Questions about Obama and Co's "Interventionist" Strategy

In terms of my previous work with regards to Obama's mistake is compromising the economic status quo players....

We can see that Bernanke is definitely deserving of an A for effort in terms of avoiding the mistakes the policymakers supposedly made before and during the great depression.

However what if the kinds of approaches that might have worked then won't work or don't apply here? What if we are dealing with something much deeper than as an issue of a housing bubble that has infected the financial sector?

What they are basically is that they have to pursue Fed credit policies contrary to what people have been educated to see as normal reason and logical judgment in terms of the role of government. This is of course be very much contrary to conventional wisdom about the state of the economy. The idea of a president ejecting a CEO of one of the largest American corporation just shows how far things slipped in a very short period of time.

While it is good to see that on some level Bernanke has some concerns about possibly a deeper problem, on the public level at least he seems to give little indication that he sees a problem on a fundamental level such as relating to the distorted dynamics of the national economy and unsustainable indebtedness of the world's lone superpower.

The Fed's powers are limited because it is long term economic policies put in place neoclassical economists that's the ultimate cause for America's economic malaise. This led to the shift towards debt spending to finance American's economic prosperity and a focus on short term individual gain for a very rich few over the long term economic security of the vast majority.

Obama's Admin Leans toward Agribusiness & GMOs

More news on Obama admin.

Tom Visack is now in line to be Obama's Secretary of Agriculture - Despite strong opposition from progressives in the sustainability and agriculture communities.

The former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack it is claimed by these groups to have actively supported genetically engineered crops and is not a friend to organic gardeners.
Rather they claim he is a friend to the Monsanto, which vigorously promotes
genetic engineering and viciously opposes (not an exaggeration) labeling it.

You can sign this petition to try to block his confirmation and pass this along to all your friends.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1783�

Happy Birthday, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

On Dec 11, Ben de Vries sent me an email with the subject: Happy Birthday, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

First he asked that we take a look at the Wikipedia page on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Then he noted that the UN has stated that this is "not a legally enforceable device".

The he asked us to ponder what that actually means and why it is that way.

The UDHC is not a legally enforceable device on the surface because many of the UN members themselves are human rights viotators, including many of those western nations who most sanction human rights and may appear on the surface to support them in their own societies.

Indeed nation states reserve the right to abuse the human rights of their citizens if the citizens get too extreme in their notion of democracy. For example the Trilateral Commission an influential groups of elites from Europe, USA and Japan in the 70s said that there was "too much democracy" in many western nations and that there was a need to put forward "reforms" in these societies that would "moderate the democracy."

Hence we got the center right think tanks like AEI and Heritage Institute that put forward those reforms by cleverly playing into the irrational concerns of those of the right. They learned from the successful grassroots efforts of the left during the sixties to reverse that momentum all the while the leadership of the Left was incorporated into the system to become Clinton/Obama/Yuppie liberals - the Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Brown/Columbia/MIT/Stanford/etc... educated intellectual elite that believes only it has the right to govern.

Getting back to the global aspect of this. National secutity and protection of elite interest to maintain and govern trumps the public and invidual rights to automony and self-governance.

Thus if the "strategy of first consent" (http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=strategy+of+first+consent) does not work the strategy of "second consent" is to use physical force to pacify the public. For PR purposes it is always better for elites to focus on governance through the first because the illusion of democracy in a nation state can better be maintained.

The illusion of democracy is often used to build leverage against nations in the world stage that are not sophisticated to enact these kind of superficial democracy reforms that are basically spectator democracies. That is the idea that the nation state as it has evolved to become a modern mega state is not really designed to be accountable to the general public.

So the reality is that real reforms in global governance is not a peicemeal approach, it is something holistic that can consider the kind of issues we talked about the Global Summit and also makes the governance system real from the inside out. Ecological, degradation, economic injustice and inequality, lack of adequate health care and education, adequate social safety net for all citizens as well as human rights and authentic democratic process, all figure in this more holistic approach.

Without considering all of the above a society or world is not really truly considering what needs to be done in terms of promoting and forwarding humans rights among its people. Thus all this really becomes is lip service to values and indeed is a PR event that makes us feel better in supporting but in truth achieves little and that in a nut shell describes the impotence and stagnacy that the UN forwards on the world stage.

A Fundamental Cognitive Shift in how we see ourselves in the Universe

Ben de Vries says that what we need is a fundamental cognitive shift: http://web2expo.blip.tv/file/855937/ Clay Shirky (16:20)

This is about specific corporate strategy in manufacturing consent:

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51961#index-09-00-00-00

If you must section for time, read 'excluding diverging voices'. Freedom of speech, yes, but who is listening? Nestle is only an example in this reading. Think in strategic and tactical terms.

Way back when, Timothy Leary was still physically present, at least in one piece, (he was the first person to attempt to have his personality transcribed into a virtual one, but I couldn't find him to ask him about it, maybe he is busy...) he opined this concept: http://www.neilfreer.com/SRPAGE8.html.

This may resonate with some of you. I know it does with me. Again, like so many works, I find myself having to peel off the fairy tale layer to get at the meaning. In appreciation of dramatic art, there is the 'temporary suspension of disbelief'.

This might leave you feeling like you are playing out one of the roles in this piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG-TL0S3sN8 . If one takes out the obvious judeao-xtian symbolism, and tries to see it on it's own merits, what do you see?

Change.org

There's an interactive section on the Obama Transition Team website called Join the Discussion. The current question posed by the Transition team is, What social causes and service organizations are you a part of that make a difference in your community?

It's a great opportunity to bring some of the amazing ideas in our communities to a larger, potentially national audience.

