Continuing my series about a proposed Democratic Newer Deal.
Here I'll dive deeply into four more of the 30+ suggested reforms that were briefly listed here... organized in a way that both learns-from and satirizes the hypocritical but politically effective 1994 Republican Contract With America.
But first some pertinent news. A couple of weeks after I started posting this series -- offering voters a clear agenda of positive steps -- economist and columnist Robert Reich issued a shorter list of “What Democrats Must Pledge to America.” And no, I am not asserting that my series triggered him to hurry his.
Well, probably not. Though Reich's list overlaps mine in overall intent! We both aim to make progress toward better health care, aid to parents and children, and sound economics while limiting the power of oligarchies and cheaters and monopolies. Alas, Reich's 'pledges' also make up a wish list that might as well be directed at Santa Claus, for all of its political impracticality.
Alas, not one of Reich’s proposals satisfies the “60%+ Rule” that was so politically-effective for Newt Gingrich in 1994, and that Pelosi-Schumer-Sanders applied with terrific effectiveness in 2021-22.
Start with steps that can be steam-rollered quickly, with 60%+ strong public support, right away! Only after that do you try for the long pass.
Big Gulp endeavors, like those tried by Clinton and Obama, always get bogged down and savaged by "Who pays for it?" and "They want communism!" Then, the GOP wins the next Congress and that's that - opportunity window closed. What we discovered in the 2021-22 Pelosi miracle year was that you can make great strides in multiple directions, if you start from that 60% consensus in order to push solid increments. Steps that then create those new plateaus!
Contrasting with Reich's "pledges," my list emphasizes restoring a functioning republic - civil service, reliable institutions, elections and rule-of-law - in ways that can't be withdrawn by future demagogues... along with incremental steps toward our shared goals (e.g. get all CHILDREN coverable under Medicare, in a single stroke, easily afforded and canceling every objection to Medicare-for-all.)
Look, I like and respect Robert Reich. But here he should have added an equally realistic 11th wish to the other ten... that every American gets a unicorn or pegasus, or at least a pony
== Those "Newer Deal" proposals we appraised last time ==
Could the news this month have better supported my list? If we had the Inspectorate right now, under IGUS (a totally independent Inspector General of the United States), Trump could not have fired or transferred most of the IGs and JAGs in the federal government. Honest scrutiny would abound when we need it most! And officers would have somewhere to turn, when given illegal orders. (I have recommended IGUS for fifteen years.)
The Truth & Reconciliation Act - discussed last time - would have staunched Trump's tsunami of corrupt pardons and the Immunity Limitation Act would clarify that no President is above the law. And yes, there are ways to judo-bypass the Roberts Court in both of those realms.
Some other proposals from my last two postings may seem obscure, like the Cyber Hygiene Act that could eliminate 90%+ of the 'botnets' that now infest tens of millions of home and small business computers, empowering our enemies and criminals. Or one that I personally like most... a simple House-internal reform to give every member one subpoena per year, which would likely transform the entire mental ecology in Congress!
But onward to more proposals! Most of which (again) you'll see nowhere else.
== Appraising another four "Newer Deal" proposals ==
I've mentioned the 1994 Newt Gingrich Contract With America several times and in so doing I likely triggered visceral, gut wrenching loathing from many of you!
Well tough. You must understand how the 'contract' seemingly offered voters clear and crisp reforms of a system that most citizens now distrust.
Yes, Newt and especially his replacement - the deeply-evil Dennis Hastert - betrayed every promise when they took power. Still, some (a minority) of those promises merit another look. Moreover, Democrats can say "WATCH as we actually enact them, unlike our lying opponents!
Among the good ideas the GOP betrayed are these:
• Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
• Arrange regular audits of Congress for waste or abuse;
• Limit the terms of all committee chairs and party leadership posts;
• Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee and law-writing by lobbyists;
• Require that committee meetings be open to the public;
• Guarantee honest accounting of our Federal Budget.
…and in the same spirit…
Members of Congress shall report openly all stock and other trades by members or their families, especially those trades which might be affected by the member’s inside knowledge.
Some members may resist some of those measures. But those are the sorts of House internal reforms that could truly persuade voters. Especially with the contrast. "Republicans betrayed these promises. We are keeping them."
Here's another one that'd be simple to implement. Even entertaining! While somewhat favoring the Party that has more younger members. Fewer creaky near-zombies. And so, swinging from the House to the Senate:
No explanation is needed on that one! Bring back the spirit of Jimmy Stewart.
Only now, here's one that I very much care about. Do any of you remember when Gingrich and then Hastert fired all the staff in Congress that advised members about matters of actual fact, especially science and technology? Why on Earth would they do such a thing?
Simple. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) would often say to members: "I'm sorry (sir or madam), but that's not actually true."
Oh, no, we can't have that! Gingrich asserted that OTA said that dreaded phrase far more often to Republicans than to Democrats. And... well... yes, that is true enough. There's a reason for that. But true or not, it's time for this proposal to be enacted:
Independent congressional advisory offices for science, technology and other areas of skilled, fact-based analysis will be restored, in order to counsel Congress on matters of fact without bias or dogma-driven pressure.
Rules shall ensure that technical reports may not be re-written by politicians, changing their meaning to bend to political desires.
Every member of Congress shall be encouraged and funded to appoint from their home district a science-and-fact advisor who may interrogate the advisory panels and/or answer questions of fact on the member’s behalf.
Notice how this pre-empts all plausible objections in advance! By challenging (and funding) every representative to hire a science and fact adviser from their home district, you achieve several things:
1. Each member gets trusted factual guidance -- someone who can interrogate OTA and other experts, on the member's behalf. And this, in turn, addresses the earlier Gingrich calumny about "OTA bias."
2. Members would no longer get to wriggle and squirm out of answering fact or science questions -- e.g. re: Climate Change -- evading with the blithe shrug that's used by almost all current Republicans: "I'm not a scientist."
So? Now you have someone you trust who can answer technical or factual or scientific questions for you. So step up to the microphone with your team.
3. Any member who refuses to name such an adviser risks ridicule; "What? Your home district hasn't got savvy experts you could pick from?" That potential blowback could ensure that every member participates.
4. Remember, this is about fact-determination and not policy! Policy and law remain the member's domain. Only now they will be less unconstrained in asserting false, counter-factual justifications for dumb policies.
And finally (for this time)... a problem that every Congress has promised to address, that of PORK spending. Look, you will never eliminate it! Members want to bring stuff home to their district.
But by constraining pork to a very specific part of the budget, they'll have to wrangle with each other, divvying that single slice of pie among themselves. And it will lead to scrutiny of each other's picks, giving each pork belly a strong sniff for potential corruption.
New rules shall limit “pork” earmarking of tax dollars to benefit special interests or specific districts. Exceptions must come from a single pool, totaling no more than one half of a percent of the discretionary budget. These exceptions must be placed in clearly marked and severable portions of a bill, at least two weeks before the bill is voted upon. (More details here.)
Notice that all four of the proposals that we covered this time are internal procedure reforms for the houses of Congress! Which means they would not be subject to presidential veto.
These... and several others... could be passed if Democrats take either house of Congress in January 2027, no matter who is still in the White House.
There are other procedural suggestions, some of them perhaps a bit crackpotty! Like occasional secret ballot polls to see if members are voting the way they do out of genuine conscience or else out of fear or coercion... but you can find those here.
Next time, we'll get back to vitally-needed laws.
-------------
And this project continues...
!!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/frenchmen
har!
Rather morose. It's the statue that cries now.
DeleteIn my ideal cabinet, I'd have you as some sort of consultant, Dr. Reich and Dr. Krugman. You'd each fight it out to develop policy. The arguments would be fun to watch.
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteI think the first thing we must do if we want to change things for the better, we have to understand the political moment.
People keep insisting that Trump won because the country has become toxical racist, sexist, and every other -ist that the left likes to attribute to MAGA supporters. However, I don't think that's why Trump won in 2024.
