“The necessary consequence of an egalitarian program is the decidedly inegalitarian creation of a ruthless power elite.”
— M. N. Rothbard
Scoundrel Time…
“Experts have analysed the pensions of a number of former directors of British banks, many of which were only saved from collapse by state bailouts. The biggest beneficiary is former Royal Bank of Scotland director Larry Fish, who has a pension pot of £18m, paying out £1.5m a year. Unlike the former RBS chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin, he has managed to maintain a low profile up to now, as he used to run the bank’s American operations.
Other bankers with pension pots of more than £1m include: Richard Banks, Richard Pym and Chris Rhodes (Alliance & Leicester); Steve Crawshaw and Chris Rodrigues (Bradford & Bingley); Peter Cummings, Colin Matthew and Phil Hodkinson (HBOS); David Baker, Robert Bennett, Keith Currie, David Jones and Andy Kuipers (Northern Rock); and Johnny Cameron and Mark Fisher (RBS).
The analysis also established that the true value of Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension pot could be, in fact, almost double the previously stated figure of £16m. According to pensions expert John Ralfe: “The official numbers that Royal Bank of Scotland has come out with is that his total pension pot from the age of 51 to the expected death is about £16.9m. I think that is a gross understatement. If I wanted to go along to a third-party pension provider and get the sort of pension that Fred Goodwin is on – £700,000 and that goes up in line with inflation, of course, each year – I would have to pay something in the order of £28m.”
The contrast with the pensions given to rank-and-file banking staff could not be greater. Dennis Grainger, who worked at Northern Rock for a decade, is entitled to only £700 a year. “I’m so disgusted with this I’ve turned it down,” said Mr Grainger.
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, has attacked the scale of the rewards: “What makes people really, really angry is that these people were exceptionally well paid, got enormous pension pots and other payments, despite the fact that they have failed and they have failed their shareholders, failed their employees and failed the taxpayer, and they are walking away with their millions.”
The large payments are not limited to pensions. Bank bosses have seen their average salaries rise from £800,000 in 2006 to more than £1m in 2008 – 20 per cent more than the average pay packet of chief executives in other sectors. They now earn £255,000 a year more than their FTSE-100 counterparts. Fees paid to non-executive directors of banks have also risen. In the case of the RBS, non-executive directors have seen their fees almost treble in less than a decade, from £25,000 a year in 2000 to £73,000 a year in 2008.
Mr Cable has denounced bankers’ pay and perks as “the kind of things you would associate with absolute monarchies in the days of the Bourbons in France”.
Sir Fred Goodwin
Even after cashing in £2.7m of his pension, he gets £550,000
Sir James Crosby
Will start reaping rewards of £10.4m pension pot in 2011 £572,000
Lawrence Fish
£18m pension fund yields over a million every year £1.5m
Adam Applegarth
In 2022 he will be able to claim his full yearly pension £305,000
Andy Hornby
The former HBOS chief can take his pension at 50 £240,000
Michael Fairey
Opted to take his entire £7m pension pot as a lump sum £280,000″
Morocco Tortures Sahrawi Activists
Morocco Uses Torture To Silence Sahrawi Activists:
“The Saharawi hunger strikers
Six of the Salé-imprisoned ‘Casablanca 7’ began their hunger strikes from 18 March 2010 in protest of their indefinite imprisonment and lack of clear charges. These are Ali Salem Tamek, Brahim Dahane, Yehdih Ettarrouzi, Ahmed Naciri, Saleh Labaihi and Rachid Sghayer.
The hunger strikers issued this statement on 18 March:
‘Our detention has been condemned by governments and parliaments around the world as well as human rights organisations, trade unions and civil society groups. We are being persecuted for exercising our right to express political opinion and engage in legitimate activities to protect the human the rights of our people. In protest at our detention we are today beginning an open hunger strike in order to expedite our claim to a fair trial and our release without condition. We call on democratic forces in the world to support our fight for our release and that of all Saharawi political prisoners held in Moroccan jails.’
