Train loads of Geritol could not restore the tired blood of the Robert Rubin/Wall Street insider crowd that Candidate Obama has crowned as his economic team. Whatever campaign debts he is repaying by surrounding himself with such a crowd of Fifth Columnist outsourcers, those debts are minor compared to the bankruptcy ahead of him when the betrayed American workers figure this out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil, Water, Food, the credit collapse, the $800 Billion trade deficit, the ballooning budget deficit, public and private debt at 350% of GDP, the housing collapse, an economy in free fall and the absence of governance will soon test Obama's economic team.

Obama's team had better have some pretty radical answers, on the order of a "New Deal" in programs and restructuring because "business as usual" will mean absolute financial failure, with no second term for Obama. There will be no time for second guessing so they'd better get it right the first time and given their Chicago bloodlines that looks very 'iffy' indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although I've read various analyses as to Obama and Hillary's policy proclivities, Obama has always struck me a Republican-lite on economic issues, and when you consider he's always had more hedgefund support, I'm worried that we might wind up with misguided, dogmatically right-wing, economic policy that sounds liberal. Additionally, his recently announced tax policies give even more reason for gloom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As I've claimed for over a year on this site, Senator Obama is being heavily funded by the corporate world, most notably the financial, insurance, and real estate sectors. It appears, based upon his selection of people to advise him economically, that we're going to have another neoliberal in the White House next January. It will truly be, "business as usual".

So, not surprisingly, the race/gender dilemma was always a smokescreen, shrewdly contrived to make the electorate believe true change was on the horizon. I always had my doubts. Now, in light of Naomi Klein's article, I'm convinced: If you vote for either major party's candidate this fall, you get to pick your poison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Obama campaign has a link for you to share your ideas with him. We should be flooding him with our ideas, not just sitting on AlterNet discussing amongst ourselves. We talk about a more responsive political process, it begins with giving our political figures something to respond to. You have to scroll down the page to find the place to send your ideas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Nation and Klein have done a disservice in reserving this criticism until after the primaries ended. Last winter, Paul Krugman, among others, expressed the same concerns Klein now has. At that time, the Nation was acting like Obama was some kind of progressive savior. Anyone paying attention to his track record, platform, and choice in advisors, knew he was not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even in a perfect democracy, elections are about choosing the lesser demon. The policies of an Obama administration will not bring about utopia. My native pessimism only allows me to hope that the next president will at least sound intelligent when he speaks to the nation. I miss being able to listen to the president speak. From now on, only the biggest voices will be heard by the campaign on either side, and I am happy to hear and support the voice of Naomi Klein.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Chicago school of economics promotes the agenda of austerity for the poor, opulence for the rich. This is that "magic" of the free market they always harp on about. It was none other than billionaire George Soros who said that anyone who believes in the moral redemption of the free market is an imbecile. So Senator Obama believes in the free market? Draw your own conclusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

money and fame have to say about the future of the left? Just wondering...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Based on the latest NBC/WSJ poll:

No Democrat running for president has won the male vote since 1964. White men, about 40 percent of the electorate, prefer McCain over Obama, 55 percent to 35 percent.

The NBC/WSJ pollsters said, "Pluralities of white male voters say they don't like Senator Obama and don't relate to his background and perceived values. In contrast, by a 2-to-1 ratio, they express positive views of Senator McCain and identify with his background and values."

So there you have it. Klein doesn't have to worry about Obama perpetuating the neoliberal policies that hurt avg Joe/Jane (white or colored). Thanks to white male voters, McPain will continue the elites agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The University of Chicago was funded (and co-founded) by John D. Rockefeller for the express purpose of training managers (lackeys) needed for his burgeoning global empire. Both our screwed up economic system and our dumb them down education system came from the University of Chicago. Indeed this institution has done more then almost any other to advance the globalist One World Government agenda over the last 100 years.

