early every Saturday morning, spring out of bed and drive to big box stores to purchase massive amounts of swag using credit cards that are readily available with no questions asked.

Wise sayings

*
It is highly probable that the Dow Jones Industrial Average will fall by 500 points tomorrow.

That idea; where have I heard that idea before?

*
...the idea of Senate Democrats leaning on moderate Republican Senators like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for support on economic and healthcare initiatives, that is.

Oh, yes: I heard it right here, last month. The Democrats don't need a veto-proof majority in either chamber of Congress. There are surely some Republicans in Congress who would like to ride the coattails of an improving economy back into office in 2010. And healthcare reform. And whatever. All that pragmatic Republicans have to do is tell Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to go fuck themselves from time to time. After all, what could McConnell and Boehner possibly do about that?

Wise sayings

*
[Editor's note: this edition of wise sayings was provided by "Ralph" Keenan, Chicago, Ill., 60660.]

"Market liquidity is a measure of the amount of available suckers."

Another reason why "Hoover" means "suck"

*
Josh Marshall has a few posts up today puzzling over the possible resurgence of the Herbert Hoover wing of the Grand Old Party. Given how unlikely it is that a "neo-Hooverite" pro-depression economic ideology will sweep the nation (like the Mudshark) anytime soon, Josh wonders whether the new Hooverite vanguard is motivated by

“strictly economic reasons (creditors can do well in a deflationary economy), moral reasons (need a good hard recession to re-teach the poor moral values) or just because they're economic illiterates....”

One TPM reader offered a fourth hypothesis that I think best explains why these creatures are trying to rally the party around the legacy of Herbert Hoover instead of swarming back under their rocks for a few decades. He says:

“Given the new demographic realities of the country, Obama's presidency must be a failure if Republicans are to ever emerge from the political wilderness. The more they obstruct, the more Obama and Congressional Democrats will be forced to water down economic policy. And a watered-down policy just won't cut it at this moment in history. This is sabotage, pure and simple.”

Oh goody --- I truly hope so! I think a Republican strategy like that would be outstanding for the country, especially without a Democrat supermajority in the Senate. Now, for progressive legislation to be enacted rapidly, some Republicans are going to have to vote with Democrats. And I’m certain they will do exactly that if they want their political careers to remain intact for long.

I think some people are forgetting that the GOP no longer has unified political leadership let alone any power to reward and punish. This may not have sunk in on Republicans yet. I can’t think of any reason why the likes of Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins would support a long Republican filibuster of, say, a national healthcare bill or an infrastructure program just because Mitch McConnell decrees it... especially since Democrats can wheel, deal, and threaten to gain the support of moderates who want a piece of the action. It's feasible that we could see the so-called "Gang of 14" working backwards, drawing its Republican members over to vote with Democrats.

For that matter, I can’t think of any good reason why a moderate Senate Republican wouldn’t consider shedding his or her toxic brand and switching parties. Obama’s magnanimity toward Lieberman, considered from this perspective, might be seen as a shrewd move to subliminally invite a few more conservative Senators into the Democrat tent. The opportunity to be treated with respect might have its attractions for a handful of the more reality-based Republicans.

Meanwhile, on CNN and Fox News, Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Shopper can enjoy the spectacle of Republican stalwarts creating gridlock in the Congress for purposes of burnishing Herbert Hoover’s legacy (i.e., The Great Depression). In the process, they may even learn that there is already a widely accepted modern name for neo-Hooverite doctrine: Reaganomics.

Fantasy derivatives I'd like to buy

*
I wish someone would come up with a way to convert stupidity into an investment product. I'm not talking about bundled subprime mortgages or credit default swaps: the short sellers figured out a way to do that back in September. That was a bubble. I want a product that promises 20 percent growth annually out until about the time our distant descendants grow a third eye. I want someone to find a way to monetize Stupidity with a capital S.

Stocks plunged today on news that Ben Bernanke said the U.S. economy remains under "considerable stress." Because last Friday everybody thought the economy had turned the corner since the Dow climbed by 10 percent in 4 days. God damn Ben Bernanke for shattering the faith of the children. That was pretty Stupid of him. But not as Stupid as Wall Street Masters of the Universe who are shocked to hear that we're "officially" in a recession. Do you see the growth potential?

Unfortunately, I probably won't be able to invest in Stupid Pill Futures any time soon thanks to the socialist Obamislamofascists who are now poised to swarm the shining city on the hill like sheets of Keynesian cockroaches.

Tomorrow's news today: "Wall Street rebounds on bargain hunting." Here, have a Stupid Pill. The first one is free.

Bush bailout speech: I report, you decide

*
Coupla things struck me while listening to Bush's address to the nation about the financial crisis a few minutes ago.

First, as McCain "suspends" his campaign to chicken out of his first debate with Obama... um, I mean, fly to Washington and save America Herself, The President of the United States --- "our first MBA president", in fact, as NPR's Adam Davidson informed me --- could barely spare 14 minutes before his bedtime to read a canned speech about the proposed $1 trillion Republican Wall Street welfare package.

Second, President Bush spent almost all his time stumbling through his sanitized Republican textbook version of the origins of the investment banking collapse, but neglected to mention either the role of Reaganomics or the cost of his proposed giveaway. Neither omission is surprising, but large slices of his audience have at least some understanding of both those issues, and some citizens may consider the President (even more) cowardly (than usual) for not acknowledging their own intelligence regarding the salient facts.

Third, he sounded completely disinterested in what he was saying as if he already knew that he would be moving into his parents' cushy basement in Kennebunkport on 20 January 2009. (The got a big-screen TV down there, and five different kinds of beer --- in their own kegs!)

And fourth, he ended his speech with the plaintive closing, "Thank you for listening." To which I say, "You're welcome, man, you're welcome for wasting 15 of my precious minutes." Doesn't this fool understand that some of us have blogs to tend to?!?

I have no idea what Bush's handlers thought his speech might accomplish considering that 80-something percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and by a margin of 2 to 1 they believe that Republicans are responsible for current U.S. economic problems, and 0% believe the U.S. economy is improving. My hypothesis is that Cheney made him give the speech just to "torture" him; just to submit him to a little more humiliation plus the unpleasantness of staying up on a Wednesday night past bedtime.

Update before I've even posted: Blogger's spell checker flags Kennebunkport as a misspelling. The options it offers for correcting the error are "Outspokenness" and "Drunkenness"!

Wise sayings

*
Fuck Morgan Stanley: I'm plowing all my money into Morgan David!

By George, I think I have it!

*
Taxpayer-funded universal healthcare for U.S. citizens is Socialism, but taxpayer-funded welfare for global financial corporations is Free-Market Capitalism.