What I think is going on is we're in an era where people realize we're being cheated and they keep voting out the incumbents. I think that's becoming the strongest force in US politics, and helps explain why traditionally left cultural groups had a large shift rightward in 2024.
We the People know we're getting the shaft and so they want to vote the rats out...except they keep falling for rhetoric and the ones they elect keep ripping them off.
So, your reform ideas are on the right track. But the the problem is, will Democrat officials actually enact them. The Republicans flipped the house for the first time in 40 years by promising true reform...then they reneged. Will Democrats do the same thing?
My first inclination is to say, yes they will...until some political catastrophe happens which upsets the current two-party status quo.
Two party systems are toxic, because they tend to entrench corruption and stop evolution. That should be lesson of the last twenty years. If you don't allow outsiders a chance to win, the system will frustrate voters and lead to cynicism and yes to conspiracy theories.
DeleterumpT certainly made it acceptable to be openly racist, sexist, and probably even speciesist - FSM help the Vulcan science mission that arrives bearing peace and good will right now.
Delete"Give us better weapons!"
"Um, we're not really supposed to..."
"Right, Gitmo it is, Greenies."
"But we offer unlimited, nonpolluting energy!"
"Did you hear that, Senator Cruz! They'll sabotage the Texan economy!"
Pappenheimer
I will say this until I'm blue in the face and hope against hope someone actually listens. The top reason for the division in the country is the control a very select few people have over information. In other words, we have a variation of what Goebbel's had for Hitler's Germany in media. The loosening of the rules we used to have and the idea that we could not apply the old rules to new media created a situation where a very few people control what a large portion of the populace hears regularly and therefore, unfortunately, believe. Mostly, this is a bunch of conservative fascists. Without this, we'd have largely different election results. This is the key reason we are in such a horrible situation in danger of entirely loosing our republic entirely to fascism. Yes, it is not the only reason but it's the top-most reason and I believe history shows this. You get rid of the control of media and spread it among a larger number of people who are restricted to present multiple valid viewpoints instead of pure fascist imaginings and you change election results. Until you get rid of this, even if we have non-fascists elected, you'll switch back to fascist control soon again anyway in a repeating cycle until you end up with all governments, local and federal, controlled by these dictator types and we have no real choice ever again.
DeleteIn support of JV's point
ReplyDeleteWhen I lived in the USA one of the main reasons that I chose not to stay was
a worry about the future
America used to be the best place for a working man - back in the 70's
By the 90's it was very clear to me that was no longer the case - the workers in our UK factory got nearly twice the pay of the workers in the American factories
(This was not true for engineers - but the pay in the USA was only a bit higher than in the UK)
Very clear to me
The American workers that I worked with did not seem to see this - they were very sure that America was the best place
My expectation was that at some point the American working man would realise that he had been thoroughly rogered
I expected that would lead to guillotines and flaming torches
And that having my family living there would not be a good idea
I did not expect it to take 25 years and to end up with them electing such monsters
To me, it seems as if Americans vote for Republicans when they are feeling hopeless and vengeful because of it. The cruelty is the point because that's all the satisfaction they have left.
ReplyDeleteAmericans vote for Democrats when they realize they need government to help with certain specific problems. When those problems are not solved to the voters' satisfaction, they become incensed at their heroes who failed them and angrily throw the bums out. *.
The electorate apparently has no sense of cause and effect. They don't vent their anger on the Republicans whose policies are the cause of their discontent, nor on the power brokers behind the scenes who rob them of their future. They elect Democrats when they feel hope for the future, and they elect Republicans when they're hopeless and vengeful. Even if Republicans are the cause of their hopelessness.
* Exhibit A is "Arabs for Trump" who blamed Democrats for American support of Israel and so elected the most openly pro-Israel and anti-Muslim president in history and then don't say boo afterwards. I guess, "That'll show them!"
In the political discussion over the last several comments section I haven't seen any mention of what I think is the gorilla in the room, as it were.
ReplyDeletePropaganda. Big Lie.
There are lots of other problems that have helped steer us to this point. Most of them have been touched on. But not the big one, IMO. The one that has progressively detached damn near everyone from reality, to one degree or another.
Newt Gingrich was a flaming asshole and he is the one that turned the Republican Party onto the tactic of no holds barred dirty politics, screw precedent and the law. But the real Architect of our current woes goes by the nickname Turd Blossom. Karl Rove. That's the asshole who dusted off the Big Lie tactic used so famously in the past, most famously of course by the Nazis. And the mind-boggling thing to me is that he said it out loud. It wasn't a secret. He said it out loud at the time. At yet, it still worked. That's how reliable the tactic is. His job was to figure out a game plan to win such an advantage over the Democratic Party that the Republican Party would never pose a serious challenge to them ever again. And one of the primary tactics he came up with was to utilize The Big Lie.
And the RP has been using it ever since. Trump was born using it. It isn't a conscious tactic, it's simply the way his brain is wired, and that's one of the reasons he took over the RP so easily from its masters. They'd prepared their voters for someone just like Trump, but of course they had intended to put their own puppet on the throne. But instead, along came Trump.
Anyone still whining "both sides are bad" at this late date has been duped. Over the past 30 plus years the Democratic Party has unquestionably been significantly better for society, not just ours, and for working people, than the Republican Party. Perfect? Of course not. But all this talk about how the DP screwed poor folk just like the RP did? Pure bullshit. Whenever the DP had the political power to enact their policies they improved the lot of the poor, every time. In real life degrees matter. In fact, that's all there really is.
No, if you want to accurately kick the DP in the balls for failing, the proper target is their failure to counter the RP's decades long Big Lie tactics. They have failed miserably at that. If the voters were not duped by that decades long effort to distort reality via the Big Lie an overwhelming number would be voting against the RP. And the RP knew that. Came to that realization during the Clinton administration. The RP leadership realized they were losing and were going to lose more if they continued as they were. Hence the hiring of Karl Rove, to devise tactics to figure out how to lie, cheat and steal to get enough votes to stay in power when it was clear that they could not continue to do so by playing by the rules. They've followed the playbook and now here we are.
So the real problem is that there are always enough people in any large group, like a nation, that are susceptible enough marks to be conned by a determined Big Lie propaganda effort to vote against their own best interests in spite of easily accessible evidence. Because they can no longer tell what is real and what isn't, what is true and what isn't. They've become effectively detached from reality. How to counter that, to prevent it, should be a Manhattan Project level effort. Failing to figure this out might be a Great Filter.
A lie is a lie is a lie, no matter who tells it, wherein the term 'lie' is most commonly defined as a 'false promise' given with the intent to manipulate, deceive and gain an advantage.
ReplyDeleteHence the term 'compromise', a term which literally indicates "an exchange of promises", insomuch as an exchange of false or misleading promises is quite literally not an actual compromise at all.
This brings us all to where we are now, as we are all currently enmeshed in a socioeconomic spider's web of false promises, compromises and unilateral agreements designed to manipulate & exploit rather than enlighten.
An undefined Social Contract;
An extractive Tax Code; and
An obtuse & impenetrable Legal System.
Hell, even our cell phone contracts & utility bills are elaborate fictions that have been specifically designed to exploit and defraud us.
There are even those who would attempt to rectify deceit with even more deceit, as in the case of our fine host, who intends to manipulate the opposition to his advantage by offering up even more false contractual compromises that will forever remain unilaterally alterable & breakable in an incremental fashion.
And, this from a dedicated incrementalist who claims to hate 'cheaters' and contends that a promise is a promise is a promise that constitutes an unalterable & unbreakable legal contract, according to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
D'oh.
reason said: "Two party systems are toxic, because they tend to entrench corruption and stop evolution."
ReplyDeleteI answer that is either a lie or utterly ignorant or masturbatory sanctimony fetishism. The differences between the two US parties could not be more day-vs. night and you are doing Putin's bidding.
