Hi Antisandman:
YES! Those nations that believed America were destroyed!
But China just gave 100,000 covid vaccines to Palestine----and Biden could do the human thing and return the Iran deal to what it was before Pompeo, Trump and Israel got together.
I am glad that China and Russia and Iran are working together on banking—because America has no right to starve the people of other nations from having food and medicine.----At one time America has starved and harmed the people of those nations and even people in its own nation too!
1 Like
Agreed - the New Deal had a higher percentage of direct-to-people programs. But, I am not sure that’s a completely fair criteria when the problems of infrastructure and climate change are at the fore (i.e. I would expect a larger proportion of funds to go to companies, institutions, and local governmental entities in the latter situation).
What started out on the right foot, with The Bidenistas’ $1.9 Trillion in emergency aid, is about to trip over the same old broken steps. The ones leading to the offices of every old lobbying business in The Swamp. Except the ones which have the general welfare and the common good in mind, of course. The plan is a dud. It’s a 2002 Infrastructure Plan for the year 2022. Who got to the Biden Administration over the weekend?
This $2 Trillion isn’t exactly small potatoes but sure feels like it. Over-hyped or under-imagined; I’ll go for the second choice here. It is, however, a huge slap in the face to Green New Deal organizations and their members. All that research put on hold and scoffed at. No one in that constiuency will like this same old, same old Swamp Sausage. Who can blame them really?
Back to the drafting table President Biden.
1 Like
We’ve been desensitized to official corruption. We ordinary citizens will continue to be losers while we continue to vote for corruption by one party thinking we’re voting against the exact same kind of corruption by the other party.
1 Like
the elites that own both parties know exactly what is coming as the planet heats up. so does the pentagon. the failure to act is literally insane
True about the labor movement and social movements pressing FDR. Few things on China though.
First off, while China has certainly put in place more capitalist friendly policies since the late 70s market reforms, I would not call it capitalist and I used to live in China. State owned enterprises are still pretty dominant, the “social economy” in China (which includes cooperatives) is large, and there are enterprises owned by villages and provinces too. They still employ pretty comprehensive (and largely authoritarian) planning, all land, rivers and lakes are still publicly owned (but use rights are given), there are still price and capital controls, and I could go on. If we want to use a term Lenin used, “state capitalism”, fine, but if we proposed that system here few would call it capitalist.
Beyond that, I don’t know why people don’t take into account the environmental crisis, both globally and in China. The environmental crisis globally means that we either collapse in the coming decades or capitalism is out. Capitalism cannot be made to be a sustainable system. Maybe most Americans cannot accept that, but I could give a fuck. We either acknowledge reality or we don’t, but us not acknowledging this doesn’t change the reality we face. So, any assumption about capitalism existing in the distant future should stop. Either there is no future or a future exists but without capitalism. But, capitalism cannot be made to be a sustainable system. And the environmental crisis in China is absolutely dire. Per capita water availability in China is among the lowest in the world. Most of the water is in southern China (the north is effectively a desert) and most of that water is polluted beyond words. Soil erosion is a huge issue, as is deforestation, there are cancer villages everywhere, air and water pollution is off the charts, and it is literally impossible for China to consume on a per capita basis as the US does. We would need many Earths. China, if you look at value added production, only adds about 6% of the value to products. Things are basically produced (often elsewhere) and they are assembled in China. The internationalization of supply chains will not survive the environmental crisis if we are to get serious. We will need to much more localize production and be able to exist more on our own because of what is coming, and that could require massive reductions in consumption by US citizens. We are going to need to prioritize necessities.
Keep in mind how inequitable China is too. The government used to keep tracks of what it calls mass incidents, i.e., protests and riots related to government policy. Most of the mass incidents were related to corruption, inequality and environmental destruction. All remain huge issues. The species extinction rate is thousands of times the natural rate globally, and this is a particular issue with endangered species in China. The environmental crisis has to be factored in globally and within China. My personal opinion is that if China doesn’t really do radical changes pretty soon, it will Balkanize. Modern China simply didn’t exist before 1949 and I could see it breaking apart and each province becoming separate countries. But, going down a consumerist path is destroying its environment and is a huge contributor to the global environmental crisis.
I don’t say this too hating China as a country. Most of the people lifted out of extreme poverty in recent decades are in China (which shows the lie of the benefits of global capitalism, they never discuss that China alone accounts for most of the global reduction in poverty and China is NOT a free market capitalist economic system). As of 1949, according to World Bank data, the average life expectancy in China was 37 years. According to Angus Maddison, China’s share of worldwide GDP was about 20-25% in the early 19th century. Thanks to British, Japanese and Western imperialism, it had declined to about 6% as of 1949. It is now, according to the IMF, the largest economy in the world when taking purchasing power parity into account. So, it has come a long way. But, it needs radical changes very soon and must deal with the limits to growth more than any major country. So, assuming that China or the US will be this or that 30 years out, or assuming capitalism is a given 30 years out is to assume things pretty rapidly collapsing.
If you are interested in a leftist perspective on this, read Minqi Li.
My personal opinion is that it is foolish to look at the mid 20th century, given that the things we now face are much larger and do in fact require far more structural changes. I know that there was a great depression, WWII and that capitalism was on the ropes. But, the environmental crisis is a completely different animal and requires far, far deeper changes that what was required in the New Deal era. I, in fact, think that we are going to have to stop putting dollar amounts on what is needed moving forward, since the environmental crisis is overwhelmingly a non-market crisis and most environmental impacts cannot be priced. Given the scale of this crisis anyway, if we were to price these massive non-market impacts, that alone would lead to an explosion in inflation. We are going to need actual comprehensive economic planning on a scale that would have pleased FDRs left wing critiques back in the day. Fact is, he did want to save capitalism and there is no realistic way to do so if we want to avoid global environmental collapse. The question is whether or not the system that replaces is it is just as undemocratic and inequitable. Like I said, economic planning is unquestionably needed, but my fear is that the planning will be authoritarian, that the monopolistic power of private industry will be transferred over to a planning body and the planning will be top down. If that does happen, we will see a repeat of the problems faced by centrally planned economies.
