With the advent of Donald Trump, what was once covert in the Republican message has become overt. Yesterday’s dog whistle is today’s screaming siren. Case in point: anti-immigrant bigotry, which was most recently expressed in Donald Trump Jr.’s recent “Skittles”-themed Twitter attack on Syrian refugees.
The first step to achieving the goals Eskow advocates is to break up the too-big-to-fail banks, The second step is breaking up the too-big-to-fail corporations in other industries. Widespread too-big-to-fail is rapidly catapulting into monopolies that will make the gilded age look like a marginal practice session.
Three guesses as to which POTUS candidate has even mentioned any of these solutions and which three never will ?
"We know that "political decision-making in this country is driven by corporate and ultra-wealthy elites, not by the democratic majority,"
The oligarchy's greatest trick is to make us think that representative government is democracy.
If its not direct, its not democracy.
The Big Short ends with a reminder that instead of indicting and convicting bankers who caused the 2008 crash (and provided the subject matter for The Big Short). immigrants and poor people were blamed, and continue to be blamed.
Trump has simply latched on to a theme that the corporations, their media and politicians institutionalized during the past 8 years. Trump is simply taking that theme to the next level of marketing.
You want a Revolution?
2. Vote for Jill Stein.
Third, vote every Incumbent out of office.
4. Tell all of your friends, family, and everyone you meet to do those three things.
I suggest the banks do not have to broken up. They have to be nationalized. The power to issue currency should rest with the Government alone and not private banks.
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I agree with you about nationalizing the banks, but the money supply is regulated by the Federal Reserve Bank which was given a charter to operate by the congress in 1913.
WWI began in June, 1914.
Those two events coming so closely togather are not a coincidence.
We may, and probably do, need all the prescriptions recommended above. But we also need to be truthful about immigration. I think there are a variety of studies that show that there may be some cost with some immigrants (http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic803549.files/Week%209-November%203/Smith_Do%20immigrants.pdf). Latin Americans in particular, receive government benefits at higher rates than other immigrants and compete for more lower end jobs and jobs that are in the underground economy in some instances. The impact on workers making less than $25,000 per years is estimated as high as $1500 per year by some studies. The availability of inexpensive immigrant labor may convince employers not to invest in labor-saving machinery as well, and there have been many studies of this phenomenon. It is true that immigration increases national income. But the amount of government help offered to immigrants, the age of immigrants, their educational attainments and other criteria can impact whether there impact is short-term negative or positive.
In addition, as with free trade, immigrants can have a beneficial impact to the overall economy but a negative effect within a defined geographical area. Here in California, over the past five decades all the jobs that used to be done by teens or unskilled native workers (cutting lawns, washing dishes, orderlies, etc.) have been taken over by Latin American immigrants.
All the developed countries face a big conundrum. They need skilled immigrants that are typically easier to assimilate and fit into the future economy of the country. But the best way to help refugees and immigrants from poor countries is to move them to rich countries. It increases their odds of financial success much quicker than investments in poor countries do.
That's one definition of Communism. Which leads to Anarchy. Both of those systems of governing are superior to the Capitalist democratic model we currently employ.
True to an extent but the role of the Central Banks in all Countries was changed dramatically in the 1970's where international treaties signed to surrender much of the power to issue currency to Private banks.
In measuring Money Supply there various components that are measured. In the USA they measure Central Bank Money and than add on Commercial bank money. Central Bank money are notes officially printed whereas Commercial Bank money comes about via the "creation" of notes via the fractional reserve banking system. These are just entries on a computer screen. There no physical money lent.
In the US this is called the M1 M2 and M3 money supply. Other banking systems in the West operate in the same manner. In Canada this called M+Gross M++gross and M+++gross.
The role of the Central banks in that M1 2 and 3 supply is minimal. They only set rules as to how much a given private bank has on hand in real deposits versus the amount they loan out via loans . In fact when measuring total money supply , the majority is regarded as commercial (private) bank money.