The division is as clear, morally, as blue vs gray was in 1863. Yes THAT clear.
Seriously, YOU desperately need a wakeup. Start here: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2019/08/five-devastating-rebuttals-to-use-with.html
JV: While Vote the Bums Out! is definitely a factor, I believe the 250 year culture war model works vastly better.
LH: "
The electorate apparently has no sense of cause and effect."
That is one reason why I press that clear explication of OUTCOMES is vastly important. Dems need to make clear that OUTCOMES are always, always, always better across dem administrations.
What Darrell E said! And one of my 30+ proposals is to reinstate the Rebuttal Rule in all media that either take advertising or have 5000+ subscribers.
locum blah blah blah. If people don't actually read the user-agreements they must accept to get Web services, then let's have expert nerds at the Consumer Protection Agency do it for us and announe/summarize the results. L is a bufoon.
David, saying that the parties are different is not a rebuttal to my point. The problem is particularly severe in the US because the system of checks and balances are a break on solutions. The last time there was evolution in the American political system was when Democrats had overwhelming control of congress. Two party systems entrench enmity between the parties because they don't have to manage coalitions with one another. And make manage the referees a very tempting strategy - and also make running against corruption a difficult gambit. The US really needs a viable third party (a green party would be the best option) to allow unrepresented parts of the electorate to have a voice. The current system of winner take all electorates with just two parties leave many voters unrepresented, and with no chance of representation. And they only have a choice of two take it or leave policy platforms (you were right to point out that the single left-right spectrum is a distortion). I know that in Australia, politics work quite differently because of the viability of third parties. The argument "where can the voters go" doesn't apply even if the two bigger parties hold most of the seats. Outsiders can and do win (because of two things - preferential and compulsory voting, and mult-seat senate elections). In Europe, the effects of alternative parties are even clearer. People can not only express disaffection with large parties, the third parties they choose can point to what their disaffection is due to. And they will be represented in parliament.
DeleteWe must stop the Trump administration from completely defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was established after the 2008 financial crisis to keep everyday Americans from getting ripped off by Big Banks.
ReplyDeleteThe new National Security Strategy of the US technically makes it an enemy of free Europe.
ReplyDeleteThings might get nasty soon.
I've noted wryly before that we seem to be engaging in a reversal of WWII, in which the US and Russia* are the fascists while Germany and Japan are defenders of freedom and human dignity.
DeleteIt would be extremely ironic if American Jewish refugees have to flee to Europe for asylum.
* I used to include Britain there too, but now I'm not quite getting that vibe.
* I used to include Britain there too, but now I'm not quite getting that vibe.
DeleteThe polls suggest that Reform carrying 27% of the vote and gaming 300+ seats, while Tories, Greens, Libdems and Labour are between 10-20%
Only giving up bouroughs will prevent a far right government in the UK, If not a miracle happens.
Well… I get the point of not having lobby’s write proposed law… but I don’t think that is practical. I’ve been involved in lobby efforts and we had to write what we wanted in a language they understood. The people sent to visit legislators had to be able to paraphrase in a convincing and persuasive manner, but the proposed law helped focus the message.
ReplyDeleteThe danger isn’t us writing proposed law. It’s the legislature not reading it and discussing aspects and amending it.
Would it help to have a CONGRESS of lobbyists? Including all large NGOs. WHo deliberate and negotiate what they'll propose to Congress?
DeleteAlfred, that suggests to me that there is a missing agency. Congress should decide on the ideas to be encompassed in law. The law should then be drafted by experts in drafting laws.
DeleteWell, Joe Haldeman posited cutting out the middlepersons and having Congress consist entirely of lobbyists...
ReplyDeleteA year and a half ago I explained to a customer (at work, as I should not have, but I was just so annoyed by people saying over and over again that rumpT was going to drop prices) that significant consumer price drops would only be likely if half the country was out of work, i.e. a depression. She was still going to vote for rumpT because he was lying to her about reducing prices, and democrats weren't, and she wanted to believe the lie. Democratic candidates generally can't compete at that level and get the votes to win their primaries.
She might get her wish, but the odds of retaining a good job in her family to take advantage of those prices might be pretty low.
Dr. Brin, Your IGUS'd independence would be predicated on the 'Supreme' Court's Savage Six not overturning settled case law and allowing a sitting president to fire anyone in government, right? You seem to have left out a step...retrieving the SC from Happy Fascist Land.
Pappenheimer
"We must stop the Trump administration from completely defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was established after the 2008 financial crisis to keep everyday Americans from getting ripped off by Big Banks."
ReplyDeleteExcellent idea. How? Until Democrats get back some control over Congress, the Courts, and/or the Executive, we're Orban's Hungary writ large. Senate Democrats stood firm against the coming health funding cuts, but you applauded when they folded. A general strike ain't happening. Seriously, open to suggestions. I used to study judo; you need leverage to make it work. (In fact, judo is applied leverage.) Find me a fulcrum.
Pappenheimer
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf SCOTUS grants wide sweeping authority to Trump to hire and fire fed reserve members and arbitrarily impose sweeping tariffs think what a liberal president could do with those powers.
ReplyDeleteA liberal president made certain by Trump fucking up the economy and screwing over his own farming rural base.
I suggest we start by taking all of the 1%'s money and giving it all to poor black single mothers just for shits and giggles. Maybe give some to the Sierra club or the world wildlife fund to fight global warming. That will piss them off.
Then we can ratfuck every appointed conservative government official, and use tariffs to target the wealth of every socially retarded billionaire (Musk, Theil, et al - they are all emotionally crippled a-holes incapable of normal human interaction) who wants to replace democracy with techno feudal oligarchy.
If Trump can legally impose arbitrary tariffs (which are taxes) on countries and industries, then a liberal president can arbitrarily impose taxes on high tech industries and even individuals.
In the meantime blue states should follow California's lead and gerrymander the hell out of their state's congressional districts. Do the math. Blue states are more populous than Red states - especially the economically worthless, socially unimportant unpopulated rectangle ones.
Once we have a gerrymandered stranglehold on government we can impeach conservative judges, starting with the chief justice and pack the supreme court with a dozen uber liberals - with laws to prevent the republicans from ever doing the same.
You see, we've been doing this all wrong.
Instead of trying to preserve decency and fairness we liberals should play the game just as vicious and dirty as Republicans.
Dr. Brin, you like to say we are in another phase of a never ending civil war. Fine, I agree with you. Which means it is way past time we liberals stop being pansies and do to conservatives what Sherman did to Georgia.
In the meantime blue states should follow California's lead and gerrymander the hell out of their state's congressional districts. Do the math. Blue states are more populous than Red states - especially the economically worthless, socially unimportant unpopulated rectangle ones.
DeleteThe problem is that states vote, not individuals. And something like 70% of the population is concentrated in 15 states, and so are represented by only 30% of the Senate. The 30% that live in smaller states and skew Republican have 70% of the Senators.
Also, it's not just that Wyoming has many more Senators per person than California does--it also has many more representatives per person, despite only having one for the state.
* * *
Fans of Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" (either in graphic novel or Netflix form) know how Democrats get to use DJT's king powers. A relatively small number of us--no more than 1000 perhaps--have to dream the world into being in which Democrats have been in power all along.
Not just representative, but electors in the electoral college.
Delete"...think what a liberal president could do with those powers."
DeleteNothing. SCOTUS will say 'powers for me but not for thee'. Inconsistency is not a glitch, nor a feature: it is the operating system.
P.S. Sorry for all the deletions, I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet.
ReplyDeleteI don't hate Netflix or Paramount or Comcast or anyone really. I just don't want to see Hollywood die by acquisition. Some culture is too valuable to become balance sheet assets. History is either cherished or abolished. Pretty clear where most of us stand on that.
ReplyDelete@scidata, I'm with you on that. I just don't see a difference between Netflix or Paramount acquiring WB vs what WB would do on its own.