Who better to "close the deal" on Globalism then the slick snake oil salesman ugly globalist step-child O-BOMB-A?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gas consumption has dropped by almost 5%. Guess what, the price is going down. As long as people flock to Walmart to buy alot of junk made in China it won't matter who's in the White House. Walmart is bigger than EXXON. American people have more control here than any politician or president. Other countries have gotten rid of them or kept them out to begin with, and for good reason. We can't change the way Walmart operates but we can control their operation. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Love of Markets means...


Hurry up and Bend over...( ! )..!


I voting against McCain, not for Obama..

I was for Edwards but the Democrats blew it..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm reluctantly voting for Obama in the hopes that he will place one or more socially liberal judges on the bench.

However, with repespect to the economy, we have no hope. Both democrats and repugs worship the same devil i.e. the free market.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All this talk of the election and the political stance of the candidates is, for the moment, keeping us from confronting the real issue: total financial collapse of the US dollar. When this happens, all bets will be off. So will the election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did the progressive media hide facts about Obama, his advisors and their positions on issues, did they not do the legwork to find out, or did they choose not to publish articles on their websites because they wanted him to be elected? Where is the public to go for factual information to make up their own minds about candidates?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE've been pushed from a Free market doctrine to a Capitalist agenda to the enslavement of corporationism.
I am all for the Free market- let people be able to offer their 'wares' and compete for customers by providing a better product.
Capitalism is far different- it is based on Cutthroat tactics to undermine the competition
Corportionism is based on eliminating All competition and holding the Market hostage, by being the Only game in town- esp in essential resources.A tactic which makes US endentured and enslaved by the fact of necessity.
Another area I will be listening for from Sen Obama. I will vote for him in Nov- but I will reserve the right to continue evaluating His performance throughtout his Presidency.No future President Should EVER claim a mandate, it's a confession of their Blind Ambitions and potential for Abuse of Power.
Convicting this Admin on their numerous Crimes would send that message loud and clear!
Another area He has failed to speak Loudly enough about.
But then again when even your Primary Opponent is willing to suggest asssasination - you may want to keep some of your thoughts and intentions close to the vest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems to me you all are reaching for a paradigm that does not and never has existed. You can shout down Obama for triangulating on issues and ignore the fact that someone his position must walk a tightrope be elected. between differnt segments of the public and business interests one must walk an incredible thin line to be in the position he is in. Some of you who've seen his speeches might have heard him say that he alone would not be able to change things, and that the real impetus for change is meaningful public involvement. From my perspective it seems Barak Obama on many levels does represent a meaningful change in our political landscape, and there is certainly no question that an Obama presidency would be eons away from the bullshit we've been suffering through for the last eight years.

Point is, at some point those who truly want to change these circumstances need to take some fucking responsibility and maybe act accordingly. None of this would of happened had our collective society not allowed it to happen, and I personally don't know a solitary soul who has not in some way benefited from our corpoarate funded infrastructure. If this is something that we truly want to see a shift in, perhaps we should stop cast stones from our own glass houses. Truth be told, most of us shop at corporate outlets, purchase gas, and food, and clothes from this infrastructure. It is not impossible to be independent of such devices, but we as a society have forgotten this. At the same time we bemoan politicians who operate within its framework to change things for the better. So if you disagree with how our infrastructure is operating, I suggest revolution as an alternative. Otherwise, I believe you benefit from exactly what you decry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is quite true -- whichever party you pick you are picking your poison -- HOWEVER, recent history has shown tha whenever:
the Republicans win... it is two steps backwards from a balanced economy.
the Democrats win -- we have (with Clinton as proof) had a 2 steps forward in the form of a strong, short-term economy and two steps backward in the long term by nailing down programs like NAFTA that helped break the back of our hard working middle class.
It seems to me:
if we elect a Republican this time around -- they will most probably accept it as a mandate and move in for the kill.
if we elect a Democrat this time around --
at the very least, they will have to work with us a little.
So folks, as far as I can see, the answer appears to be: it is in our own best interest to elect a democrat -- and not allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of security - but watch him like a hawk, while creating a strong union of citizenry that support decisions which move us towards the kind of change that does not allow one class to strip the others of the opportunity to work for "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".
I greatly respect Ms. Klein, her insight and her writings. However, I am wondering what she thinks, under the circumstances, our options are? And how we can work together towards forcing the rebalancing of our governmental structure?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whilst there is many thinks about the American economy that need changing, I wonder in all this free market bashing what it is that the left propose should be put in its place. The general arguments by many people on the left seem to be that government’s should exercise greater control and power over the economy. However the left also attack governments and rightfully so when they exercise their power and control of the personal lives of their citizens, just look at the disastrous government policies such as the war on drugs and the blatant disregard of civil liberties within the PATRIOT act. If as I believe that the government cant be trusted interfering into my personal life and society as a whole, why should we trust it and think that only good will follow if it is given greater control of the economy.