Evo Morales on Climate Change: 'Save the Planet from Capitalism'

By Evo Morales Ayma, President of Bolivia

November 28, 2008 -- Sisters and brothers, today our Mother Earth is ill. From the beginning of the 21st century we have lived the hottest years of the last thousand years. Global warming is generating abrupt changes in the weather: the retreat of glaciers and the decrease of the polar ice caps; the increase of the sea level and the flooding of coastal areas, where approximately 60% of the world population live; the increase in the processes of desertification and the decrease of fresh water sources; a higher frequency in natural disasters that the communities of the earth suffer[1]; the extinction of animal and plant species; and the spread of diseases in areas that before were free from those diseases.

One of the most tragic consequences of the climate change is that some nations and territories are the condemned to disappear by the increase of the sea level.

Everything began with the industrial revolution in 1750, which gave birth to the capitalist system. In two and a half centuries, the so called “developed” countries have consumed a large part of the fossil fuels created over five million centuries.

Capitalism

Competition and the thirst for profit without limits of the capitalist system are destroying the planet. Under Capitalism we are not human beings but consumers. Under Capitalism Mother Earth does not exist, instead there are raw materials. Capitalism is the source of the asymmetries and imbalances in the world. It generates luxury, ostentation and waste for a few, while millions in the world die from hunger in the world. In the hands of capitalism everything becomes a commodity: the water, the soil, the human genome, the ancestral cultures, justice, ethics, death … and life itself. Everything, absolutely everything, can be bought and sold and under capitalism. And even “climate change” itself has become a business.

“Climate change” has placed all humankind before a great choice: to continue in the ways of capitalism and death, or to start down the path of harmony with nature and respect for life.

In the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the developed countries and economies in transition committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5% below the 1990 levels, through the implementation of different mechanisms among which market mechanisms predominate.

Until 2006, greenhouse effect gases, far from being reduced, have increased by 9.1% in relation to the 1990 levels, demonstrating also in this way the breach of commitments by the developed countries.

The market mechanisms applied in the developing countries[2] have not accomplished a significant reduction of greenhouse effect gas emissions.

Just as well as the market is incapable of regulating global financial and productive system, the market is unable to regulate greenhouse effect gas emissions and will only generate a big business for financial agents and major corporations.

The Earth is much more important than the stock exchanges of Wall Street and the world

While the United States and the European Union allocate $4100 billion to save the bankers from a financial crisis that they themselves have caused, programs on climate change get 313 times less, that is to say, only $13 billion.

The resources for climate change are unfairly distributed. More resources are directed to reduce emissions (mitigation) and less to reduce the effects of climate change that all the countries suffer (adaptation) [3]. The vast majority of resources flow to those countries that have contaminated the most, and not to the countries where we have preserved the environment most. Around 80% of the Clean Development Mechanism projects are concentrated in four emerging countries.

Capitalist logic promotes a paradox in which the sectors that have contributed the most to deterioration of the environment are those that benefit the most from climate change programs.

At the same time, technology transfer and the financing for clean and sustainable development of the countries of the South have remained just speeches.

The next summit on climate change in Copenhagen must allow us to make a leap forward if we want to save Mother Earth and humanity. For that purpose the following proposals for the process from Poznan to Copenhagen:

Attack the structural causes of climate change

1) Debate the structural causes of climate change. As long as we do not change the capitalist system for a system based in complementarity, solidarity and harmony between the people and nature, the measures that we adopt will be palliatives that will limited and precarious in character. For us, what has failed is the model of “living better”, of unlimited development, industrialisation without frontiers, of modernity that deprecates history, of increasing accumulation of goods at the expense of others and nature. For that reason we promote the idea of Living Well, in harmony with other human beings and with our Mother Earth.

2) Developed countries need to control their patterns of consumption -- of luxury and waste -- especially the excessive consumption of fossil fuels. Subsidies of fossil fuel, that reach $150-250 billion[4], must be progressively eliminated. It is fundamental to develop alternative forms of power, such as solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric both at small and medium scales.

3) Agrofuels are not an alternative, because they put the production of foodstuffs for transport before the production of food for human beings. Agrofuels expand the agricultural frontier destroying forests and biodiversity, generate monocropping, promote land concentration, deteriorate soils, exhaust water sources, contribute to rises in food prices and, in many cases, result in more consumption of more energy than is produced.

Substantial commitments to emissions reduction that are met

4) Strict fulfilment by 2012 of the commitments[ 5] of the developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least by 5% below the 1990 levels. It is unacceptable that the countries that polluted the planet throughout the course of history make statements about larger reductions in the future while not complying with their present commitments.

5) Establish new minimum commitments for the developed countries of greenhouse gas emission reduction of 40% by 2020 and 90% by for 2050, taking as a starting point 1990 emission levels. These minimum commitments must be met internally in developed countries and not through flexible market mechanisms that allow for the purchase of certified emissions reduction certificates to continue polluting in their own country.

Likewise, monitoring mechanisms must be established for the measuring, reporting and verifying that are transparent and accessible to the public, to guarantee the compliance of commitments.

6) Developing countries not responsible for the historical pollution must preserve the necessary space to implement an alternative and sustainable form of development that does not repeat the mistakes of savage industrialisation that has brought us to the current situation. To ensure this process, developing countries need, as a prerequisite, finance and technology transfer.

Address ecological debt

7) Acknowledging the historical ecological debt that they owe to the planet, developed countries must create an Integral Financial Mechanism to support developing countries in: implementation of their plans and programs for adaptation to and mitigation of climate change; the innovation, development and transfer of technology; in the preservation and improvement of the sinks and reservoirs; response actions to the serious natural disasters caused by climate change; and the carrying out of sustainable and eco-friendly development plans.

8) This Integral Financial Mechanism, in order to be effective, must count on a contribution of at least 1% of the GDP in developed countries[6] and other contributions from taxes on oil and gas, financial transactions, sea and air transport, and the profits of transnational companies.