DeleteAs a good liberal, "I may be wrong."
When Netflix was a new thing, I used to think it was going to be a one-stop shopping place for all streaming movies. I'd rather have that than a smorgasbord of services that you have to subscribe to separately.
Here's some good news. Many classic movies are now, or are approaching, public domain status (copyright expiry). Only things like colorization/restoration can reset the copyright clock. So for the real treasures, this may be a moot point.
DeleteGardeners. ROUNDUP is toxic & unneeded. Spray 2:1 Vinegar + water + a tsp salt +half a tsp dish detergent. Sometimes I add some bleach. Not one ingredient is at all toxic to you /animals and the salt is minimal. The mix is ~50% as effective as roundup (do it twice) but 0% the toxicity.
ReplyDelete"The 30% that live in smaller states and skew Republican have 70% of the Senators."
ReplyDeleteInternal migration. subsidize every Black person in Mississippi to trade homes with a white family in Alabama and S. Carolina. Actually would take just 100,000. You'd get 1 Dem swing state, a mad confederate state and 1 that renames itself New Congo.
Pappenheimer, the trick is to actually actually actually pay attention to the Roberts rationalizations for his rulings. His contortions for Gerrymandering can be canceled. Like his current ones of Presidential God Powers. In fact, two of my proposals do that.
Will he concoct new ones? sure. But he lives in fear of being cornered anough that the People realize he is just a hired/blackmailed shill.
Celt, thank you for the winter fantasy. And yes, I have been using the term "Appomattox" to answer trolls on social media. If you ever saw Daniel Day Lewis in Spielberg's LINCOLN, there's a scene in which L's associate asks the Confederate VP to just surrender already and "end this bleeding." The next scene shows Richmond in flames.
Paramount is now the Ellison family. So anything, anything is better.
scidata & alfred email me to get a copy of my AI book draft.
I'm a slow reader, but also laconic when writing, which is a plus. I'm still at the same email you last used for me in 2021, not sure if you are too.
DeleteI feel obliged to point out that Richmond was on fire BEFORE Union troops got to it, and when they marched in their first job was trying to control the flames - it's hard to occupy a burning town.
DeletePappenheimer
the trick is to actually actually actually pay attention to the Roberts rationalizations for his rulings.
Delete...
Will he concoct new ones? sure. But he lives in fear of being cornered anough that the People realize he is just a hired/blackmailed shill.
I'm not sure he cares any more. Everyone knows that the six "conservatives" on the court are in the bag for Republicans, and have been since the 2000 election. The only political difference between people is that some like this, while others don't.
The lower courts cited the supremes' own ruling that racial gerrymanders are not Constitutional, and now they've just ruled that Texas's self-admitted racial gerrymander is fine. Also, remember that they ruled that President Biden couldn't even forgive student loans, but now they say (essentially) that Article II says DJT can do whatever he wants.
There is an old baseball joke that someone asks an umpire how many runners he has incorrectly called out when they were really safe. The umpire responds, "If I say he's out, he's out." Modern day baseball rule changes aside, at the time, that was absolutely true. And that seems to be all the "rationalization" Roberts requires now. They don't even bother explaining the reasoning for overturning lower courts. They just legislate from the bench.
email sent.
DeleteLarry,
DeleteThere is an old baseball joke...
Hmm. Interesting analogy. Baseball's (TM) explanation was that umpires could err either way and with so many games played in a season, it was mostly a wash. Fans (not TM) point out that a single error can ruin a "Pennant Chase" (probably TM) and sour their inclination to buy tickets. Baseball's (TM) counter response was "I don't believe you because you love to hate the umps."
TV and instant replays changed all that by bringing attention to errors in a way that could be shown again and again. No amount of "Can't we all just get along?" quells the unrest... and we all know that some Fans can get unruly out in the parking lot after the game... or go home and beat their wives and children. Everyone knows that happens after losses, right? Well... it happens more after losses that shouldn't have been losses.
The remedy for SCOTUS errors, it seems, is instant replay. We have to force the TV crews in somehow. Judges reading their rulings to the camera would do the trick, no?
David, I suggested before another way. Build liberal university towns from scratch on the borders of small red states. Liberal billionaires could supply feed capital.
DeleteHumans are AWFUL! And yet, among all the funny videos and dogs and cats facing illusion pit-rugs, this one is far the funniest! I thought cats were immune but here are a couple who aren't. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FdXdk8MbmB0
ReplyDelete"To secure the health and protect the Supreme Court justices from terrorist attacks, I hereby declare active USC judges and staff to be transferred to the Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado."
ReplyDeleteThe absolute minimum litmus test for any Democratic candidate for federal office of any type must be, "How would you repair SCOTUS?" and weed out at the primary any candidate that does not have an actionable, effective method that is described in their first sentence of the answer.
ReplyDeleteHoping that the Roberts cabal will come to their senses does not count as an acceptable response.
Who are you and what have you done with our 2nd craziest member "matthew"? I agree, except with the exaggeration. We need to put our 60%+ reforms up front. But every gathering hosted by a Dem candidate - in neighborhoods across the land - should include that question.
DeleteI don't mind a few Democratic candidates failing that litmus test... if they represent a voting bloc that wants that kind of fantasy. Most don't, so I wouldn't be concerned for the health of the nation.
DeleteWe USED to have a way to impose this kind of test... before we shifted to primaries... back when Dixiecrats were on the other side... and progressives were often Republican. We called this system "Party Boss Rules". Look back at what Kamala Harris had to do at the beginning of her career in CA for just one of the risks. 8)
David, I'm not crazy. I'm a typical left-leaning middle aged white guy. We share a lot of the same goals.
DeleteI just do not trust *you*.
I've read every word here both in the main blog, and in the comments for 25+ years. I doubt anyone else, including you, can say that.
Over the years I've come to understand that David has some good ideas, but he should not be trusted by his "allies." He is either bought by oligarchs and three-letter agencies or he has such bad judgment that it has the same effects.
My suggestion to casual readers is to go back through David's comments for the last 25 years and look for a clear pattern of support for DoJ/Intelligence factorums and evil tech oligarchs. This support for those that would control America and the rest of the world is at odds with what David espouses, but it is one of the most consistent things about him.
Weigh his words across his career. Read what David has to say. Make up your own minds whether he is trustworthy or not.
reason,
ReplyDelete...that suggests to me that there is a missing agency...
There IS a missing agency, but good luck creating one not vulnerable to politics. Legislators are assumed to be good at writing bills or capable of hiring people who do it for them, no? For legislators who have been around a while, they can assemble quite a team ranging from their own staff to committee specialist staff. The staff is who lobbyists usually meet, so those of us pitching ideas MUST be able to speak the lingo.*
Don't assume lobbyists don't have experts of their own. They often do even if they aren't on retainer. Many of these experts are former legislators or staffers. It's a merry-go-round because expertise gets results.
*Staffers generally expect one of three things in discussions.
1) Help me fix a problem with some executive agency. (usually constituent mail)
2) Help me get money for a pet project. (Very common like mold in rainy climates since money is like rain.)
3) Help me get a law passed, amended, or repealed. (Often bills to create or remove market biases.)
Because this site is devoted to the works of David Brin, I presume that at least many here know what the Glavers' path to redemption refers to. Going that way would probably have saved Winston Smith from his fate in 1984 too.
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump is well along that path, and may actually reach it before he shuffles off this mortal coil.
Huh!
DeleteI can't tell if "Huh!" was meant as a question or an exclamation.
DeleteIf he doesn't succumb to illness first, I'm thinking that DJT will avoid any retribution--or at least the fear of retribution--by no longer being cognizant of his surroundings or of his past.
David,
ReplyDelete...Would it help to have a CONGRESS of lobbyists?...
Heh. What would help is transparency. If these proposals were out in the open, we'd send AI agents to scan them and send alarms to appropriate mailing lists. Other AI agents would be suggesting amendments or composing battle plans.