Another 19 hunger strikers are in Tiznit prison and their hungerstrikes started from 20 March. These are Moustapha Abd-Dayem, Hreish Hassan, Mohamed Berkaoui, Bachir Isamïli, Mohamed Taghioullah Fekallah, Brahim Khalil Meghimiah, Khalihenna Abouhassan, Moulay Ali Bouamoud, Fadli Binhau, Mahmud Aboughassem, Sheiahu Hamza, Fathi Sid Ahmed, Daihani Abdallah, Mohamed Salami, Sawakh Djamal, Mahdjub Ailal, Hassan Mohamed Lehassen, Nourdinne Taher, Lehmam Salama.
And there are a further 3 hunger strikers in Boulmharez prison in Marrakech (El Waaban Said, Brahim Bariaz, Ali Salem Ablag), 3 in Layouune prison4 (Bachri Bentaleb, Ameidan Chej and Mohamed Berkan), 2 in Taroudant prison (Louali Amaidan and Jalad Hasan), 2 in Kenitra prison (Laaseiri Salec and Amaidan Saleh) and 1 in Bensliman prison (Hasan Abdelahi).5
Detailed medical information from the hunger strike monitoring groups draw attention to the dangerous symptoms the prisoners are experiencing at this stage of 29 days. These are listed variously among the prisoners as loss of consciousness, fatigue, migraines, asthma, acute cardiac and intestinal pain, asthma, vomiting and diarrhoea. Blood pressure and sugar levels are reported as decreasing alarmingly, with growing kidney, liver and gallbladder complications.6
The Saharawi Lawyers Association has also reported cases of neglect by Moroccan prison administrations, lack of proper medical assistance from prison clinics and staff, and Saharawi prisoner Hassan Abdullah in Bin Sliman is said to have been severely beaten by Moroccan prisoners at the incitement of prison staff.”
More here at Free Sahara.
John Paulson: Market Fraud, Not Market God
John Paulson – more crooked than clever, says The Big Money:
“What emerges from the SEC’s charges against Goldman Sachs (which, it should be noted, the investment bank is strenuously denying) isn’t a story of Paulson seeing a crisis coming when others are still happily buying up housing derivatives. No, it’s a story of reluctant buyers manipulated into buying more collateralized debt obligations when it was already clear that the market was falling apart.”
Nassim Taleb: Krugman And Friedman Are Dangers To Society
….and Tyler Cowen is a “bull-shitter” ….and other insights, as Joe Weisenthal chats with Nassim Taleb.
With a command of several disciplines, from finance and mathematics to poetry and philosophy, Taleb knows how to state an interesting concept in clear and engaging terms.
I’m not a fan of Nouriel Roubini. But after reading this, I figured if Taleb thinks the guy is “robust,” there must be more to him…or maybe they just hang out together at Davos.
(I have recently warmed up to NR for admitting that gold could fall below $1000).
“Eliot Spitzer was not robust because a single sex scandal derailed his career.
Nouriel Roubini is robust because he has vulva castings on the wall of his apartment, and it doesn’t derail him at all.
[Actually, Taleb has it wrong here. Spitzer fell because he went after Hank Greenberg and Henry Paulson, when Paulson had the power of the Treasury behind him and Greenberg is central to the whole AIG-Goldman business, even though the MSM will tell you otherwise. Roubini, on the other hand, never said anything that got in the way of anyone powerful…..in fact, his pronouncements have served them well].
Understand this dichotomy, and you’ll begin to understand Nassim Taleb’s conception of a robust society where we wouldn’t have financial crises like the one we just came through.
Still don’t get the significance of the Spitzer and Roubini examples?
Ok, let’s use a financial example.
When Jerome Kerveil lost billions for SocGen, it wasn’t because his trades specifically cost the firm billions. It was because, in the process of liquidating $50 billion or so of assets, the bank depressed the market to such an extent that they lost billions.
Had SocGen and Kerveil been a tenth of its size, that same liquidation wouldn’t have cost the bank much at all.
Thus SocGen was not robust, but a similar firm 1/10th as big would have been.