9) Contributions from developed countries must be additional to Official Development Assistance (ODA), bilateral aid or aid channelled through organisms not part of the United Nations. Any finance outside the UNFCCC cannot be considered as the fulfilment of developed country’s commitments under the convention.

10) Finance has to be directed to the plans or national programs of the different states and not to projects that follow market logic.

11) Financing must not be concentrated just in some developed countries but has to give priority to the countries that have contributed less to greenhouse gas emissions, those that preserve nature and are suffering the impact of climate change.

12) The Integral Financial Mechanism must be under the coverage of the United Nations, not under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other intermediaries such as the World Bank and regional development banks; its management must be collective, transparent and non-bureaucratic. Its decisions must be made by all member countries, especially by developing countries, and not by the donors or bureaucratic administrators.

Technology transfer to developing countries

13) Innovation and technology related to climate changes must be within the public domain, not under any private monopolistic patent regime that obstructs and makes technology transfer more expensive to developing countries.

14) Products that are the fruit of public financing for technology innovation and development of have to be placed within the public domain and not under a private regime of patents[7], so that they can be freely accessed by developing countries.

15) Encourage and improve the system of voluntary and compulsory licenses so that all countries can access products already patented quickly and free of cost. Developed countries cannot treat patents and intellectual property rights as something “sacred” that has to be preserved at any cost. The regime of flexibilities available for the intellectual property rights in the cases of serious problems for public health has to be adapted and substantially enlarged to heal Mother Earth.

16) Recover and promote indigenous peoples' practices in harmony with nature which have proven to be sustainable through centuries.

Adaptation and mitigation with the participation of all the people

17) Promote mitigation actions, programs and plans with the participation of local communities and indigenous people in the framework of full respect for and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The best mechanism to confront the challenge of climate change are not market mechanisms, but conscious, motivated and well organised human beings endowed with an identity of their own.

18) The reduction of the emissions from deforestation and forest degradation must be based on a mechanism of direct compensation from developed to developing countries, through a sovereign implementation that ensures broad participation of local communities, and a mechanism for monitoring, reporting and verifying that is transparent and public.

A UN for the environment and climate change

19) We need a World Environment and Climate Change Organisation to which multilateral trade and financial organisations are subordinated, so as to promote a different model of development that environmentally friendly and resolves the profound problems of impoverishment. This organisation must have effective follow-up, verification and sanctioning mechanisms to ensure that the present and future agreements are complied with.

20) It is fundamental to structurally transform the World Trade Organiation, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the international economic system as a whole, in order to guarantee fair and complementary trade, as well as financing without conditions for sustainable development that avoids the waste of natural resources and fossil fuels in the production processes, trade and product transport.

In this negotiation process towards Copenhagen, it is fundamental to guarantee the participation of our people as active stakeholders at a national, regional and worldwide level, especially taking into account those sectors most affected, such as indigenous peoples who have always promoted the defense of Mother Earth.

Humankind is capable of saving the Earth if we recover the principles of solidarity, complementarity and harmony with nature in contraposition to the reign of competition, profits and rampant consumption of natural resources.

Notes

[1] Due to the “Niña” phenomenon, that becomes more frequent as a result of the climate change, Bolivia has lost 4% of its GDP in 2007.

[2] Known as the Clean Development Mechanism

[3] At the present there is only one adaptation fund with approximately $500 million for more than 150 developing countries. According to the UNFCCC secretary, $171 billion is required for adaptation and $380 billionis required for mitigation.

[4] Stern report

[5] Kyoto Protocol, Art. 3.

[6] The Stern Review has suggested one percent of global GDP, which represents less than $700 billion per year.

[7] According to UNCTAD (1998), public financing in developing countries contributes with 40% of the resources for innovation and development of technology.

http://links. org.au/node/ 769

Campaign to Appoint a Sustainable Choice as Secretary of Agriculture

This is a petition asking Obama to appoint a "sustainable" choice as Secretary of Agriculture.

Mary Bull an activist in SF worked with Michael Dimock, president of Roots of Change. He was on a conference call with Obama's transition team last week. He says that they are aware of the petition and said that 25,000 endorsements would get their attention, and 50,000 could really influence Obama's pick.

It's currently at 42,000, and slowing down. Please take 15 seconds to sign, and a few moments to pass this along to your own networks. To reiterate: this petition has the attention of Obama's team, and they are expected to make their choice public very soon, so there are only a few days left to press for a reform-minded choice.

Go here to sign petition: http://www.fooddemocracynow.org

SSP is the Public Face of the North American Union

I got an email from a colleague and it had on one of those cced spp.gov. So I wondered what was this?

Well it turns out that it stands for the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America.

Apparently the SPP people are also aware of all the conspiracy talk about their work as they have created a facts vs myths page on their website.

Yeah you guessed it the SPP is the place where they are plotting one world government in the form of the North American Union. Convservatives are very suspicious of this and indeed recently I was dialoging with one who thought that with the election of Obama that it was all over. Interestingly though he seemed quite suspicious of Bush as well.

Oddly enough I also did some research on Robert Pastor because Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times came up with a selection of what he thought would be ideal candidates for the Obama Presidency. It actually seemed surprisingly like a rehash of the Clinton's Cabinet and I thought well for one of the high level diplomatic positions why not consider Robert Pastor who I remember wrote a book that inspired me about finding solutions to what then in the 90s seemed a real problem in the relationship between the US and Latin and particularly Central America.

I then found the interesting connection between the email about Obama and the Robert Pastor link they both pointed to SPP!

Is that a case of Syncroncity or what?

While elite and establishment thinkers can make fun of those who live by the reality of the conspiracy theory, the reality is that humans have throughout history known to conspire against each other. And often these conspiracies would include secret agreements to manage large amounts of resources, land and people without their knowledge or consent.