But, there is no realistic way a fully decentralized economy that relies heavily on markets can make it through the environmental crisis. If humanity has a future, capitalism doesn’t. We can like that or not, we can argue that Americans will not accept that, it really doesn’t matter.
Just wanted to also point out that when we talk about inflation, it really is impossible to predict, given that private banks create most of the money we use. Anyone predicting inflation a decade out has to assume things in regards to banks creating credit money, and I don’t see how anyone can realistically do so. I also don’t see how banks can continue to create most of the money we use if we are to get serious about the environmental crisis. But, that is another discussion.
1 Like
I agree that the clear upcoming train wreck between the capitalistic need to grow and the environmental crisis combined with the current political discussions that focus on pricing things in a way that cannot foster solutions is at the core of the problem. Your point about the possibility of an authoritarian replacement to the current system is also well taken to which I would add the current lack of trust in science and the tendency for in-fighting amongst people as we are pitted against one another in a war of blame over each sub-crisis that makes solutions difficult.
When I search for optimism regarding forces that might counter these mega issues - I think about how the world is still a big place with lots of possibilities for exemplars; I think about the fact that communications are instantaneous and change can happen quickly; I think about how many aspects of the arc of history are moving in a positive trend (e.g. generally improved health of the world’s population, reduction in extreme poverty; education of girls leading toward lower populations); I think about the many voices for progressive solutions I see/read/learn from every day.
“bleak” ≠ “hopeless”
2 Likes
Wow!! It is a pleasure to read a coherent argument. Even on Wall Street they say a tree cannot grow forever and so it is for capitalism whatever that is. What I was trying to say, not clearly obviously, is that the infrastructure stimulus bill is one group of dinosaurs looking at a perceived threat from another group of dinosaurs and responding, not admitting that there is a giant asteroid on the way that is going to wipe out all except the little birds and mice. Pardon the clumsy metaphore.
The .00001% have all the smartest people available to advise them. Most have established havens in the South so when the SHTF and the North becomes too radioactive from sea level rise and Fukushima like nuclear reactor failures they will have essentially feudal estates to retire to. In the meantime they are playing Kabuki.
Recently there was consirmation of this idea from an unexpected source. The Russians have developed a nuclear powered cruise missile that can stay aloft indefinitely. The defense minister called it “The Revenge Missile”. Its specific purpose is to keep any psychopath with access to the button from thinking he could start a nuclear war and escape to the South and be safe. The Russians are one to two generations ahead of the US in military technology. When there is defense necessary the Russians are pretty good. They knew Adolph was coming and prepared. They know the US is thinking of coming and are prepared.
As people we can turn around global warming without direct intervention by government. We need to eat organically grown food produced regeneratively. As simple and difficult as that.
“…$174 billion in ‘grant and incentive programs’ aimed at promoting electric vehicle development…” This sounds like another big-auto bailout and/or taxpayers paying for the cost of R&D while the companies make the profits.
3 Likes
But, are they not the same thing? Stopping the climate emergency IS DONE by investing in the things that make sense,and are profit making endeavors.
My big concern is that in the past two or three days the infrastructure bill has grabbed the limelight from S1, the voting reform bill.
And couldn’t it all be rolled into one bill. Yup, that’s too much to hope for.
Yet I want to hear just as much enthusiasm about voting as infrastructure.
We can only hope that $174 Billion ties auto use into a national charging grid. With technical support and clean energy ( solar, wind ) close and plentiful.
Building transportation systems for the U.S. needs to require Fearless Leaders taking lots of cues from other countries. We’re being lapped and schooled, currently.
the Biden plan can best be described with the old saying—a dollar short and a day late
1 Like
Of course. They will make profits at every stage. First, there is (ongoing) investment to cause the emergency. Then, the stage where there is investment to “stop” it. Next will come investment to mitigate chaos. And when that becomes completely ineffective, investment to clean up, rebuild, and burn/bury/harvest all the bodies - which is continue indefinitely until humanity wises up, the whole system collapses, and the wise investor has retreated to their mountain or undersea bunker enclave.
There is no such thing as an “emergency” for the investor class. There is only “opportunity”. Any overreach by Wall Street will result in the yet another bailout. The pattern is fairly clear by now.
I just looked at that picture. They got the “falls” part correct, and anybody still in that truck cab must be “woefully short” at this point. (Throwaway line.)
The artists program in the WPA was indeed pretty important - they commissioned 10,000 artists to take part nationally and I loved the fact that they included depictions of important topics like labor history and the struggles of everyday people. Public buildings today still must incorporate 1% of the budget for the arts. Over the years, I have been on a couple committees involved in the design of campus buildings. I have supported using that 1% to hire unknown artists to design murals and sculptures for multiple spaces in the buildings - but have been outvoted by those that prefer a single major work by a famous artist with nice form but little content to grace the lobby.
H pearl:
sigh— that sounds like the corporations have taken over the arts! Another sign of the non-human entity driving up prices for just " some " artists. : (
Yep - As in many professions - income inequality rules the day in the arts. But note that there is a chance for public input in major federal projects (and not that many people comment so a few organized people can make a difference in those kinds of decisions)
Hi dpearl:
Where is this place where people can complain?
I was thinking about major federal displays in my post - but for a description of how the process works for the much more common local public art decisions see ~https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/ncr-article/public-art-and-the-art-of-public-participation/
1 Like