[Lila: Is this back-handed support for “too big to fail”?]
All of the above are examples given to us by The Black Swan author during a recent night out in Manhattan.
That came about due to some interactions we had over Twitter, which Taleb is using to publish a hundreds of aphorisms that many find to be brilliant, obnoxious, arrogant, and addicting.
More than anything else, Taleb is obsessed with robustness, a topic he returned to several times during our night out.
It’s something he first started hitting on in The Black Swan, and as the Spitzer, Roubini, and SocGen examples demonstrate, it’s a very broad concept.
Norman Mailer, says Taleb, was robust, because “he had six mistresses” and nobody cared. The chairman of a large bank worth $100 million is not robust, because a blackmailer who has knowledge of some infidelities could extort him for $75 million.
[Norman Mailer’s milieu was different from the banker’s….So could we say that “robustness” is adaptability to one’s environment?]
Our conversation, over 3 plates of oysters, two servings of shrimp, and a few drinks* ranged from fitness (we both share an interest in evolutionary fitness and the teachings of fitness guru/economist Art De Vany), finance, global warming, and who is a danger to society.
One of the biggest dangers to society.There were two names he insisted I include: Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman.
“Paul Krugman is a danger to society!“
“He uses the wrong mathematics, that’s how I knew he was a fluke.“
Why? It’s because Krugman is pushing to create a society that is less robust. Taleb, who characterizes himself as a libertarian, even goes one step further:
“The definition of a robust society: where Paul Krugman could exist without harming others.“
Even worse though is Krugman’s fellow NYT pundit, Thomas Friedman, who with his book about globalization, “is the biggest danger.”
I challenged Taleb on his anti-expert mentality, and told him my contention that much of the appeal of someone slamming these luminaries is that it makes normal people feel good about themselves.
He kind of sidestepped the question, saying that there are plenty of experts who he doesn’t slam, like, say, dentists, because their knowledge, and their arrogance isn’t dangerous. What’s dangerous is the arrogance of someone with the power to influence policy.
After dinner, we talked fitness, and he asked me how I became familiar with Art de Vany. I told him it was through the blogger and econ prof Tyler Cowen, which immediately set Taleb off.
“That guy’s a bullshitter,” noting that Cowen admits to writing about books he only reads parts of.
“How can you write a review of a book you haven’t read?” presumably referring to this Slate review.
His advice to Cowen: “Read much fewer books, read them slowly, turn off your internet connection, and then come back.”
[Lila: Ah, but Cowen has flourished academically and he might even end up in a government position, all without reading the books he writes about…how much more robust can you get than that?]
Correction: Apologies to Prof. Cowen for aspersing him unintentionally. I meant, Taleb says he doesn’t read the books he writes about, which is quite a different thing…. Taleb was apparently referring to a Salon review by Cowen of “Black Swan” that ticked off Taleb….
As the night ended, Taleb gave me a brief ride in his White Lexus Hybrid towards a better place to pick up a cab. As we left the parking garage, a couple walked in the direction of the car, and he made a comment about not wanting to run them over.
Unless the guy was an economist, in which case, that would be a “benefit to society.”
GM’s Nazi Past
Note to SPLC: Lay off Ron Paul, Bachmann, and the rest when you’re crying wolf about anti-Semitism.
See below for the real thing. Note also the references to “masses”. The people appealing to the masses aren’t the Randy Weavers of the world who are lone wolves who see themselves ranged against the blind masses. The people appealing to the masses are the bland bureaucrats and apparatchiks of the government, our corpocrats and kleptocrats, and the charismatic politicians who front for them, who never met a public need they couldn’t massage. “Homeland,” perpetual war, forced labor camps are all things the militias are afraid of.
From “Skeletons In The Corporate Closet,” Diana Bullock, Minyanville, April 13, 2010
“Few cars in the history of auto manufacturing can match the sentimentality and nostalgia felt for the Volkswagen Beetle. But years before we’d come to associate our beloved Bug with the emblem of the peace sign, Volkswagen’s long strange trip began with a swastika. The iconic, quirky little car often dubbed the “hippie-mobile” was originally, quite literally, the Hitler-mobile.