Why would we expect that contemporary life would be absent such machinations? As we face a world dominated by power elites as never before questions about the intentions and machinations of the people at the top understandably invite concern and even distrust and suspicion.

So for those that seek to promote more multi-lateral or multi-lateralism in the world as compared to unilateralism of the US supported by the vague but potentially menacing notion of American Exceptionalism there is one simple answer to address the concerns of both the far left and far right: we must balance the need for more regional and global cooperation with a clear and compelling strategy to give power back to local regions.

One term for this process is Glocalisation and has been pioneered by the efforts of Paolo Lugari in Columbia at Gaviotas.

Obama's Short List for Treasury Includes Larry Summers

I recently caught word that Obama was considering his cabinet officials as was to be expected after his big win...

And the Contenders for Treasury are:

This WSJ article has listed four Candidates:

• Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers,
• Sen John Corzine of NJ (also a Goldman Sachs alum like Rubin but also credited with having some populistic economic policies),
  
• Former Fed Chief Paul Volcker (credited with helping to get the economy out of the deep 80-81 recession)
  
• Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Timothy Geithner (one of the operatives that has been driving and designing the current system and also served and is linked closely with Rubin and Summers during their reign as the Economic Czars during the Clinton Admin)
  

A bit about the Two Presumed Finalists for Treasury Secretary

From a passage on the WSJ it seems that its already been narrowed down to choice between Summers and Geithner:

According to a person familiar with the matter, Mr. Obama's economics advisers are split between the two men. Some have also floated giving the job to former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker for a short time. An outside candidate is New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a former co-chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., a post he shared with current Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

It seems that Rubin, Summers and Geithner are really kozy all part of the same network...so not matter who of the two is actually selected we get about the same approach and links to the very network that caused this problem in the first place...the report goes on...:

Adding an intriguing personal element: Mr. Summers, 53 years old, has long been a sponsor of Mr. Geithner, age 47. To this day, they attend a summer tennis camp in Florida together.

Some Critical Thoughts

On Summers wikipedia page there is listing of a stunning number of missteps he made during his time at Harvard but apparently he was well liked but the students who opposed his eventual removal by the Faculty Senate by 57 to 16%.

Also noted is his famous signing off the memo written by his assistant at the World Bank at the time Lant Prittchet in 1991. The leaked memo quickly became a symbol within the anti-globalization movement became in the words of Brazil's then Secretary of the Environment Jose Lutzenberger (he was later fired after making that comment.) a demonstration of the:

...arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in.

I was mulling this idea of Obama selecting Summers and found this video and commentary titled "Larry Summers + Obama = More of the Same?"

In the post made Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez she points out that:

While Summers is blessedly big on government regulation on banks and commerce, it must never be overlooked that he was essentially forced to resign from his job as President of Harvard University because he insulted women, minorities and environmentalists by attacking all of them in his typical arrogant way.

Summers is the man who told an academic conference he believed men were inherently superior to women at math and science. He is the man who signed a letter by Lant Pritchett, saying developed countries should export their pollution to underdeveloped nations, because the cost would be less there (one assumes because people in those places matter less?). He is the man who accused famed professor Cornell West of being lazy and inept. He is the man who caused the only African-American member of the Harvard Corporation board to resign in protest of Summers' sexist comments and the university's continued support of him in light of them.

Summers is hardly compelling to me and yet I think its not fair or so easy to label Summers as a racist or sexist. In fact we need to get away from that kind of name calling esp when it is based on anecdotal evidence.

A more valid point she makes is that Summers was Treasury secretary during the height of a great economic time which turned out to be a mirage.

A bit of History (How quickly we forget?)

Still to this day there is a tendency on the part of some to point to the "Clinton glory days"...you know when the American economy was humming, unemployment was low, major wealth was being created through metoeric rises in securies and real estate and America seemed atop the world as the world's most competitive and efficient economy.

It was during this time that the Clinton Consensus model emerged. That is the moderate policies of the Democratic Leadership Council pushing the Dems to the center and inviting Wall Street "insiders" to run the economy and even fix a "broken" government and make it run more efficiently (like a business).

That insider was first and foremost Robert Rubin, a thoughtful Wall Street operative who had worked wonders at Goldman Sachs making a tidy sum for both the select partners of Goldman Sachs as well as for himself (he is worth several hundred million dollars). He then went on to forge a unique and close working relationship with Alan Greenspan, that helped to ensure that any bumps in the economic road to unprecedented American prosperity were quickly smoothed out.

Dean Baker put the case well focusing on the key factors that led to the current economic free fall and Summer's role in those policies and giving us some background on the role of Summers in promoting the very policies that led us to the current sad state of the American Economy:

As Treasury Secretary, Summers embraced the high dollar policy promoted by his predecessor Robert Rubin. While it offered short-term benefits in the form of cheap imports and lower inflation, the high dollar also produced a large and growing trade deficit. Just like tax cuts that cause unsustainable budget deficits, the high dollar policy of the Clinton years was unsustainable over the long-run.

Trade deficits also sap demand. In Summers' Treasury years, this demand gap was made up by a consumption boom, which was in turn driven by the stock market bubble. Like the rest of the Clinton crew, Summers cheered on the stock bubble.

Of course the stock bubble was not sustainable and when it collapsed in 2000-2002, it threw the economy into a recession. While the official recession was short and mild, the economy continued to shed jobs for almost two years after the recession ended. With the over-valued dollar causing the trade deficit to continue to rise, the only way to sustain demand was another consumption boom, this one driven by the housing bubble.

Greenspan kept interest rates at 50-year lows, while the housing bubble expanded to ever more dangerous level. Summers was no longer Treasury secretary at this point, but he did have ample opportunity to weigh in on a wide range of policy issues. While he offered his wisdom on a variety of economic issues during the housing bubble years, he never bothered to take note of an $8 trillion housing bubble or the catastrophe that its collapse would cause.

