As he campaigns for the Democratic nomination for president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) often sounds like he’s running as much against me as he is the other candidates. I have never met the senator, but I know from listening to him that we disagree on plenty when it comes to public policy.
Even so, I see benefits in searching for common ground and greater civility during this overly negative campaign season. That’s why, in spite of the fact that he often misrepresents where I stand on issues, the senator should know that we do agree on at least one — an issue that resonates with people who feel that hard work and making a contribution will no longer enable them to succeed.
The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.
I agree with him.…The "rigged system" is one of Bernie's key key ledes, so this is significant as a basis from which to start. In my view, it is foundational. It is therefore the starting point of any agreement.
The Washington Post — Opinion
Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right
Charles G. Koch | chairman and chief executive of Koch Industries
25 comments:
Of course the system is rigged. Government-subsidies* for private credit creation mean that those with equity need not share it but may instead legally steal the purchasing power of the less so-called credit worthy.
*including the implicit subsidy of failure to provide inherently risk-free Treasury or Central Bank fiat accounts to all citizens, businesses, local governments, etc., leaving the general population no option but to deal through a government-privileged usury cartel, eg. commercial banks, credit unions, etc., or be limited to unsafe, unwieldy physical fiat - coins and bills.
If someone builds a bunch of houses and the price of houses goes down, have they 'stolen' the value of your house?
Wow good comment Phillipe...
The MMTer top-enders will say "it is about price not quantity!" all the time yet imo they dont even have a clue what this phrase really means....
And as far a Koch the guy is a serpent here...
The solution to out of control libertarianism is NOT more libertarianism... dont let him take you in....
You are attacking a figure of speech, "libertarianism"...
See what I did there?
Ok oops let me rephrase that then...
The solution to a situation in which there is inadequate authority being implemented is not for even less authority to be implemented....
Thanks! ;)
"The "rigged system" is one of Bernie's key key ledes"
How about if you find yourself in agreement with this guy, then that should be a TIP OFF that there is something wrong with your basic approach...
The system NEEDS to be 'rigged'...
It is now 'rigged' by incompetent morons which is the problem...
You dont solve this by attacking the concept of "rigging"....
Glass-Steagall Act = "rigging"
"The solution to a situation in which there is inadequate authority being implemented is not for even less authority to be implemented...."
But why write this when you can summarize it using one word? Economy of language is very powerful and is something we do all the time in every area of knowledge to abstract concepts and ideas. My point being that is the same use case than "neoliberalism".
OFC when you are trying to make a serious argument you shouldn't relay on figures of speech and be exhaustive. The problem is not using figures of speech, the problem is not knowing your audience Matt.
There is no problem with your initial phrase in the context of this blog, it would be a problem is trying to communicate with a wider audience. Maybe that's the point you try to make so often?
If someone builds a bunch of houses and the price of houses goes down, have they 'stolen' the value of your house? Philippe
Actually, government subsidies for private credit creation tend to drive up land and other asset prices.
But there's no doubt that government subsidies for private credit creation have resulted in vast improvements and real price reductions in consumer products like personal computers, autos, etc. - but at the cost of vast, unjust wealth inequality.
Moreover, those same, if not more*, improvements could have been obtained with ethical financing by:
1) allowing accounts at the central bank for individual citizens, businesses, organizations, local governments, etc. and not just for members of the usury cartel, eg. commercial banks, credit unions, etc.
2) perpetual deficit** spending by the monetary sovereign for projects that improve the common welfare, including equal fiat distributions to all citizen accounts at the central bank to drive down interest rates in fiat.
*Let's never forget that the Great Depression, caused by the banking cartel as Ben Bernanke admitted, was a major cause of World War II with its catastrophic destruction of human lives and real wealth .
**be the deficts ever so small should price inflation become a problem. A monetary sovereign should NEVER intentionally run a budget surplus because of the bad precedent it sets - eq. rewarding risk-free money hoarding. Also, the deficits should be run with interest-free fiat to avoid welfare proportional to the amount of sovereign debt one owns.
authority
"Authority" is another high level abstraction, as is "society" and "government."
There's a reason that scientifically inclined economists prefer microfoundations. The problem there is that "rational agent" is an abstraction, too.