The brainchild of the Führer himself, the car was masterminded as a gift to the German common man. Translated as the “people’s car,” Volkswagen would provide a cheap, fast, and fuel-efficient means of travel to a country where only a wealthy few owned cars. According to the Vintage Volkswagen Club of America, Hitler opened the 1934 Berlin Auto Show proclaiming, “A car for the people, an affordable Volkswagen, would bring great joy to the masses and the problems of building such a car must be faced with courage.”
In 1937, the Nazi Party, allied with auto engineer and Beetle designer Ferdinand Porsche, formed the state-owned Volkswagen company. A year later, Hitler presided over the tightly controlled, propaganda-heavy groundbreaking ceremony for the new Volkswagen plant before a crowd of 70,000 “Heil!”-chanting faithful. Production on the Beetle, then called the KdF-Wagen or “strength through joy” car, was ill-timed to begin in September of 1939. Only a few cars made it out of the factory before World War II forced Porsche to halt production and turn the Volkswagen plant into a war armaments labor camp. Hitler never lived to see his pet project come to fruition since the Beetle wouldn’t be mass produced until after the Nazi surrender.
In the 1980s, Volkswagen, in the spirit of candor about its Nazi past, commissioned a 10-year $2 million investigation led by historian Hans Mommsen into the extent of its role in the use of wartime slave labor. Titled “Volkswagen and Its Workers During the Third Reich,” the mea culpa reveals Ferdinand Porsche was a willing, “morally indifferent” participant in Hitler’s regime. Volkswagen hired some 20,000 forced laborers, prisoners of war, and concentration camp inmates from Auschwitz, Dachau, and Bergen-Belsen. Kept behind barbed wire in horrible living conditions, they worked for Volkswagen to manufacture grenades, land mines, military vehicles, warplanes, and V-1 flying bombs. They were subjected to malnutrition and savagely beaten for trying to feed themselves from food scraps off the floor.
Volkswagen wasn’t the only automaker with war blood on its hands. One of the most profitable companies to emerge from World War II was SS aider and abetter Daimler Benz whose production skyrocketed thanks to arms contracts, tax breaks, and tens of thousands of slave laborers. BMW similarly exploited 25,000-30,000 forced workers to repair airplane engines for the Nazi war machine.
If the unseemly pasts of these automakers has you ready to boycott German cars and pledge your consumer allegiance to the American auto industry, well don’t wrap yourself in Old Glory just yet.
A car enthusiast first and murdering psychopath second, Hitler drew inspiration — both technically and ideologically — from Ford Motor Company (F) founder and fellow anti-Semite Henry Ford. As creator of the mass produced and inexpensive Model T and publisher of a four-volume conspiracy manifesto titled The International Jew, the bigoted automaker paved the road and Hitler vowed to follow in his muddy tire tracks. In fact, Hitler so revered Ford, the Chancellor hung a life-size portrait of him in his Munich office, gave him a personal shout-out in Mein Kampf, and awarded him the Third Reich’s highest decoration for foreigners, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle. For his part, Ford served as leader of the America First Committee, the foremost interest group opposing American entry into the war, and authored Ford’s overseas subsidiaries to produce Nazi war materials.
Not to be outdone, General Motors rendered its Nazi salute if only to protect its $100 million investment in Germany. GM not only resisted Roosevelt’s call to military production duty in its US factories but assisted the Axis arms effort instead. James Mooney, senior executive for General Motors, was rewarded for his loyalty to Hitler when he was also bestowed with a medal for his “distinguished service to the Reich.”
Ron Paul Smeared As Muse Of Anti-Semitic White Supremacist Killers
Update:
“President Clinton weighed in that “legitimate” comparisons can be drawn between today’s grass-roots anger and resentment toward the government and the right-wing extremism 15 years ago.”
Actually, I think the Clinton statement was a pretty fair one, all in all. It didn’t equate “right-wing extremism” with tea-party goers and anti-government activists (as the SPLC did) and it did give room for people to voice their opinions, without having to “be nice.” It cautioned, correctly, that people should stop short of advocating violence.