Silence was not Summers only contribution to the growth of the housing bubble. As Treasury Secretary, he had been a vigorous advocate of the one-sided financial deregulation (the Wall Street big boys all want the government security blanket of "too big to fail"). In particular, Summers had worked alongside Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan to prevent any regulation of credit default swaps, an instrument that helped provide the financial fuel of the housing bubble.

The collapse of the housing bubble has left one-fifth of homeowners underwater in their mortgages, owing more than the value of their house. Tens of millions of homeowners now find themselves at the edge of retirement with almost nothing other than their Social Security to rely upon. And the economy will quite likely experience the worst recession since World War II as it struggles to overcome the loss of $8 trillion in housing bubble wealth.

Short Term Memory Loss

It is not clear from these kind of selections that the Obama team has a really clear understanding of the larger picture of who and what is at the root of the economic problems we now face.

The idea of seeking guidance from the very people who made the decisions leading to American Economic Bubble seems very short-sighted.

A case could be made that if the President added a non-establishment economist that this would only add questions about the ability of Obama to govern. So it is probably a safer choice to add someone who is reliable...

I made a possible list of outsiders who might while putting forward alternative and dissident views also have considerable experiences and credentials:

1. Robert Reich
2. Joseph Stiglitz
3. Paul Krugman
4. Katherine Austin Fitts

None of these are really Marxist leaning and even socialist leaning. They all seek to promote careful and critical thinking about what is the fundamental issues driving our economy.

As a critical and pragmatic idealist - might ask the critical question:

Why is a "Yes We Can" president-elect talking about selecting the very same Yes MEN that promoted the short sighted-thinking leading to the current economic crisis that we are reeling from?

Political Ineptitude & Short Term Thinking Fueling Global Food Crisis

Suddenly there is Lots of talk about the Food Crisis but in truth experts like Lester Brown of WorldWatch and the Earth Policy Institute has been expressing concern about modern farming practices and more recently biocrops for over 20 years.

It is not clear that using "biocrops" for bioplastics, fuel or building materials are more sustainable than conventional practices, especially if it means that these uses further deplete our ability to feed humanity and at the same time reduce biodiversity by promoting monoculture corporate farming. We need to be sure that the bio-based economy we are building is truly part of a bona fide sustainable solution using materials now treated as waste rather than further extending and empowering the corporate monoculture empire that was recently documented on PBS documentary King Corn.

What we face is not a linear problem (it is not just about food and that is the challenge we face); it is multifaceted and will hit humanity in many directions, Financial, Energy, Military/Prisons/Law Enforcement/Surveillance/Food/Water/Climate Change/Emotional-Social and Political.

All sectors will be affected, just as all sectors have been impacted by the current form of global malaise that has been touted as progress up to now.

As we talk of more synergistic and nature based solutions many often overlook that while dominant approach is very symptomatically and superficially oriented in how it looks at problems - it is also synergistic - but in the wrong ways (and the complexity of what is wrong does not easily fit in the media sound bite reality. Its has become so entrenched and massive it has wrapped itself around things we are taught to see as American as Apple Pie (a diet based on jello, hamburgers and coke) so the politicians and the media aren't able to discuss it in a way that is insightful). To consider the links between food policies, ideology and identity politics we need only read about Obama's reference to his youth and growing up making Jello molds to show that he was not an elite latte drinker:

I was raised in a setting with grandparent who grew up in small towns in Kansas, and the dinner table would have been very familiar to anyone here in small town Indiana -- a lot of pot roast and potatoes and jello molds...

While considering the many challenges we face including the potential food shortage as well as the very business as usual pandering of the politicians to the prevailing mainstream values and icons of the day (that to me indicates a lack of real creativity and courage to find innovative solutions), I am also inspired by many inspirational solutions and the efforts of people to reverse prevailing trends and approaches.

To me this indicates that we make a mistake when we have expectations that real change will come from Washington, Wall Street or Hollywood and we invest in that kind of change at the expense of supporting the grassroots. Real change comes from us and in the way that we inspire others by our courageous work. We are still small in the face of the challenge of say King Corn or King Coal or King whatever (vested interests who cautiously and jealously guards their little fiefdoms of the American society/economy to prevent any enlightened ideas from spreading into the mainstream using very subtle means and measures of persuasion), but I am optimistic that time is on the side of those who seek a more community and nature oriented approach to life.

Jeff Buderer
oneVillage Foundation

Bring on the Recession!

George Monboit never one to shy away from controversy now is putting forward the idea that a little recession never hurt anyone.

In Bring on the Recession Posted October 9, 2007 he asks: How else will the destructive effects of growth be stopped?

If you are of a sensitive disposition, I advise you to turn the page now. I am about to break the last of the universal taboos. I hope that the recession now
being forecast by some economists materialises.

I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it
would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes. I do not dismiss these
impacts or the harm they inflict, though I would argue that they are the
avoidable results of an economy designed to maximise growth rather than
welfare. What I would like you to recognise is something much less discussed:
that, beyond a certain point, hardship is also caused by economic growth.

How to Build a Better Stimulus Package

I have been hostage to recent banter in the media about the ailing economy and the need for a rapid stimulus package so I decided to invest some time in airing my views about the situation.

The below diatribe I put together in response to an article written by PETER S. GOODMAN and LOUIS UCHITELLE on Jan 25 and it is titled Critiques of Spending Plan Retrace Old Debate.

Obviously no one really sees the stimulus being talked about as making all our economic magically disappear and yet I do think there is a problem in understand the depth of the economic problems that are now causing this slowdown.