Just ask for transparency around inbound proposals for all legislators.
Shine-a-light and you no doubt know what will happen next.
Your belief in the efficacy of AI agents would be cute if it were not so ubiquitous.
DeleteAI agents are not capable of doing what you suggest, Alfred.
I'm not convinced. I use them and have friends doing this kind of research.
DeleteIt won't be 'just' AI's, though. Centaurs will act with their AI horsey-rear-ends doing the initial sifting.
Ugh. That analogy sucks. (My bad)
DeleteHow about the first stomach to do the digesting will be the one in the horsey-rear-end?
Anyway... Centaurs. That's what we ALL are by now anyway. AI's will just make it more so.
Paramount is now the Ellison family. So anything, anything is better.
ReplyDeleteAll we got is another billionaire owning a media empire including a social media platform, minus the ketamine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry, not just another billionaire.
DeleteEllison is a Trump supporter and, If reporting is true, plans to shut down or gleichschalt CNN.
Rich people are not all bad (or good) any more than mutants with super powers are all bad (or good). It depends on how they choose to use their powers.
DeleteTech giants used to have slogans like "Do no evil," and really seemed to be intent on using their platforms to enlighten humanity. But no more. The entire tech-brosphere seems to have gone all in on Trumpism. All exceptions duly noted, but I can't think of any.
@ Matthew:
ReplyDeleteOver the years I've come to understand that David has some good ideas, but he should not be trusted by his "allies." He is either bought by oligarchs and three-letter agencies or he has such bad judgment that it has the same effects
Maybe it is fear, too. The current climate brings forth death threats and other signs of oppression. Maybe the fire had to do something with it.
Maybe it is another effect. When you wrote "bought", then I did not think of money, but of access.
As far as I can determine, he is in some circles that are usually gate-keeped strongly.
His membership there is about his contributions, and thus well-earned, of course, but also about control.
Access can be a hell of a drug. The flattery of being elevated into a circle of decision-makers and people "in the know" is a very dopamine-rich situation.
Russia has used this tactics very successful on our PolSci* community to an extent that I would say it is severely infiltrated, and I see no reason why three letter agencies and billionaires should behave differently.
Of course, I can hardly see how he behaves when within those circles, only to outsiders, often belittling them, then and now throwing them under the bus.
He has shown disdain for an organized and interconnected civilian society and at times demonstrates unwillingness to compromise or admit mistakes, sadly going into a brusque and derogatory reply.**
Essentially, he is a conservative, from an Euro point of view, but within the borders of decency and not without his progressive moments. From that viewpoint, he is also a nationalist, albeiit a leftish one (which is a uniquely American political position to have).
As any drug, access and power has withdrawal symptomes.
*A perceived paradox: While OGH often lambasts anti-intellectuality, it seems he has not a high regard for the humanities, either, ignoring their findings. Conversely, I often see a kind of engineer-like thinking applied to social problems that very much sound like how the auth-left saw societies.
** Instead of making fun of women with colored hair, one should remember that depolitization of the general society is the tool by which autocrates rule. So, instead of mocking them, you should think of keeping them in the fight and reach those who are already depolitizised.
Alfred Differ:
ReplyDeleteThe remedy for SCOTUS errors, it seems, is instant replay. We have to force the TV crews in somehow. Judges reading their rulings to the camera would do the trick, no?
Even publishing their rulings complete with their reasoning--like they always used to do before using the "shadow docket"--would be a step in the right direction.
But yes, the rulings (and associated reasoning) should be public and on camera, and with replays and "highlight reels" digging into specific salient points.
Also, replays of earlier decisions in order to force rational explanations of inconsistencies.
To continue the baseball analogy, in baseball, it became necessary to have a mechanism to overturn obviously-wrong calls. And while that just moves "final arbiter" to a different authority, the fans will no longer tolerate sustaining a call that can be easily and repeatedly seen by all to be factually incorrect.
Need I say more?
Need I say more?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Manhattan Contrarian spots the problem. I'll have to quote from this https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-12-9-humphreys-executor-on-the-ropes at length:
ReplyDelete"The Constitution provides for exclusive grants of the three types of power to the three branches of the government, and to no one outside that structure. (Article I: "All legislative Powers" are "vested" in the "Congress"; Article II: "The executive Power" is "vested" in the "President"; and Article III: "The judicial Power" is "vested" in the federal courts.)
There are no other grants of power in the Constitution. So, from whence come the vast areas of the federal government that are not the Congress or the courts, and yet are outside the control of the President?
[I]f you study the U.S. government today, you quickly learn about vast areas of the government that have somehow broken free of the separation of powers. I'm talking about the so-called "independent" agencies, like the FTC, FCC, SEC, CFPB, CFTC, CPSC, PCAOB and others. These agencies are not explicitly part of any of the three branches, yet they promulgate thousands of pages of regulations (legislative power?), and then prosecute people and companies for violating the regulations (executive power?) before administrative judges (judicial power?) who are part of the agency rather than part of the court system. Where is this provided for in the Constitution?
And my conclusion:
The answer is that all of this is entirely unconstitutional.
And yet the liberal justices seem to think this is OK. But on what basis? Do they cite some language in the Constitution, and if so, what? There are numerous reports available as to yesterday’s Supreme Court argument. A particularly detailed one appeared in the New York Times here. The Times’s piece contains a couple of revealing quotes from two of the three liberal justices, Kagan and Sotomayor. From Justice Kagan:
Justice Elena Kagan said such a ruling would “put massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”
And from Justice Sotomayor:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the administration’s lawyer that “you’re asking us to destroy the structure of government” and to “take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that a — the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.”
You have to wonder if these people have even read the Constitution. Justice Kagan asserts that ruling for the President would put “massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power” in his hands. But this is power currently in the hands of the FTC. Where does the Constitution grant any power at all to the FTC? It only grants Executive power to one entity, indeed one person, and that is the President. If the power is “massive, uncontrolled, and unchecked,” then that might arguably be a problem with the Constitution. But the Supreme Court justices have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, so they are stuck with having these powers — whether or not “massive, uncontrolled, and unchecked” — in the hands of the President."
Democratic think tank releases paper on what Harris did wrong to lose to Trump.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/10/kamala-harris-election-autopsy
Funny, the host here insists that doubling-down on winning moderate Republicans is the most important strategic move for the Democrats.
But, I forget, according to David, the Democratic party should never embrace its' left wing.
David's "Big Tent" only exists to serve his centrist interests, like making sure AI fraudsters in Silicon Valley have enough money (to invite authors to come and speak about AI) and Space X can continue to overpromise and under deliver.
The Manhattan Contrarian is wrong. He stated the answer himself but doesn't understand. Federal agencies like the FCC, etc., and the powers that they have are created and granted via legislation. And as he pointed out all legislative powers are vested in Congress. I guess he doesn't know what "legislation" means.
ReplyDeleteThe chief executive, POTUS, is not supposed to be a rulership position. It is supposed to be a service position. POTUS's job, the entire Federal Government's job, is supposed to be to serve the people. POTUS's job is supposed to be merely to execute legislation passed by Congress. That's it. We have come very, very far from that.
Anyone arguing that POTUS should have the authority that they do now, and even more, and thinks that's the way the Founding Father's intended it to be and that The Constitution says that's the way it should be, . . . . I'll just leave it at "they are very wrong."
Power struggles between the three branches of government are nothing new. But the executive branch during Bush Jr's administration made an unprecedented power grab, stealing authority away from both other branches. The Obama administration walked almost none of that back. The Trump administrations have made the power grabs of the Bush Jr. administration look mild by comparison.
"But, I forget, according to David, the Democratic party should never embrace its' left wing."
ReplyDeleteof course you 'forget' because you are a goddam liar. That is diametrically opposite to what I've said. And welcome back idiot version of 'matthew.'