Any discussion of the Confederacy, said the ex-Prez, should always include a mention of slavery, which doesn’t sound like an onerous requirement to me. So too any discussion of “Islamicism” should also include a complete list of US interventions in the said Islamicist state, right?
In short, more balance and less polemics. I hope I’ve always tried to do that on this blog.
The only thing is, can we hope the government will live up to this standard and stop short of advocating violence, say, in Iran, or in Michigan…or anywhere else?
ORIGINAL POST
Thanks to David Kramer at LRC blog, for this slimy listing by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of Ron Paul among the “enablers’ of the “Patriot” movement, which, if you didn’t know by now is code to our dear leaders and their cohorts for “Nazi right-wing (definitely Christian) loons-who-share-milk-shakes-‘n-training-manuals- with- OsamaJohnPatrickBedellDavidKoreshRandyWeaver-bin Laden” :
1. Michele Bachmann 2. Glenn Beck 3. Paul Broun 4. Andrew Napolitano 5. Ron Paul
On the page following, you can see what a smear this is. There’s a list of incidents making up a “Patriot” timeline (love those quotation marks) that starts with President Bush’s “New World Order” remark. (He said it, didn’t he?) and is dotted with references to anti-Semitism, white supremacy and violent acts.
Note that when “cultists” or militia members are murdered, the word used is “killed” or “left dead.” When a federal agent is killed, the term is “murdered.”
Video Of Police Raid Of NY Anarchist Film Fest
NBC News had this on April 14, 2010:
“The cops raided an Independent Anarchist Media Collective space at 13 Thames Art Space in Brooklyn and arrested two group members Tuesday.
According to the “I AM Collective” statement, the NYPD entered the Bushwick based art and performance space without a warrant.
“Two plainclothes detectives entered first, followed quickly by a Lieutenant and vans full of blue shirt officers,” the statement reads. “After corralling everyone present in the back room, they searched the space and detained two members of the collective.”
Anarchist News.org describes the event that was slated to run today, April 16:
“The I AM collective was preparing for the NYC Anarchist Film Festival, a showcase of resistance movements and insurrectionary events from around the world presented from an anarchist and anti-authoritarian perspective.”
Reports Suggest Wikileaks May Be Front – Updated
Update: I thought back to the climate-gate e-mails, which, I’d momentarily forgotten, were uploaded to wikileaks. If wikileaks were a Soros-funded disinformation operation, I wonder if it would be uploading emails that damage the AGW theory. That tends to make me wonder about the reason the left-liberals might not like wikileaks.
Update III: Here’s Justin Raimondo on the subject. Raimondo thinks the only people who criticize wikileaks are limousine liberals and tin-foil hat conspiracists…for now, I’ll let him have the last word:
“A child could understand this, but it’s way beyond the executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, and also far beyond the comprehension of the “liberal” Mother Jones magazine, which ought to change its name to Encounter. Kushner “reports” this nonsense uncritically, and even cites the loony John Young, of Cryptome.org, who rants:
“’WikiLeaks is a fraud,’ [Young] wrote to Assange’s list, hinting that the new site was a CIA data mining operation. ‘Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy.’”
Kushner has all bases covered: the white-wine-and-brie liberals who would rather look the other way while their hero Obama slaughters children on the streets of Baghdad, and the tinfoil hat crowd who can be convinced Wikileaks is a “false flag” operation.”
Update II: I should reiterate, I don’t endorse the WM piece. I merely present it…
Update I: I should also add that it doesn’t mean the documents they unearth might not be very important or useful. That’s not what I think this report is suggesting. A front always has a legitimate purpose, which gives it its credibility. How to differentiate disinformation from honest error? Well, evidence of someone/some outfit being funded by intelligence or government agencies; obvious lies or distortions repeated even when evidence contradicts the distortion; giving credence to very few sources or setting up some voices as totally credible and not listening to the range of voices; character assassination rather than rational debate, stigmatization; lack of self-criticism; unwillingness to rethink ideas when faced with new facts.