More Band Aid Solutions from the Out of Touch and Arrogant Beltway Insiders
The problem is not whether the lowering of the 75 basis points by the Fed and a stimulus package and all the soothing talk about the economy coming out of Washington will work, it very well may work. The real is whether or not a serious discussion will be initiated to consider the possibility that we need real and fundamental change in how Washington and Wall Street does business. Without this any stimulus package is basically a meaningless waste of time and money, because it does not address the core problems of the American economy.

I recall an economist wondering why so many Americans feel bad about the economy, when they have it so good. To me that exposes not only a problem with decision-makers and opinion leaders being out of touch with the people, but of their being out of touch with the facts of economics and the idea that a strong economy is not just about economics but many other factors as well.

Americans appear to have an almost an intuitive sense that something is very wrong not just with our economy and more deeply with regards to our society. Yet that because they can’t articulate it and of course are really not listened to by the policymakers (except on a very superficial level), the need for real change goes unheeded. The change needed to address their concerns is of course difficult to put forward because it is controversial, visionary and risky and no one in the corporate/institutional world likes risk.

How to do a Stimulus Plan Right
The right Stimulus Plan can have an impact on the short term reducing the scope of the economic downturn as well as start to right some of the issues discussed here. The issue here is do we have a leadership in place that can make those kind of well thought out and visionary decision to get the American economy back on a firm footing.

The Challenge is that it takes some planning and we have to consider the context of the particular situation America is in now and some of the possibilities that the underlying issues:

1. Low rate of savings,
2. High levels of imports
3. High rate of debt

These trends which Greenspan was aware of, but basically swept under the rug for many years may be finally coming to a head. A stimulus plan that ignores these underlying trends will not be effective in addressing the long term trends that may be currently impacting the economy.

Capitalism and its Influence on Society
The influence of capital can distort the fundamental reality of the economy through subtle pressures and influences that dominant market players exert through various means as discussed in detail by leading leftist theorists from Marx to Chomsky. We don’t have to agree with everything they say to conclude that there is a shred of common sense truth in what they say. Regardless of the complex theories discussed within academia, we can observe and catalog the many ways in which the influence of money can distort people’s perceptions. In addition, a case can be made that this can sometimes adversely impact the long term public interest.

Economic Nationalism and the Myth of America’s Economic Supremacy
It is commonly repeated in the media about this incredible legacy of our American Economic Juggernaut and yet I wonder if the media could not be trusted to report accurately about companies like Enron or the Housing Boom that it would get this issue of the general state and direction of the economy right either. Economic nationalism is this idea that the American economy is somehow special and exceptional to the rest of the world. The terms commonly used are American Economic Juggernaut. There is no debating that the recent performance of the American economy has been impressive over the last 20 or so years. Yet what if the people responsible for this did not do this by making the fundamentals, but rather were very clever at plugging the holes in that American Economic Juggernaut?

Canaries in the Coal Mine
The Iraq War and also Hurricane Katrina are significant barometers of the country’s overall health and they expose a deeper crisis in American society. Those who are making very important decisions are not making very good ones about very costly things like wars and protecting our major cities from unprecedented natural disasters. So why would we expect them to make an informed decision about the economy when say we were at a pivotal time such as possibly right now? Not only were there issues about the preparation for a hurricane raised (unfortunately though after the fact) and also with regards to the immediate response but also with regards to the long term recovery. Indeed I would have liked to have something in the stimulus package that addressed both the need to finally clean up the mess of Katrina and make sure the flood walls are in place to prevent this from happening again.

Yet the point is that American has lost not only its moral compass but its common sense practical and pragmatic ability to make wise and informed decisions about how to move into the future. Is a stimulus package going to solve this?

Global Climate Change = Limits to Growth?
The mainstream media often in times of great challenge does not ask the tough questions about the sustainability of our economy. And I mean this not in the one dimensional way that most economists see it (despite the fact that everyone is talking Green) as merely relating to the economic fundamentals of sustained growth. Rather I am talking about the often complex and interrelated impact of global environmental and social issues on economic growth and visa versa. The WWF has noted that as economic growth has skyrocketed over the last 100 years natural systems and natural capital has suffered unprecedented declines. Obviously this is not sustainable, so then one might as a critical and informed citizen question this idea that America as one of the world’s most wasteful nations is really that much of an economic juggernaut. Yet there is not much we can do to change this overnight because there is such a fear about publicly talk about the growth dilemma and politicians cant touch that. However much could be done to design an economic stimulus package that could be a Marshall Plan for more green (sustainable) development and renewables to reduce our green gas emissions.

Recessions are a Fact of Life: Get Over it
I would argue that Recession is not really a bad thing Life is a cycle and so why would we assume that economies and societies grow forever? Economic Common Sense (many of those mainstream economists that the media cites in their reporting seem to be lacking in this) tells us that a recession is a valuable tool to balance out markets. Within sectors we have seen numerous times over the years in dotcoms and now in housing that if you have a time of irrational exuberance it has to be balanced out with a time of decline and a thinning of the chaff. Yet postponing a cycle and preventing a recession at all costs I believe is quite similar to the US Forest Service’s Smoky the Bear fire policies. Because they instilled in people that all fire was bad they create the perfect storm in that now the fires burn so fast and hot that they really are bad. And yet if they had just allowed fires to burn naturally it might have prevented the most devastating ones by control the fuel loads in the forest. Recessions and corrections in the economy have a similar effect. Recessions are a necessary albeit painful part of a sustainable and healthy economic cycle.

Fundamental Economic and Social Change is needed to Create Sustained Prosperity for America
How this country acts now may determine its destiny for a long time to come. A severe long term recession could be lurking that could alter the future of a whole generation like say the generation that went through the Great Depression. While we may not be headed for Depression or even a severe recession, the case can be made that there are some major decisions that need to be made by our society and our government about what kind of direction we want to take in this next century with regards to technology, growth and the impact of these on the make up of our society and also on the ecology.