I have just always seen it as a blatant hypocrisy by many on the left to think that society and the personal lives of individuals work best when the government does not intervene, however on the other hand they believe that the market and economy work best when the government does control it. And conservatives also suffer for the inverse hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is important we have this information & then,as informed progressives,do futher investigation to be fully armed with info.You most definitely gave us a real start. That said , I do keep a running list of pros & cons on both Obama & McCain. So far the Arizona senator's negatives greatly outweigh Senator Obama.As we slide further into the campaign more will be revealed regarding both including Obama & we may disagree greatly with them. The markets,are a reality.Obama's comment as far as I am concerned are part of 21st Century reality.The question is to what degree will this truly interfere with other items on Obama's agenda. Wal-Mart? I never shop there.I would like to have ALL types of folks on my team. Remember "Dubya" was surrounded soley by clones with no differing perspectives & if one begged to differ, a resignation appeared. Mary Basombrio

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...that CORPORATIONS **permitted** Obama to become a party leader...

BUT TOOK THE GLOVES OFF FOR KUCINICH??

wake up.


Obama is not your Great Hope.

...your RIGHTS TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY & FREE SPEECH are your BEATING HEART OF DEMOCRACY...

but Americans are so starry-eyed over OBAMA, they're letting their RIGHTS swirl down the drain while they chant, "YES, WE CAN!"


...until a corporation is inconvenienced & you WILL be silenced.

on your knees, Citizen!

Taking Liberties - watch it WHILE YOU CAN.



┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
" ...tolerance of intolerance is cowardice... ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a difference, a HUGE difference, between correcting the giant and growing imperfections of market economics and the government trying to force a view of morality on the populace. The government is not intruding on the rights of individuals if, for instance, it creates a tax for pollution. Individuals create costs, that are socialized in years off our life, worsening health and the destruction of the commons. These costs exist, and are not captured within the economic system. The government is simply making the people who created the costs pay for it. When the government tries to do something like correct large and growing wealth concentration, it is not taking wealth from someone who “earned” it and giving it to another. The financial markets have grown far faster than the underlying economy, they’ve basically lost all relationship with the real economy. How does this happen? How does a group within society, investors, create wealth far and above the real economy? Simply by creating debt instruments that can never be paid back because job creation and the wages don’t keep up with the growing debt.

Investors also increase their wealth by monopolizing the work of others. If I invest and increase my wealth, I didn’t add a single thing to the world myself. I’ve increased my wealth by monopolizing the work of someone else that works in the company I’ve invested in. That, because it is the basis of capitalism, is not “theft” according to people like you. I think it is. Either way, it isn’t honest or logically sound to say that taking back some of that wealth creation is the government stealing from that person. They’re simply taken back what was never theirs, correcting an imperfection in the economic system. Ecological costs, which are large and growing, are COMPLETELY missing in the pricing mechanism and national indices. This is another huge problem, something economists like Herman Daly have been talking about for a while. Again, correcting this imperfection would involve the government.