From The Wayne Madson Report via Alex Constantine:
“In January 2007, John Young, who runs cryptome.org, a site that publishes a wealth of sensitive and classified information, left Wikileaks, claiming the operation was a CIA front. Young also published some 150 email messages sent by Wikileaks activists on cryptome. They include a disparaging comment about this editor [Alex Constantine] by Wikileaks co-founder Dr. Julian Assange of Australia. Assange lists as one of his professions “hacker.” His German co-founder of Wikileaks uses a pseudonym, “Daniel Schmitt.”
Wikileaks claims it is “a multi-jurisdictional organization to protect internal dissidents, whistleblowers, journalists and bloggers who face legal or other threats related to publishing” [whose] primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we are of assistance to people of all nations who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.”
In China, Wikileaks is suspected of having Mossad connections. It is pointed out that its first “leak” was from an Al Shabbab “insider” in Somalia. Al Shabbab is the Muslim insurgent group that the neocons have linked to “Al Qaeda.”
Asian intelligence sources also point out that Assange’s “PhD” is from Moffett University, an on-line diploma mill and that while he is said to hail from Nairobi, Kenya, he actually is from Australia where his exploits have included computer hacking and software piracy.
WMR has confirmed Young’s contention that Wikileaks is a CIA front operation. Wikileaks is intimately involved in a $20 million CIA operation that U.S.-based Chinese dissidents that hack into computers in China. Some of the Chinese hackers route special hacking program through Chinese computers that then target U.S. government and military computer systems. After this hacking is accomplished, the U.S. government announces through friendly media outlets that U.S. computers have been subjected to a Chinese cyber-attack. The “threat” increases an already-bloated cyber-defense and offense budget and plays into the fears of the American public and businesses that heavily rely on information technology.”
My Comment:
Julian Assange was always sending me emails and requests to join wikileaks a couple of years ago. I thought the outfit was interesting, but I don’t really deal in “secret” documents or cloak-and-dagger stuff, because something founded on distrust is bound to founder on distrust.
Even media activism has the same result. You start wondering if everything you’re reading is disinformation. At a certain point, you have to ask, so what if it is? Can’t I still arrive at the right conclusions by operating from strict rules of reason and ethics?
It seems to me that you can figure out what is going on without going under cover or hacking or stealing classified information because propaganda has a very distinctive flavor you get to recognize after some time. I’ll leave the exciting spy v spy stuff to more adventurous sorts. I can’t confirm anything in this piece, but since it’s something I’ve wondered about myself and since it looks like there’s at least one other person (besides Alex Constantine) who’s wondering as well, Assange’s co-worker, it becomes blog-worthy. I remain agnostic.-to-mildly skeptic about wikileaks….
Michael Hudson On The Basic Problem Of the EU
From an interview of economist Michael Hudson at iTulip:
“EJ: Who wins the political battle shaping up here between the PIIGS and their creditors? Within the structure of the euro?
MH: I guess whoever has the most guns politically. The Greeks are out on the streets. The French are out on the streets. They’re not like Americans. They’re really protesting and the class war is back in business over there. Same thing in Ireland.
EJ: My French friends will tell me they’re barbarians over there. We’re very civilized here in the United States.
MH: That’s our problem, as Freud said in “Civilization and its Discontents.”
EJ: I remember reading that book in college. He explained the conflict between the demands of society for individuals to stifle the animalistic behavioral foundations of human nature. Is there a way to diffuse the conflict? A muddle-through option? The IMF has been in and out of the Greek rescue.
Debtor versus creditor nations split the EU
MH: The IMF cannot be part of the solution. It’s part of the problem. The EU basically is part of the problem because it’s pro-financial. So the whole way in which the European Union is structured, basically in a centralized way to be run by the financial lobbyists, obviously isn’t working. The EU isn’t really like the United States. It doesn’t really have it’s own parliament and systematic taxes. The Germans are saying today that in the old days, a century ago, if a problem like this came up in, say, Latin America, the United States would send in the marines. They’d occupy the custom’s houses and as these governments made most of their money on charging customs on imports and exports the marines would collect it and pay the creditors.