Bullshit. You attack anyone remotely to your left with incessant urgency. All part of proving your bona fides to oligarchs and AI assholes that pay your bills.
DeleteEveryone should look back to your after-election posts from a year ago to watch you attack the liberal wing of the Democrats.
You are eager to call anyone that actually reads your words and parses what you are selling a liar.
Jibber-jibber. You are a drivel-nonsense bufoon, m. Were you possessed of either funds or honor, I'd challenge to a wager over the lies. But as no one here, even locum, believes a shred of what you just spewed, I am content to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. ineffectual putz
DeleteTo me the solution to the whole Lobbying and legislation is
ReplyDelete(1) Remove the money - change the definition of "bribery"
(2) Accept that Congress will produce the "Top-Level" legislation
Bills must be less than 20 pages and must start with the Purpose Statement
The lower level "Regulations" can then be produced by the Civil Service
The Judicial branch would in charge of ensuring that the Regulations were in agreement with the Top-Level Legislation
Re: some of the above criticisms of the host: he’s a member of the America cult, the Enlightenment cult, the Jewish cult, and he’s a boomer—the quadrifecta of liberal arrogance and delusion. There’s a reason these types are a favorite meme target among the younger online crowd these days. Like Planck said about scientists, you don’t change their minds, you just wait for the funerals.
ReplyDeletesnork!!! ;-). We get few insane trolls here but these three are pips!
DeleteThose too stupid to get vaccinated will have earlier funerals and more frequent funerals.
Deletematthew
ReplyDeleteI am very "left wing" - OGH does NOT NOT NOT attack the "Left Wing"
What he does attack (and I agree with him) is the loonies that hide behind a left-wing facade
These are the people who have poisoned the left-wing conversation - the ones that will not accept any argument with their extreme views
Given my praise of Bernie, Liz, AOC & Pete & Stacey for their combination of left-side zeal plus pragmatic willingness to work their butts off for the 2021-22 Pelosi miracle bills... plus my hours spent trying to get people to understand Marx... I'd say that insipid jerk-offs who yammer sat me about my relationship with 'the left' are truly microcephalic dolts. Oh and zzzzzzzzzzzz
DeleteRobert Zubrin was 'Mr. Mars' long before Elon. We oft-disagreed re politics - till he realized, like some sane/decent Republicans, that his party has been hijacked by monsters. Here Zubrin dives into the Russian fascist who's central to Putin's blend of czardom, Leninism and genocial hate. A madness that - Bob admits - now has hooks and puppet strings throughout today's GOP. Know this enemy! Tho I point at Zubrin as an example that talkiing to our conservative neighbors is not hopeless! Even 1 in 20 sane ones - drawn into an alliance to save the American Experiment - (even as they stay economic conservatives) - is a net plus of way greater value than just 1 more voter. Talk to them. Minister to them.
ReplyDeleteEven Dugin's title is reminiscent of the ANTI-TECH REVOLUTION, by the Unabomber, which TK had sent to me for a blurb!
https://www.skeptic.com/article/aleksandr-dugin-vladimir-putin-and-donald-trump/
There can be no such thing as Ideal Law & Ideal Government until there exists an equally Ideal Human Citizen.
ReplyDeleteThe pursuit of either an ideal rule set or an ideal society is sheer folly if one assumes human imperfectability, and both history & I have made this point often.
Marxism, Communism & their cousin Socialism are all marvelously equitable ideas that have a record of failure so blatant that only the idealist cannot see it, the time-worn excuse for this failure being that REAL Marxism, Communism & Socialism have not-yet-been-tried, as all-of-the-above require the existence of an Ideal Human Citizen as a prerequisite.
Where is this Ideal Human Citizen of which you speak?
I've met good people & bad people during my 65 years on this planet, but I yet to meet even a single ideal one who is entirely without self interest, pride, greed, envy, lust, wrath, gluttony, envy or sloth.
From Dr Brin's Idealized Rule Sets to his Inspector Generals -- the latter which conjures up images of a clownish Danny Kaye singing 'Gypsy Dance' -- these are hallucinatory pipe dreams that are all subject to imperfect human interpretation, bias and enforcement.
Via Incrementalism, an infinite number of tiny steps & the faulty logic of Zeno's Paradox, Dr Brin hopes to sneak up on & eventually achieve Human Perfection soon, but this is an admission that puts him at odds with zealot idealists like Matthew who already believe themselves to be both pure & perfect when compared to other humans.
These are the True Monsters, these zealots who believe themselves perfect, as they are entirely without mercy or the finer human sentiments, as they turn triumph into a Reign of Terror and the pursuit of purity into a Death March.
Best
@Larry:
ReplyDeleteRich people are not all bad (or good) any more than mutants with super powers are all bad (or good). It depends on how they choose to use their powers.
Yes, but one can argue that wealth cannot be gained through dilligence and hard work alone anymore, only through capital extraction from the larger economy. This is usually achieved by grift, corruption, suppression of workers and rising prices.
And by being already rich, using once own wealth to back up credits to buy more stocks.
That is the evil part. Sure, you can go the philantrophy route and alleviate some of the mess you created, but a mess it is that maybe would not exist without the evil you have done to create that wealth
Tech giants used to have slogans like "Do no evil," and really seemed to be intent on using their platforms to enlighten humanity. But no more. The entire tech-brosphere seems to have gone all in on Trumpism. All exceptions duly noted, but I can't think of any.
Only the upper echelon and their online fanboys, a percentage of them being bots and foreign agents .
The Valley quite reliably votes blue.
A theory of mine is: they have had authoritarian tendencies all the time. They have a weakness: They are bad at innovation, and thus have to turn on grift and enshittification to get results.
An example:
DeleteWealth extraction causes public poverty.
Poverty increases the crime rate and political instability.
That in turn increases the demand for security and surveillance industries, syphoning away money from other sectors.(Over time, it gets enshittified so you pay more for less.)
That in turn increases public poverty.
Rinse, Repeat.
When I think of billionaires using their powers for good, I'm thinking of Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who protects the state from Trump as much as is possible. His family is in the hotel business, and whatever shady deals that may imply, I don't think he's left the world worse off than it was before the way some of your examples have. (As a good liberal, I add, I may be wrong about that).
DeleteWhen Pritzker ran in 2018 against our former Republican governor, Bruce Ranuer (also a billionaire), many on my side of the aisle scoffed "What's the difference between one billionaire or another?" My attitude was more like, "If it takes a billionaire to beat a billionaire, then I'm all for it."
I know less specifics about the ever-demonized George Soros as to how he made his money or what he does with it, but my sense is he does more good than harm as well.
Yes, but one can argue that wealth cannot be gained through dilligence and hard work alone anymore, only through...
DeleteArgh. Spoken like someone who has never tried to become wealthy though diligence and hard work.
There is ALWAYS an element of luck involved when someone becomes fabulously wealthy. There might be virtues and vices involved too, but even those involve a heap of luck.
...only through capital extraction from the larger economy.
This is zero-sum thinking. It happens, but luck is the more important factor. We make SOME of our own luck through hard work and diligence and get ourselves into positions were Fortuna smiles or pisses upon us.
As for our current degenerate form of capitalism with its K-shaped economy, obscene wealth inequality and gutting of the middle class, that was all predicted by Citigroup 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThe memo is hard to find in its entirety but the following of the 35 pages that make up the report can be found below
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/o9p29j/citigroup_equity_strategy_plutonomy_buying_luxury/
And a great video providing a cogent summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHJWmyS_1W0
Now, for those unfamiliar, a plutonomy is an economy where
growth is driven by and largely consumed by the wealthy few. The reports authors noted that this
phenomenon was already entrenched in what they called the key plutonomies, the United States,
the United Kingdom, and Canada. And this wasn't a temporary blip either. They predicted it would
only quote gather strength and amass breadth. Interestingly, the report also highlighted a stark
global divide. The aforementioned English-speaking economies had, as the authors put it, embraced
inequality. Meanwhile, countries like France, Germany, and Japan were placed in what the authors
called the egalitarian block. Societies that after the Second World War built stronger tax systems
and institutions to spread wealth more evenly.