Then there’s the issue of democracy. In today’s globalized world if a country chooses a set of policies that investors don’t like the investors simply take their money out of the country, causing that country’s economy to collapse. Investors have this power now more than any time since pre-Depression America. If you do believe in both democracy and the free market you do have a really tough choice to make, excuse the left if they happen to chose democracy and not one dollar one vote. We are, after all, only doing what’s in OUR (about 2/3’s of the world) best interest, and you certainly couldn’t fault us for that. Look at the Breton Woods negotiations right after WWII and tell me that this “globalization” process is inevitable. Every representative there, including the US’s and Britain’s, were STRONGLY in favor of things like capital controls and they thought those controls should be permanent. Kennedy said that the idea that financial interests should undermine the government ability to provide social services was “absurd”. Keynes himself foresaw many of the problems of today regarding debt and devised a plan to stop that danger. He was only stopped by elite financial interests and there’s no way in hell if people understood the issue at hand that they would have or would now side with the bankers’ position.

I don’t mean to ramble on, I’m just fed up with the cliché comments I hear about government’s intrusion into the market from the “free market” folk. I’ve seen no evidence what so ever that the “free market” people can differentiate between theory and the reality that the theory creates, and I’ve seen little evidence that they can even spot the fact that so called “free trade” today has nothing to with the free trade they teach in school.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To assert that the left is against capitalism is absurd. The left desires a government that reigns in the avarice, excess, and myopia of the market.

There is no ideological inconsistency in desiring the government to take greater control of the market and wanting the government to not intervene in the private lives of citizens.

Markets are social creations occurring in the public sphere, whereas people's private lives are just that private, and the Constitution guarantees the protection of personal liberty.

No one's freedom is restrained by the existence of a government that spends more money on domestic- non military expenses and reigns in the excesses of capitalism. Freedom is rightly considered the condition of being free and unfettered in one's thought, speech, writing, association, marriage, and ability to terminate a pregnancy.



Where the right-wing got the absurd notion that freedom also means the existence of an unencumbered money making, environmentally destructive, social creation, I do not know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The economic ignorance in this comment section (and article) would be funny if it did not mirror the views of our political class and voting electorate by a staggering margin.

The irony of course is that we live in the world's largest, most diverse economy precisley because our government was (for a time) restricted by the constitution to subsidize, regulate, inflate and muck up the free exchange of goods and services. Capitalism today is a mere shell of its former shadow and it will continue get a bad rap as long as the government remains intensely involved in all things economic. Kinda like the Soviet Union.

And here we are today, wimpering and yammering for MORE regulation, higher taxes, especially on the "windfall profits" (impossible to define) of "evil corporations" (like the one that made your PC?). Even better, the left is worried - "Say it ain't so!" - that Obama might sympathize with a philosophy that has afforded us the highest standrad of living in the world (wouldn't lose any sleep over that btw, he's in LOVE with regulation). Talk about captor syndrome!

Try reading up on the Austrian School of Economics, notably Ludwig von Mises. You'll be glad you did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you say: "The left desires a government that reigns in the avarice, excess, and myopia of the market", you might add on to that: "with your money, whether you like it or not."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The most depressing book at least at this moment in time is Kevin Phillips' Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism.

Basically Phillps says we're screwed. There are things--such as re-regualtion of the financial, securities and banking sector--which may ameliorate this country's looming economic collapse, but not much. Harvard School of Business MBAs in their ultimate wisdom have hollowed out America's industrial base in favor of financialization, and no national economy can survive on merely moving money round to make more money.