But now what are the creditors going to do today? Are, let’s say, the Germans going to take over in Greece? Who will act as the equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service to collect the money? The Germans would have to promote not a military dictatorship as the colonel powers did in the old days but a popular government that would tax the rich and the Germans aren’t going to do that. The European Union, the creditors, because they support the right wing not the left wing, are preventing these governments from collecting taxes progressively to balance the budget and pay the debts. That’s the problem: it’s a right-wing versus left-wing problem. Unfortunately, there isn’t really a left wing in Europe to make this case very well. The social democrats have more or less abandoned what used to be an economic policy at the outset. They are now concerned more with political and social issues than economic issues. So there isn’t really a party in Europe that is taking the side of progressive economic policies. They’ve left economics and finance, and debt and credit policy, to the right wing to discuss among each other rather than making it a left-wing topic like it used to be a hundred years ago.
EJ: Isn’t that something of a global phenomenon?
MH: Yes.
EJ: I don’t see it as being terribly different here in the US.
MH: Or in Australia. The Labor Parties all over the world. The most right-wing parties that you can see are the labor parties of Australia and New Zealand where they were leading the privatization sell-offs and leading the tax shift favoring the financial sector. And they didn’t even realize it! They’ve somehow “decoupled” financial analysis from the social analysis that characterizes social democratic and labor parties from their outset a hundred years ago.”
My Comment:
Hudson is always interesting to read, as long as you keep in mind his basic Marxist orientation. So he gets the details right, and then he goes on about the old demon “right-wing” in rhetoric that doesn’t make sense to me, and that even his own writing betrays.
“So Old Europe is quite culpable for having promoted a kind of neo-liberalism that was so right-wing as never to have been able to get a foothold at all either in Western Europe or in the United States. In Latvia there is a flat tax on labor of over 50% and less than a 1% tax on property.”
But right-wingers are the ones arguing the hardest to abolish taxes, especially in this country….
So, with the acknowledgment that I’m an alert student of economics who’s been reading/researching the economic crisis for a few years, but whose main training is in history and politics, let me note the puzzling discrepancies I find in the writing of a man whose knowledge and industry experience are said to be impeccable by even people who don’t agree with him:
1. Why does MH blame “right wingers,” when it was Austrians and right-wingers who were vehemently opposed to the bail-out and to TARP that saddled the country with the banks’ debts? Since when are social-democrats right-wingers?
2. Monetarism and monetary intervention are uniformly advocated by all economists, from the so-called left to the so-called right. Indeed, it’s only the extreme right (to the right of the statist Chicago school) that criticizes all monetary intervention.
3. Why does Hudson argue against deflation? Deflation is the one thing that will ultimately put the economy back on track. All those overpriced houses would fall in price to within reach of the average citizen. Deflation might reduce wages but it will save pensioners and support savers (who have taken the brunt of the damage done by the boom).
4. A default by Greece would have helped the Euro, ultimately.
5. Why does Hudson think that inflating away a country’s debt is good for the working man or for pensioners or for small business? Inflation will whittle away at the currency, at savings, and at real income. None of which is good for ordinary people.
6. Hudson is right that Social Security and Medicare in the US are not entitlements, since people have all contributed to them. One solution to funding them is to dismantle the war machine. Convert all bases to peaceful uses. That requires no extra funding. Why is it that Hudson doesn’t raise that as an option?
7. Hudson claims that Latvian taxes are of a kind no Western nation would levy (50%) on labor. Really? Adding up all income taxes and sales taxes, taxes in the northern European countries are surely that high, and taxes in the US and UK are well on their way there.
8. Despite talking about “social culture” Hudson says nothing about whether the Eastern European countries have the same kind of business and social culture that have made the northern countries creditor countries. What are the rates of savings, of corruption, of business creation? What are the laws regarding property rights? What are the incentives, or lack thereof, for business?