(Which explains the right's hatred of "socialist" European countries)
The authors wrote that in a plutonomy, the average
consumer does not exist. In plain English, ordinary people no longer matter. The wealthy
absorb such a vast share of income and consumption that basing economic analysis on the behavior of
the middle or lower classes is, in their words, quote, flawed from the start. To prove it, they
presented some staggering data. As of the early 2000s, the top 1% of US households captured about
20% of total income. Roughly 1 million households controlling as much income as the bottom 60
million combined. And this imbalance isn't a bug, it's a feature. Because when one group holds that
much wealth, even a small shift in their spending or saving habits can outweigh what everyone else
does combined.
(IOW you and every other ordinary American no longer matter economically. You are fucking irrelevant).
So, how did we get here? Well, according to
the report, the resurgence of plutonomy since the 1980s comes down to three forces working together.
the explosion of technology that supercharged productivity, the wave of creative financial
innovation that followed, and governments eager to cooperate through ever more capital-friendly
tax regimes. Together, these forces created a new kind of elite. Not the old reentier class clipping
coupons from inherited fortunes, but a managerial technocratic aristocracy. people earning outsized
incomes from the very technologies and financial revolutions they helped to build. And that
transformation marked the first crucial step in constructing what the authors call the plutonomy
(So blame Reagan and Thatcher for your future serfdom).
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteAt its core, the machine can be boiled down to a simple formula thergoupe
analysts put forward. Plutonomy plus an asset boom equals a drop in the overall savings rate. So in
practice, when the top 1% see their wealth swell thanks to technological progress and financial
innovation, they experience what economists call the wealth effect. they feel richer and
as a result they spend more of their capital gains straight away. In other words, they save less and
when that lower savings rate is applied to their enormous share of national income, even a small
shift has an outsized impact. The result is a huge drop in total savings across the economy,
one that completely overwhelms the behavior of everyone else.
(Again, you all are irrelevant - you do not matter economically)
The report showed that between 1992 and 2000 during the equity boom, the savings rate of the
top 20% of US households collapsed from plus 8% to minus2%. In other words, the wealthiest segment
of America was spending more than it earned, and the system loved it. This completely debunks the
mainstream narrative that America's low savings rate and current account deficits are caused by
the so-called crazy consumer. Cityroup's analysts writing from inside the machine
dismissed that idea as irrelevant 20 years ago. They argue that these so-called global imbalances
weren't signs of impending collapse, but rather a structural feature of the plutonomy itself,
the natural outcome of extreme inequality. So, the financial elite weren't worried because the system
was working exactly as intended, funneling ever more capital to the top.
(Obscene inequality is capitalism's end game)
If wage driven consumers no longer matter, then
why bother selling to them? The answer is simple. They don't. The real money is now in servicing the
wealth machine, not the consumption machine. And we can see this institutional pivot everywhere
today. There are now roughly 19,000 private equity funds in the United States, but only about
14,000 McDonald's locations.
(Again let me reiterate - YOU NO LONGER FUCKING ECONOMICALLY MATTER!)
They've realized there's far more profit in managing the assets of a few thousand ultra
wealthy clients than in servicing millions of ordinary consumers. The same pattern shows up in
company valuations. The luxury car maker Ferrari is worth roughly twice as much as Honda. Even
Walmart, once the archetype of middleclass retail, is pivoting up market to target higher income
shoppers. So all of this proves that capital has adapted. It's given up on the struggling
majority and now revolves entirely around the spending and investing of the wealthy minority
who of course are only getting richer. Simply put, the average person's consumption is now just a
rounding error in the global economy.
(You and every other "middle class" American could die tomorrow and the economy would neither notice nor care.)
Back then, the
blueprint pointed to disruptive technology as one of the key accelerators of inequality. And today,
that driver has been supercharged by artificial intelligence and a handful of monopolistic tech
giants. Companies like Google, Amazon, and Nvidia are now carrying the rest of the US
stock market. And in the first half of 2025, spending on AI contributed as much to US GDP
growth as consumer spending itself
(AI means never having to hire a human. The old question was, if robots replace workers who is going to buy goods and services? Plutonomy provides the answer: only the rich matter and ordinary people are no longer necessary.)
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteThe numbers make this crystal clear. Over the
last 40 years, personal productivity has almost doubled, yet inflation adjusted median wages have
risen by only around 20%. The gains haven't been shared. They've been captured by what the cityroup
analysts once called the managerial aristocracy whose CEOs now earn roughly 200 times more than
the average employee.
(So, is it time to roll out the tumbrels?)
But is all of this actually sustainable? Well, even the cityroup analysts suspected the answer
was no. In their own words, the plutonomy is elastic. The concentration of wealth and
spending in the hands of the few probably has its limits and at some point that elastic will snap
back. The report identified three major threats or levers that could end the plutonomy. The first
and most potent was what they called the labor backlash. The majority may not have economic power
in this system, but they still hold equal voting power. And as their living standards decline, that
political power becomes the last lever they can pull.
(Unless the rich can divert the anger of the masses from themselves to a hated minority)
This backlash, the Citigroup analysts warned,
would appear in two extremes. the far-left pushing for protectionism to defend domestic jobs and the
far right pushing for anti-immigration policies to limit cheap labor. And if you look around today,
that's exactly what we're seeing, a world more polarized than ever.
(It's this polarization and diversion of anger to hated minorities that prevents a backlash by ordinary Americans. It is why MAGA exists in the first place.)
You can even see this collapse of the dream in geography itself. Because the
majority are workers, not consumers, they flock to wealthy cities, places where the money still
circulates. Poorer regions hollow out while rich cities become overcrowded, unaffordable,
and stratified. The result is a grim paradox. The working class must inflate the assets of the rich
just to survive in the same economy.
(There is no housing shortage per se. It's just where housing is cheap in rural America jobs and salaries suck. In cities where jobs are plentiful and salaries high, housing is insanely expensive.)
When this happens throughout history, one of three things happen:
Reform that redistributes wealth (like FDR's New Deal)
Violent revolution that kills the rich and confiscates their wealth (like the French revolution)
A police state, established by the rich to protect their wealth and power (its why the rich German banker and Junker aristocracy supported Hitler).
I'm not an optimist.
Note that Hitler and the Nazis used hatred of a minority group to divert the anger of the working class from the rich, just like Trump and MAGA are diverting American working class anger from the rich to migrants.
ReplyDeleteIf 18th century France had a sizeable scapegoat minority that the peasants hated and feared, there would have been no French revolution.
Good Point:
DeleteNow explain why scapegoating **the rich** is vastly superior to scapegoating **the jews**, **migrants** or any other minority, especially when GoogleAI cites "numerous studies showing adherents of Judaism having higher wealth" ?
Or, is this just another case of a hypocritical pot condemning a kettle?
Because blaming the rich is factual and therefore not scapegoating.
Deletegmknobl,
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. I made more or less the same point, from a slightly different direction, in an earlier comment. This human weakness has been known for a long time.
"History shows that there is nothing so easy to enslave and nothing so hard to emancipate as ignorance, hence it becomes the double enemy of civilization. By its servility it is the prey of tyranny, and by its credulity it is the foe of enlightenment."
[Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays]
Thank you Celt. Cogent. And yet you ignore that the American middle class is still truly vast and a majority are well-educated and a large minority are members of the fact-professions that are being pogrommed by the oligarch+ lumpen putsch.
ReplyDeleteThe blue forces of the Union are rousing and it includes nearly all skilled folks who know stuff, including all officers in the Protector Castes who are worth a damn. And polls show revulsion toward Trumpism is skyrocketing. In theory, all of that oughta inspire optimism. Though alas, I as yet see no signs that all of that is hitting critical mass that will overcome...