Sorry.......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok, maybe Barak is no great hope, and everyhting will essentially remain the same with a few changes here and there. In that case, at the very least he's given millions of people, perhaps even billions if you look around the world, hope that The United States is not completely fucking insane. Plus, he really isn't that vague in the things that he says. that's more a rightwing talking point than anything. Finally, save for Carter, when's the last time any of you saw a MORE progressive candidate in this position. Make no mistake, Barak Obama is good news even if doesn't nationalize all of our interests. He's a pragmatist which is what the world actually needs. that includes us by the way, so lets maybe try to be more practical. As for those who think revolution is necessary, Derek Jensen has some actionable advice on that even though he's a little up his own ass. sitting on your ass typing wont do it though

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Welly welly welly,all you Democrat droogs.The US won't have a change of leadership,whichever party gets in.The commanding heights of the economy will still be running the country,so your choice is between right wing and extreme right wing.
Naomi Klein is right,to fear the influence of the Chicago school on Obama.I'm glad that he has a very good Keynesian on his team,but I wouldn't bet on any progressive economomist winning the battle for influence.
In some ways though,this article merely updates what we already know..that The Democrats ,are politically bankrupt,and their policies are far short of what is needed to save America.The poor will get screwed,there will be an insufficient raise in the minimum wage,there won't a socialised health system,ceos will still get paid several hundred times more than a fire-fighter (a vile insult,if ever there was one),the environment too (but maybe slightly less than under flip-flop McCain),and the troops will stay where they are not wanted.
This latter policy,is a good illustration of corporate control,in the USA today.Iraq will have a US military prescence because all the big companies see Iraq as the current, biggest, potential market in the world today,and a source to fuel the dying embers of US petrol addiction.
The big boys will still be in power,if their is a Democrat in the Whitehouse.Even Rupert 'Mr Burns'Murdoch has been saying nice things about Obama,that shows how unradical the presidential candidate is.
When Murdoch backed Bob Hawke in Australia and Tony Blair in the UK,it was taken as read, that these two, would be the most free market and right wing labour leaders, their countries have ever had.
This support was tactically astute on Murdoch's part,as their respective election victories, and subsequent ditching of social-democracy, destroyed much of the parties former radicalism.This ensured a cementing of right wing economics,for the foreseeable future.The centre ground is now quite right wing.
American liberals/leftists and centrists, need to psychologically move beyond, their belief in The Democratic Party.
Not voting,seems to be the best alternative,hand in hand with the formation of a new radical party,which is tied to progressive values,belief in the constitution,and actually representing the people,not the unelected business interests.
A Democrat victory in November will merely neuter the growing anger,and desire for real democracy and fairness in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I believe wholeheartedly that as long as it is two corporate parties it is the lesser of two evils.. I think there are many things about Obama that are quite unsavory but count on the fact I will be there voting for him...as if I can sway things a bit towards a less horrible future I will.. and the Supreme Court is quite an issue.. I still believe in the old concept of LEVELING and will continue to work towards that end.. I never thought Obama is a Saviour however a halt to the BS path that we are on.... and at least a semblance of a step back to sanity is worth a trip to the voting booth..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The last real Democrat -- that is, a Democrat who dared stand up for the principles of the New Deal -- was Robert F. Kennedy.

But even if RFK had not been murdered, his presidency might have been too little too late.

The Democrats had already demonstrated their mastery of stealth fascism. It became their identifying characteristic in 1964, when Lyndon Baines Johnson disguised himself as the peace candidate, and once in office -- literally only hours after his inauguration -- gave the orders that contrived the Gulf of Tonkin incident and began the Vietnam War.

Those of us who saw what was happening -- mostly working press folks -- began to suspect LBJ's peace-candidate disguise had been the greatest election fraud in U.S. history, that Goldwater's rabid warmongering may well have been nothing more than a red herring.

But nobody could find the proverbial smoking gun (or even a spent cartridge case that still smelled of freshly-burned powder), and the perpetrators (which in this instance should be spelled “perpetraitors”) all went unpunished.

Thus, predictably, the Democrats have ambushed us in every election they’ve won since then.

Carter convinced us he was not a theocrat -- never mind that forcible imposition of theocracy is a key part of the Southern Baptist agenda -- but once in office smirkingly betrayed the entire cause of reproductive freedom, granting his fellow theocrats a permanent ban on all federal funding for abortions.