Now an economist can certainly explain it better than I but while the creation of the Federal reserve in the USA was the first step towards privatizing the creation of money in the US , when one looks at the Western Banking system as a whole the single largest step towards that was the changes to the banking system in the 1970s.
US currency was backed by gold and silver stored in Fort Knox until the government sold it off during the 60s when dollars were no longer labeled silver certificates but started being labeled federal reserve notes.
The black population of the U.S.doesn't correlate to 20% of the entire U.S. population ( 3% Trumpster voters ). The Hispanic population doesn't get you there, either ( 20-25% religiously insane or anti-Communist wacko leftovers are Trumpster voters ). So, this mixed basket really is a garbage bag. Filled with about 30 million ( self identifying ) white supremacists and other mixed up or misinformed fundamentalist dolts and dingbats. Yes, that's pretty close to 1/2 of the diehards in Uncle & Auntie Whitey's Church of Ghouls, Gargoyles and Goblins. The GOP now stands for the Great Oppressive Purgers. And, you really do need to get out more, too. Try a math class at a community college, perhaps? I'm voting Green and Stein in 2016 and say, " a pox on both your houses ".
I see you here, often. Exactly how are the billionaire class bringing them in? Through war and then as the religously persecuted, would be my guess. The rest are here legally ( by law ) or are smuggled in. Congress is passing those laws, btw. Tip over the Congress. Send the millionaire classes packing and support public financing of elections, et al. Ending the Endless War Coalition solves many problems. Like sending white supremacist movements back into their caves, for instance.
To be sure, not all billionaires are trying to take your job, cut your pay, steal your democracy or destroy your planet. Donald Trump claims to be a billionaire. (Who can know for sure?) But we can’t condemn all billionaires because of what Trump and his ilk have done. They’re human beings, for God’s sake, not pieces of candy.
To this type of argument the Scot's author Iain Banks once wrote in a novel.
“I’m not arguing there are no decent people in the Tory party but their like sweetcorn in a turd; technically they kept their integrity but they‘re still embedded in shit”
Another bizarre offering from our good friends at Committee to Advance the Interests of the Democratic Party, or whatever they're called.
Eskow's addressing two separate questions here: the first is who's responsible for low to no growth, and the second is whether immigrants are "stealing our jobs".
And the best part is, his points contradict each other.
If the rich are crushing growth because they're preventing capital from being returned into the material economy (this claim is largely true, by the way), then that means that jobs aren't keeping pace with the number of people who need them. And if migrant labor is popping up in jobs, that means there's a zero sum net loss for domestic workers. So yes, they are taking jobs from domestic workers (the phrase "stealing"" is irresponsibly inflammatory) as long as there's a near no-growth economy.
We also know that the employment rate--the number of people working in the population--is at historic lows, which means someone in the population is losing and losing big.
I agree that immigrants and migrants should not be the focus of the ire of the domestic working class. They're responding to their own set of economic pressures, most created by the same corporations that are screwing American laborers over. But that doesn't relieve them of the burden of being imported "scab" labor of a sort, either. Many of them know full well that their employment is coming at the cost of a domestic worker,and they also know the biggest reason for that is their willingness to undercut the wages of native workers.
All this is by way of saying two things: first, employment "studies" are generally unreliable, especially if they're not generating new data, but only reviewing other studies that have been done. The second is that bashing immigrants will do nothing t alleviate the situation. While they're getting jobs at the expense of domestic workers, they're still powerless, and beating on them won't change the relentless labor cost cutting that's underneath this entire sorry episode.
So we should all agree on one thing: nail the companies responsible for this tragic competition to the wall. Focus on the suits, not the workers.
This is just another regurgitated lie that Wall Street neoliberals have been selling for decades. And it's laughable.
If you're a roofer contractor, and you need a crew, who are you going to hire? A bunch of Americans, with social security numbers, high school educations, and a strong, generations long expectation of fair wages, workers comp, unemployment insurance, and reasonable hours, or a bunch of illegal immigrants who will work for pennies on the dollar and expect nothing but an hourly wage, whenever they can get it?