I am not optimistic right now that we are ready to make those decisions but I believe that if enough of us do overcome our fear of speaking our voices about what we see as the fundamentals of why this country is headed in the wrong direction and how we can correct that, that we can reverse course and create in the 21^st century an unprecedented era of prosperity for ourselves and the world.

The New York Times Endorses Clinton

The NYT in their endorsement of Clinton "opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force." Yet they still endorsed her explaining that "That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended."

Yet Clinton very pragmatic and establishment foreign policy shows how Clinton will make decisions. Clinton's recent deceptive and very negative campaign against Obama is also significant. I hardly feel this kind of deceptive campaigning is what is going to bring a refreshing new approach to governance in this country.

We are trapped in our media echo-chamber and it is making us more and more ahistorical in our perspective. This only makes us more easily malleable to the intentions of those power. People perennially want change in their presidential campaigns and never get it? Why? They/we are unwilling players in The Change Game and they forget or lose their ability to see how they are being manipulated by the powerful for their vote as well as their dollar. People of influence get influential because they know how to use words, gestures and iconic forms to manipulate people and to convince them that this is the Change Agenda or our candidate is the Change Candidate.

We get polished leaders with much experience but with little understanding of complex and interrelated issues, because many in power really dont want the public to know what they are up to and more simply people are too overwhelmed with their personal duties and obligations as consumers and workers.

For example, we can only understand radicalism in Iran today if we look at the complete history of American policies starting in the 50s and leading to the overthrow of a popular leader by the CIA. Another example is that Saddam was not more upfront with the world about the fact he had no WMDs because he felt it was important to make a strong show to Iran his mortal enemy.

We have a system that sweeps complex issues quickly under the rug (as the Times did in its overlooking of Clinton's vote on Iraq and then Iran and also with regards to it underhanded campaign tactics), and instead prefers to fixate on horserace mentality when it comes to politics. The unsustainability of our socioeconomic system seems painfully evident in our never-ending presidential campaigns. The public elects corrupt and out of touch leaders, because the powerful frame the public discourse so that such candidates are the ones that rise to the top.

People then become cynical because the elites that run our society appear to not really care about doing what is right, but rather what is expedient to their fuel their ambitions for power and so they seek "change".

The bottom line is that experience and pragmatism almost always ends up trumping experience, as there is so much momentum against those who put forward an authentic vision of change in the political arena.

Real Change is not a beauty contest but forward by spinmasters rather its about cultivating a serious national discussion that leads to a deeper understanding of what is wrong with our society today and how to change it and so it is inherently incompatible with presidential politics. For example, the "mainstream" contenders seem totally uncritical in their support of the recent stimulus package to prop up a broken economy and yet what does this do to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure or to address the growing evidence (and pricetag) of global climate change?

What seems Like Common Sense...

Below is a response I came up with to WSJ Blog regarding concerns about the economy.

The blog post seems like an opportunity to spin real concerns about the mismanagement of this country's and indeed into fearmongering.

I don’t see this as fearmongering or pessimism; the problem is not whether or not we are going to have a recession, but how to address the bankrupt mindset that sustains and drives American society.

All too often the mainstream media discusses concerns and questions about the sustainability of our economy in a very dismissive way. However, I do recall Morton Zuckerman and Buchanan both expressed similar concerns on the McLaughlin Group a few months ago. Yet I am loath to put too much stake in their "insight".

I found this little tidbit about UK's Times interview of Ben Bernanke and his predictable response to questions about the state of the American economy:

BEN Bernanke, the man selected yesterday to be the world’s most powerful central banker says that the US economy is set fair for strong, non-inflationary growth in spite of the sharp rise in energy prices this year, and staunchly defends President George W. Bush’s controversial fiscal policies.

Speaking exclusively to The Times, Bernanke rejects suggestions that the US fiscal deficit and public spending are out of control and says that the rest of the world needs to do much more to redress global economic imbalances that have produced the largest US current account deficit on record.

I don't think anyone in the Beltway can get it right, because they are belly of the beast. Yet I won't leave Wall Street out either, the business mantra (to put it nicely) has been mindless and self-serving, but apparently that is what business is supposed to be all about.

A compelling case can be made that this too will not pass and that the fabled "American goldilocks economy" is about to burn away like a desert mirage, waking us up to the shocking reality of a world facing historically unprecedented challenges in terms of the sustainability of the global society economically, socially and ecologically. The potential ramifications of many of these challenges are the kinds of things that typically pampered and sheltered American is totally unprepared to deal with.

What seems like common sense...stimulating the economy in a way that mitigates global climate change would be the wisest way to prevent a major economic collapse...is not considered a serious option in Washington. Whose reality is for real? Maybe we won't have to wait much longer to find out.

The problem is that America has lost its ability to think clearly about public policy and to take courageous steps to really reform a grossly unsustainable economy. What if America is at pivotal time in it history just like the 1920s and 30s. What if the decisions we make as Americans in the next few years will determine the viability of our nation and democracy in the coming years?

Maybe it is not so much a problem of the "stupid average American" as the leftist elite likes to see the average American as. Who can blame people for going with flow and conforming to Wall Street? Where the money goes the people flow. The stuff that passes for news and information which is controlled by corporations can be overwhelming just like a force of nature.

Yet most economic classically trained economic pundits are left scratching their collective heads...if everything's been so darned good with this economy over these last few years...why are so many feeling so bad about the direction of the country? They just don't get it. What's wrong with people? Don't they know how good they have it?

When you take off those Wall Street, Hollywood, Beltway blinders, the real issue becomes: how can a society be sustained practically when public policy is not reflective of the real issues that everyday people face?