The Clintons rode to victory on the concerns of U.S. workers but immediately began outsourcing most of our jobs, stealing our paychecks via NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and WTO, and effectively spitting in our faces ("I feel your pain") when we protested. The Clintons also destroyed what little remained of the socioeconomic safety net, flinging millions of impoverished families into circumstances that now amidst runaway fuel prices and worsening economic collapse amount to deliberate euthanasia by neglect and deprivation.

And what of the Clinton’s effort at health care reform? Could any such skilled and sophisticated political operatives have so thoroughly botched anything save by conscious intent? Perhaps the result -- that the achievement of single-payer healthcare in the U.S. is now obstructed forever -- was part of their own hidden agenda all along. Perhaps that’s why the health insurance industry -- the Sultans of Sick -- have since rewarded the Clintons with such unprecedented generosity.

A close observer of U.S. politics since the 1950s -- the Democratic Party's craven betrayal of the New Deal actually began during its cowardly submission to the McCarthy purges -- I concluded long ago that our two-party system is exactly like the Ku Klux Klan: some members, analogous to the Republicans, flaunt their sheets and eye-holed pillow-cases at cross-burnings and in public; they make no secret of their passions for theocracy and fascism. Other members, analogous to the Democrats, pretend fealty to the principles of justice even as they keep their sheets and pillowcases in closeted readiness.

In other words, the only differences between Democrats and Republicans are rhetorical differences. The GOPorkers boast openly of their intent to enslave and oppress, while the DemocRats promise us liberty but like the Republicans invariably afflict us with slavery and oppression instead.

The bottom line -- virtually proven by the appointment of Wal-Mart’s fanatical apologist Jason Furman -- is that Obama promises to be as much a snake as any other Democrat. I will vote for him nonetheless, but only by the reflex that prompts me (though I already know the car battery is hopelessly dead), to press the starter button one last time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do you turn an oil tanker with a row boat?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being a progressive should not mean a knee-jerk reaction condemning markets. Of course markets sometimes need regulating and inequalities need correcting. But we shouldn't ignore that markets sometimes work well. Would anyone really prefer a complete state socialist economy? It seems to me that extremism in economics in either direction is a recipe for disaster. Obama strikes me first and foremost as a pragmatist, but his instincts are progressive. He will make some compromises, as any successful politician will, but the country will be much better off as a result of 8 years of his presidency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cooked the goose that laid the golden egg. There is no such thing as a free market in a fiat currency system...and all will be learning this lesson in due time. Painfully, I might add.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!! Well, if you want more of the same, Obama or Mccain will do you just fine. However, if you really want change, let's give 3rd party candidates such as Ralph Nader a chance. And don't give me more BULLSHIT such as "we gotta vote "democrat" because those mean republicans will finish screwing up america. wah ! wah !" FORGET ABOUT VOTING DEMOCRAT !! DON'T YOU SEE WHAT THEY FUCKING DONE ?!?!? AND JUST LOOK AT THEIR CAVING IN ON THE WAR-OCCUPATION SPENDING AND THE TELECOM IMMUNITY GIVE AWAYS !!! Are you happy that the Democrats caved in to the GOP and sold you OUT OUT OUT for the past 28 years ?!?!?!? If so, go ahead and let the Democrats take your votes away and shit on you just like the GOP has done to its social base ! Happy now ?!?!?!?