Please. We know exactly what's going on here. Cheap labor is everything to business profits. It always has been. And the unstated policy of the US government since Reagan has been to flood the labor pool with cheap labor.
What do you think black slavery was really about? Racism? No, that was just a rationale. It was about cheap labor.
There is nothing the oligarchs (or any crooked business owner) loves more than a labor force of desperate people who have no rights, no political power, no ability to unionize, and no recourse under the law.
I know most good people take a compassionate position on immigration. So do I. So let's stop allowing the CIA and other Oligarch playthings to overthrow Third World democracies while suppressing their attempts to make better lives for their people.
For over a century we've been looting and corrupting the Third world for the benefit of sociopaths. Illegal immigrants aren't just people looking for a better life. They're refugees from economic and political warfare waged by our State Department at the behest of bankers and other monstrous economic parasites.
The United States isn't defined by a place on the map. It is defined by our laws.
We need to give all current illegal immigrants amnesty and legal status as full US citizens. They need to be welcomed as full participants in our democracy and our society.
But we also need to put an end to the US corporate imperialism that has destroyed the nations of these refugees so that they don't need to escape our destruction by illegally migrating to the very source of their demise.
One time it was those Asiatics and Chinese who were the threat and Eugene Debs had to argue against his comrades.
"If Socialism, international, revolutionary Socialism, does not stand staunchly, unflinchingly, and uncompromisingly for the working class and for the exploited and oppressed masses of all lands, then it stands for none and its claim is a false pretense and its profession a delusion and a snare. Let those desert us who will because we refuse to shut the international door in the faces of their own brethren; we will be none the weaker but all the stronger for their going, for they evidently have no clear conception of the international solidarity, are wholly lacking in the revolutionary spirit, and have no proper place in the Socialist movement while they entertain such aristocratic notions of their own assumed superiority. "
But let me ask those who are anti-immigrant. Would you have turned back the Okies who were fleeing the Dust Bowl? Would you have stopped African Americans from leaving the rural southern states? Would you have kept women in the kitchen and not let them enter the work-force.
They were all accused of being scab labor, too.
Capitalism and here i agree with you Drone...has always turned worker against worker in the competition for jobs and decent pay and now we have those Right to Work states offering low pay and low benefits but plenty of subsidies to business to re-locate from unionised states.
the Debs passage doesn't apply to this context. Debs is speaking on the assumption that all workers should be integrated into a larger working class movement for socialism. I can't think of any leftists that would idsagree with that proposition.
What most liberals adopting the "la Raza" line are doing is quite different. It's rejecting the economic displacement of domestic workers in order to favor the material elevation of imported labor. That's divisive politics (intentionally so, if you see who's funding many of these organizations) and it's also wrong.
Again, the focus has to be on the suits creating this conflict. But at the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that a conscious displacement of working class labor is and has been happening all along. That's the only thing that's going to permit any kind of rapprochement between abandoned domestic workers and their exploited migrant counterparts. We cannot afford this division to continue.
And by the way, I'm not "anti immigrant". I have no principled objection to immigration at all. I am anti displacement.
really well said.
While I agree with the statements in this article, and they are true, it is not the whole truth. The fact is that the take-over of political power and influence as well as the suppression of Unions are only symptoms and outcomes of a more fundamental wrong in our society. We need to look at the reason that these billionaires and corporations become so wealthy in the first place. I find the use of the monopoly symbol in the header to be very appropriate. It is because of monopolistic privilege that we live with the effects of the growing inequality of wealth in our society. In particular it is the privilege of private "ownership" of land (all resources) that is the route cause of this disparity and the continued and growing presence of poverty in the midst of affluent plenty. Henry George, the 19th century economic philosopher, was right. Until we address and correct this fundamental flaw, which effectively allows a small elite to enslave the rest of us, we will never have true equality or freedom of opportunity, and the self evident truth stated by the founding fathers of democracy will continue to be a hollow promise.