Impossible to use ordinary language and not use abstraction.
Even math is an abstraction when it abstracts from quality through quantification.
"The "rigged system" is one of Bernie's key key ledes"
How about if you find yourself in agreement with this guy, then that should be a TIP OFF that there is something wrong with your basic approach...
The system NEEDS to be 'rigged'...
The system needs to be managed for public purpose rather than rigged for special interests.
Glass-Steagall Act = "rigging"
Glass-Steagall Act = managing for public purpose.
The most interesting thing for me about the Koch op-ed is that he wrote it at all. This begs the question why?
At least part of that answer seems to be that he is taking what Bernie stands for seriously and wants to get a ahead of it instead of being steamrollered by it.
This is not just Bermie, of course. The ruling elite is getting nervous about the momentum of the movement that Bernie is now the chief spokesman for.
People criticized Occupy for not being specific with their demands. Well, now Bernie is doing from the bully pulpit of a serious presidential candidate that some polls are beginning to show his candidacy pulling out front.
Amplifying, I see momentum building. A mass that began to congeal with Occupy is increasing, and its leftward velocity accelerating now that "socialism" is becoming cool.
Just as this mass separated itself from Occupy, so too it is likely not tied to Bernie and won't just disappear if he losses the nomination.
This is a movement building that is reminiscent of the countercultural revolution of the Sixties and Seventies that was also driven by the anti-war movement. This looks like it is going to be with us for awhile. Could be very big as the older ones die off and the younger ones start taking their places.
The Boomers are now starting to move through the final stage of life. The Millennials are the next wave generation.
... and its leftward velocity accelerating now that "socialism" is becoming cool. Tom Hickey
Government subsidies for private credit creation constitute socialism for the rich, the most so-called worthy of government subsidized private credit.
Those opposed to socialism, which certainly has its faults, no doubt, should have known the bad precedent they were setting by allowing it for usurers and the most so-called creditworthy, the rich.
"Government subsidies for private credit creation constitute socialism for the rich, the most so-called worthy of government subsidized private credit."
Andrew, I admire your persistence and you are mostly correct.
However a well-designed banking system helps prevent the concentration of equity in society. If I want to start a business and the bank won't lend, then I have to find a rich person and sell them most of my business to get the money necessary to get it going. That turns me from an entrepreneur with ownership into an unpaid lackey dancing to the tune of the Vulture Capitalist class. I don't think banks are completely useless.
"If I want to start a business and the bank won't lend, then I have to find a rich person and sell them most of my business to get the money necessary to get it going." Random
Perhaps you missed this?
2) perpetual deficit** spending by the monetary sovereign for projects that improve the common welfare, including equal fiat distributions to all [individual, that is] citizen accounts at the central bank to drive down interest rates in fiat. aa [bold added]
Besides, commercial banks, credit unions, etc. would still exist; they'll just have to honestly borrow their reserves for a change.
And perhaps you haven't noticed that the proper abolition of government-provided deposit insurance should require the equal distribution of vast amounts of new fiat to the population? To finance the transfer of at least some currently insured deposits to inherently risk-free accounts at the central bank? Reducing the need to borrow in the first place?
@Phillipe
I agree with Matt, excellent comment.
In that same vein, complaining about falling prices unjustly robbing your wealth is the same as not complaining about rising prices adding to your wealth. Ive yet to hear the owner of a house or stock whose price is rising suggest that they haven't really earned any of that wealth.
In that same vein, complaining about falling prices unjustly robbing your wealth ... Greg
That's precisely what unethically financed automation has done - robbed people of their jobs with their own legally stolen purchasing power.
And given that the unemployed can't afford much there goes consumption and investment is less likely to pay off too, given the lower propensity of the rich to consume.
Besides, the current system clearly violates equal protection under the law since fiat is a Nation's Money and the citizens should be allowed to deal with fiat the same as the usury cartel does - via inherently risk-free accounts at the central bank - and not be limited to unsafe, unwieldy physical fiat, ie. coins and paper bills*.
*which are soon to be abolished anyway if some get their way, leaving the population entirely at the mercy of the usury cartel.
@Andrew
Im talking more about asset prices like houses or stocks but I agree with your point about automation and its second and third order affects
Post a Comment