If Obama keeps this idiocity up, he can very well end up LOSING AS MANY AS 50 STATES to Mccain come November and don't even think about blaming Nader !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You must never forget Obama is FROM Chicago. They know how to keep the mobsters away: Embrace them. By taking in Furman he has bought protection. He knows what these guys did to Robert Kennedy. Keynes the great old queer economist and thinker who has saved us so many times is well and alive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only differences between the two is Hillary has a little common sense, is far more qualified to run a country, and doesn't lie about her corporate ties and support of Israel just to win a nomination. Congrats, Obama supportors, you just got duped by the biggest con artist in candidate history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is absolutely no market mechanism that will automatically ensure that effective demand will be sufficient to drive the capitalist economy toward the full utilization of resources and the full employment of labor. One reason is that the increasing corporate monopolization of markets, an inevitable charactoristic of late capitalism, results in continual price, and thus profit, increases without offsetting increases in investment and output thus causing chronic economic stagnation. The grounding of this dynamic is found in micro-economic studies at the level of the corporate business organization whose pricing practices are not determined by supply and demand or any other "market fundamentals" but by a principle called cost plus pricing which is a form of administered prices. Cost plus pricing procedures involve calculating the cost of producing a given product plus a certain rate of profit to set the final price. Prices are set with the goals of expanding market share, covering existing fixed and other costs allowing the survival of the firm.

Price competition is not a systematic feature of late capitalism as price wars will hurt profits and an inability to meet high fixed costs creating lowered investment, unemployment and recession. Market concentration occurs not so much through price competition but through swings in the business cycle and recessions that lead to mergers and the growth in the average size of the business corporation in a given set of industries.

Since capitalist production takes place without any necessary consideration of the limits of the market it leads to over-capacity (over accumulation of capital) and frenzied efforts to clear markets in order to support prices, profits and the expansion of business activity. Efforts to stem a falling average rate of profit due to overproduction involve less price cutting, which cuts profits more than it expands further market sales, than increased investment in the "sales effort" through advertizing, government deficit spending on business contracts, particularly the military, and on mass consumption as well as the rapid expansion of consumer credit to sustain growth and clear inventory often without reducing prices. In recent times such credit has been driven by stock market and housing market bubbles. The chronic stagnation of late capitalism leads to various financial efforts to sustain the system in the face of low consumer demand. The current instability seen in the US economy today is the consequence of this problem.

Thus, the return of stagflation can not be considered a monetary function or consequence of low real interest rates and excess money in circulation. Until recently, monetary aggregates have risen in proportion to economic growth. The largest monetary aggregate, M-3, contains many non-liquid finanical assets having long time horizens for maturity and thus can be considered savings more than credit or money. Stagflation seems to be the rigidity of monopoly pricing due to high fixed costs and barriers to market entry for potential new competitors, high input costs such as energy, low price elasticity of demand (oil and grain) and market concentration along with low demand and economic growth causing a fall off in investment, recession, unemployment and a falling rate of profit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

David Harvey, one of the certifiably most smart people alive today, is uploading a 13-episode lecture-course on video closely reading Karl Marx's magnum opus on the structure and logic of Capitalism, Das Kapital. He's one of the most cogent critics of Capitalism today, and allows heaps of his lectures, interview, talks and articles to be accessed online. If you don't have the time for the course, look up his talks on neoliberalism and the global capitalist order.

If you want to know what's going wrong, this is the best way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...is a tall order. But we can try.

I suggest sarcasm and ridicule.

As a University of Chicago alumna, I usually respond to their requests for money with the statement that they can have it all -- as soon as they have full equity, full parity, in women physical science faculty at all levels, and in all departments. This means fully 50% of their geophysics and mathematics senior faculty and professors emerita are female. Ain't gonna happen, but it has prompted them to at least put more female faces in their appeals to the alumni for funding of the Physical Sciences Division.

Last month, however, I received some even more disgusting news than The University of Chicago's flouting of Title IX's requirements for equitable treatment of women in science for a full 35 years.

Robert J. Zimmer writes to the alumnae and alumni with this:

Today, the University announced the establishment of the Milton Friedman Institute, following the recommendations of a faculty committee and discussions with appropriate faculty bodies....

He goes on to praise Milton Friedman for like four paragraphs, including:

Milton Friedman's intellectual fearlessness, commitment to rigorous analysis...

and

The Milton Friedman Institute will occupy buildings that currently house the Chicago Theological Seminary

and

The University's financial commitment to the Institute will be in the range of $200 million...