Of course it can't; such a system can't be sustained. How can good come to a country when it engages in so many bad investments such as the Iraq War? What about the long term impact of investing heavily in urban sprawl and car culture, while Europe and Japan have compact cities and strong mass transit and intercity rail systems, when there is rising consensus about Global Climate Change?

So if this is some minor blip as some economic pundits like to see it as...then let it roll...they'll be better times ahead soon why the deadwood of that American Economic Juggernaut is blown away.

There's a deep seated intuitive fear that the majority of Americans now have. It revolves most basically around the perception that our society and economy is broken. So how can you blame them for thinking that you'll need more than a 150 billion dollar stimulus package or 75 basis point rate cut? If you believe there is something fundamentally broken about this country and you feel the politicians can't really articulate a real change agenda, because that might them seem "out there," then apathy, cynicism and disgust become the lowest common denominator that drives the consumer economy - that “American Economic Juggernaut.” Indeed there is a growing perception that the American economy is in long term decline.

So we are left with an amazingly superficial approach to the world and to public policy fully supported by most of the establishment media, academia, the wealthy and the politicians, but very much out of touch with the reality of how the world actually works. No one wonder we keep seeing the "Enron effect" continuing to plaque Wall Street and Corporate Culture.

If there is some doubt about how much a juggernaut the American economy, then you’d better batten down the hatches baby, cause there are some rough seas ahead no matter how many tax credits or rate cuts are given out to pacify the concerns of the consuming masses!

How the Progressive Punditry's Inability to Communicate the Big Picture to the Mainstream Media Supports Bush and his Right Wing Base

Note: When I was trying to find Frank Rick's email I noticed that The New York Times does not allow nonmembers to access the columnist's email addresses.

Truth is a shock to the system. To the critical thinker there is much missing in the discussion about current events and politics and policies. The speech at the UN that Chavez seemed odd and simplistic but it propelled Noam Chomsky's book to the Bestseller list knocking out NYT's Frank Rich's critical expose of the war and general cynicism of Bush/Rove politics from the no 1 spot.

Seems a bit a odd that it takes a foreign leader like Hugo Chevez is needed to make mainstream America aware of one of its own greatest living social and political critics. Yet that to me is the most striking thing about it all - in the 20 years I have researched media and current events this is the first time I ever heard Chomsky referenced in the mass media.

Chavez's waving of Chomsky's book into the air during his UN speech may have done more to make the American mainstream aware of alternative thinking than the American progressives themselves even those who get access to the mainstream media such as Rich and the Nation's Katrina Van Huevel.

Yet Rich when asked about Chavez's speech on ABC's This Week, http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/ the first words that roll from his mouth are "I hate him." At first I was not sure if he meant Chavez or Chomsky... There is much about Chavez to dislike, but why put him in a different league than Bush when the very book he writes makes them look very similar - as opportunitistic ego centric master manipulators? I guess the answer is that Bush is American and Chavez is not. Bush is not simply a SOB but he's our SOB and that changes everything and indeed sets the faux progressives apart from those deeply dedicated to progressive values. Recenly in Israel we saw a similar dynamic with even Haretz - the main progressive newspaper - suddenly sounding very hawkish during the invasion of Lebanon.

In America there is much questioning about why the Democrats are failing to get their message across to mainstream and some say it is an issue of organization and sound bites. The answer to me goes to deeper than that. Even the progressive wing of the Democratic party is dominated by well intentioned but still top down thinking folks and so it smells of hypocrisy and more importantly such smells are disempowering to the grassroots rank and file. Conservatives are more effective in mobilizing their grassroos, as the conservatives are more inclined to uncritically accept authority and the perogatives of top down organizational structures that dominate their political movement.

Another major issue: Progressives when they get air time seem very timid in connecting the dots and standing their ground, because they are afraid they will be called out of touch with the mainstream, liberal or worse unAmerican.

It is not so much that Rich had to say he loved Chavez, but he just blurted out "I hate him" without really considering why Chavez's anti-American views seem to reflect the sentiment of a growing number of people around the world.

Its another missed opportunity to connect the dots between the stupidity of American foreign policies and growing global resentment of America - especially in relation to his recent book on Iraq and the War on Terror.

Are we Winning: An Alternative View on the War on Terror

Its been Five years since 9/11 and yet much coverage is still devoted to 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror. The targeting of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers was no doubt a provocative act that shook this country to its very foundation. However I question much of the rhetoric that resulted and led to many policies and approaches which I believe have not made America safer and have instead only made the cultural divide between Islam and the West more pronounced.

With reference to the Op-ed recently published in the News Leader “Are we winning?,” my view is that we need to look seriously at whether the attack on Iraq was justified, when there was no clear link between Iraq and 9/11. The huge expense of deploying troops to these countries has meant that we don’t have money to address both the root cause of not just terrorism (which is the same with all terrorism poverty and marginalization) but global resentment of the USA and its policies on the external front. Internally that $300 billion could have gone a long way to make America’s airports, ports and railways as safe as they possibly can be.

In terms of winning the war we should also consider the possibility that there’s actually more serious issues that threaten civilization than Islamic extremism and terrorism. People in Springfield seem very conscious of the War on Terror as a threat to their way of life, but when the debate about the coal power plant came and went residents voted for the status quo by passing a bond issue to fund another big coal power plant. This is understandable as most people do not see renewable energy sources as viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Yet it must have been lost on most folks who voted for this bond issue, that many scientists now say that the greatest challenge to humanity is not terrorism but Global Climate Change. One can only wonder how rapidly renewables could have become part of a viable national energy strategy to fight Global Climate Change, had the 300 billion spent on Iraq been instead spent on wind, solar, bio-fuels and conservation.

Note: I just sent the content below to the local newspaper where I am currently staying: The Springfield Newsleader.