- a suborned and blackmail-terrified Supreme Court majority
- Trump's trajectory to put us into war and fear (and maybe a 9/11 terror strike) to distract from his troubles
- GOPper cheating at the 11/26 elections
- growing spread of ICE-like monsters.
Particularly disappointing... I had expected that by now some big city police department would declare to ICE rangers... "Because of federal supremacy, we cannot (for now) prevent you from seeking and arresting undocumented immigrants. But if masked men grab people off our streets, you must at minimum ID yourselves. If you are too wimpy afraid to show your faces to the public (we cops aren't!) then you must still show your faces and IDs to the police!
"You must, so we can verify THAT you are federally sanctioned agents and not random kidnappers. And so we can inform your parole officers what you are doing.
"And so, in this city, at least, if a cop demands your ID, both you and the person you are seizing will SIT DOWN! You will show your face and ID to the cop, so he or she can phone it in, like a license plate. And we will call in the ID of the person you are seizing, too, not only to let them validate citizenship or residency, but also for a tracking number, so they won't 'disappear' in your detention.
"Furthermore, you will stay the heck away from schools and churches and courthouses! Oh, and any excessive rough stuff on our streets will get you arrested for assault.
"Beyond that, our hands are tied by federal supremacy. Until the day that decent people from all parties negotiate workable compromise rules that render your masked tactics moot."
And... as with most of my proposals, there's no sign of any of that happening, alas.
https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/09/ice-courthouse-arrests/
As for poor locum, oh how hard he tries! Desperate to deny that a 3rd dimension, or color, or positive sum - or even the existence of things called 'facts - are anything but verbal scams, he returns to ascribing to us... esp. me... views and notions so entirely unrelated to anything I have said or believe.
ReplyDeleteHis masturbatory spew jets toward far, far directions, WAY away from any splatter zone any of us need to worry about. Like Pamela Anderson needn't worry about his sick fantasies about her!
Incredible. I know the guy. Or I used to:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Jo-djilvo
And did I link you all to this amazing spectacle of centaur AI creativity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm9codc_zwk
Though alas, I as yet see no signs that all of that is hitting critical mass that will overcome...
ReplyDeleteTwo things along the lines of the points that follow have happened recently:
- Minneapolis police chief tells his officers that failure to arrest ICE warriors* who use unlawful force is a failure of duty and grounds for dismissal. Not quite 'No ID? No cop!', but...
- Indiana Senate (with a GOP super majority) have rejected Trump's gerrymander map for the state. Trump now threatens to withdraw state funding...
* It pays to know your Doctor Who, and the bulk of them do look the part of the 'Men from Mars'!**
** Click here for the musical version.
Well, David
ReplyDeleteWe must stop the Trump administration from completely defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was established after the 2008 financial crisis to keep everyday Americans from getting ripped off by Big Banks.
You have much more faith in centralized solutions than I do. Now, I'm not a right wing Republican who categorically hates government bureaucrats. It's more that I'm concerned with the corruptability of regulators.
So, u create your regulators to watch dog the big players. Lets assume you do a good job and u craft effective rules that actually achieve your intended purpose (which is always much more difficult than reformers think). Well, now the oligarchs bring out the pitchforks bc they damn well don't want their ill-gotten cornucopia to cease spouting its bounty.
So oligarchs start buying regulators, which takes approximately ten seconds to begin.
So now the oligarchs start undermining the regulators. Once accomplished, the very agency intended to protect the public becomes the mechanism of their oppression.
I'll give an example which helped me understand how this worked back in law school. Jimmy Carter created the Superfund to clean up corporate pollution immediately, rather. than waiting for litigation to determine the responsible parties and apportion blame (which could take years, even decades).
Ok, sounds like a great idea, right? Well, it actually was, until the oligarchs undermined it.
Rather quickly, the courts decided that the EPA could settle with the big players for less than their pro rata share of a pollution site. Why would they do this? Well, those big players have massive resources with which to fight regulatory enforcement. Compelling them through the courts would take up massive amounts of time and budget of the regulatory agency. So instead, they started to settle for less.
Now there's a problem, the EPA isn't replacing the actual cost of the cleanup to the Super fund. What to do?
Using joint and severable liability theory from tort law, the courts ruled that EPA could stick the small players of a cleanup site with a disproportionate share of the cleanup. In short, they would have to pay for more damages than they actually caused. The legal rationale is that it's more important to make the victim.whole than fairness to a tortfeasor..
However, this solution created a perverse incentive for big players to continue polluting.
In the short term, dumping toxic waste is cheaper than responsible disposal. Middle managers like this bc it gooses their bonuses by boosting profits on the yearly balance sheet.. Often, they will earn promotion before the bill comes due.
Even when it does, the cost falls more onto their little competitors than them. Cleanup costs often break small.players. In effect, that big player has appropriated government power and is using it to destroy their competition.
This puts the small players in an impossible position.Not only must they overcome an economy of scale advantage for their competition, they could face a cost problem. If their rival dumps toxic waste they might have to follow suit to remain price competitive, which might be necessary for short term survival. OTH, if and when EPA discovers the pollution, cleanup costs destroy them.
In the end, big players become monopolies who keep dumping toxic waste. EPA is now their unwitting ally, even without a single direct bribe of any regulator.
This is where your legislation NEEDS the "Purpose Statement"
DeleteIn this case the "Purpose" would have been to get the cleanup done and get the perpetrators to pay
If the EPA started making the smaller players pay more then the courts would be able to make them change
Duncan, US legislation often will include a purpose statement. It does help courts interpret the law. There is also a Congressional Record which documents the congressional debate around legislation to help courts to suss out the intent of congress when passing the law.
ReplyDeleteU seem to see those mandatory purpose statements as some kind of magic bullet that imposes common sense upon courts and legislative bodies. . I have no knowledge of Australian jurisprudence. I do know you're a common law country, but that's pretty much it.However, I'm skeptical that they're as effective as you contend, just based on my experience with US law and the perversity of common law court rulings.
NZ not Oz
DeleteBut the courts here find it really easy to use the "Purpose Statement" to force the second level - the regulations - to change
The top line stuff - the "laws" need to be changed by Parliament
The underlying "regulations" are set by the civil service and the courts can tell them to change
To me there are two problems
(1) The lack of a purpose statement
(Which is ironic as your constitution STARTS with a Purpose Statemen that everybody then ignores (The Preamble)
(2) Top level "laws" written by legislature - and the underlying thousands of pages of "regulations"
The two are DIFFERENT and should be treated differently
Congress should be passing 20 page documents - not 2,000 page monstrosities than nobody reads
Argh. Spoken like someone who has never tried to become wealthy though diligence and hard work.
ReplyDeleteYou are right.
Like so many other people employed in service of the public, we do it not because we have the aspiration of becoming millionaires.
We do it to keep the society running. (And there have been many times in the past ten years when I said damn it, I quit, move to Berlin and start something with Media.)
Yet, we keep the country running. We work hard and diligently to keep a society afloat and keep the man-eats man anarchy at bay the Techbro caste seeks to create.
Think of that the next time you meet a cop, intelligence officer, soldier, teacher, researcher, administrator, nurse, EMT, doctor, public defender, construction worker, social worker, firefighters, street cleaner.
There is ALWAYS an element of luck involved when someone becomes fabulously wealthy. There might be virtues and vices involved too, but even those involve a heap of luck.
Yes. The most common form is the birth lottery. It is not just wealth, but also the tone of your skin, the country you are born in, access to education, the quality of that education, and General economic chances.
This is zero-sum thinking. It happens, but luck is the more important factor. We make SOME of our own luck through hard work and diligence and get ourselves into positions were Fortuna smiles or pisses upon us.
Fortes Fortuna Iuvat.
We all have different ideas of what that means.
You say it is grounded in preparation.
Machiavelli wrote that young and bold people are more likely to win her favor.
Romans believed by sacrificing animals to her she would be nice to them.