First of all, why the hell are they subsidizing this at all -- when the point they're trying to make is that the market should determine whether institutions live or die? Why don't they just have a fucking bake sale, try to raise their two hundred mil that way?

Second of all, in the Theological Seminary building? That's like sacrilege.

My response was thus:

Dear Robert J. Zimmer

Why don't you use some of that money to commission a statue commemorating Milton Friedman's accomplishments?

Why, perhaps it depict Chilean torture victims circa 1973-82 writhing in the agony of their death, to illustrate the human cost of the policy recommendations arising from Milton Friedman's "intellectual rigor."

Perhaps you could call it rigor mortise.

And how fitting to put the name of a 20th Century Torquemada on the Seminary buildings.

Have a nice day, Bob.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Said that almost a year ago - got flamed.
At least he did not serve on the Walmartboard.
Thanks Ms. Klein - I hope more people will read your books - real eyeopeners for many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just came across this website which is providing CMS based Free Campaign websites for Contesting Candidates

http://www.ezcampaigns.com/free-campaigns-sites.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course, "Disaster Capitalism" girl tells it like it's not for the umpteenth round.

#1: so-called "capitalism" or "free markets" have been a joke since Fascist robber barons took over America with their Orwellian private monopoly "Federal Reserve" Corp in 1913.

It's called FASCISM where "Capitalism", "Free Markets" and "democracy" DO NOT EXIST except as propaganda slogans.

Naomi Kleins' screed is an empty bit of dogma fluff for the gullible. And Obama is a corporate monopoly Stepford drone with marching orders supplied by the ruling class that funded most of his campaign with ersatz "war on terror", etc. His advisors are virtually all old, handpicked CFR hacks.

You want to talk economists (i.e. hack soothsayers)? Here are a few of the scant quotes worth knowing from any of the lot.


“The process by which banks create money [out of nothing] is so simple that the mind is repelled…The study of money, above all other fields is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or evade truth, not to reveal it.”
John Kenneth Galbraith (renowned economist Quote 1975. 1908-2006)

“The Federal Reserve System is a legal private monopoly of the money supply operated for the benefit of the few under the guise of protecting and promoting the public interest."
Anthony Sutton (Professor Economics at CSU and research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. 1925-2002)

“Absolute power and lack of accountability by the Fed are generally defended on one ground alone: that any change would weaken the Federal Reserve’s allegedly inflexible commitment to wage a seemingly “permanent” fight against inflation. This is the Johnny-one-note of the Fed’s defense of its unbridled power… The Fed, far from being the indispensable solution to inflation is the heart and cause of the problem.”
Murray Rothbard (Austrian school economist and historian. From the “Case Against the Fed” 1994)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wasn't surprised when Obama confirmed his pro-workfare goals. This is an issue that has not been well-addressed in the media, but in short: Workfare has created a massive no choice/bottom wage workforce to spare US corporations the cost of moving our jobs to Third World countries in search of exploitable, super-cheap labor. Best of all, Americans approve of these policies, so they can't complain when they lose their jobs.
Workfare/welfare-reform is actually a spider's web of interrelated policies that are changing the whole of the American workforce. Government provides companies with financial "incentives" to use workfare temp labor, and workfare workers need never fear being unemployed. It is to every company's advantage to break family-supporting jobs into part time, bottom wage jobs, further decreasing their costs. (Not that they're selfish. The intent is to give Americans more free time, to teach better money management skills, and to teach us how to appreciate the simple things in life.)
Inevitably, a number of the newly laid off are left with no choice but to become workfare labor, too, if only as their only means of obtaining health care for their children. This has steadily increased the pool of super-cheap labor.
Workfare continues to be a powerful tool not only for for suppressing wages, but for crushing unions, relieving workers of the stress caused by disruptive labor strikes.
It's a new day in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]