Defending Capitalism, Defeating Liberalism, and Doing it, Oh So Well

Nancy Pelosi wipes her brow and gives a sigh of relief, as Jesse A. Meyerson is determined to be the stupidest person who ever lived.

Never heard of him?  Don’t let that make you feel inadequate.  No one else has either.  Apparently, he has scribbled down some mindless drivel for a few obscure, obsolete, publications that no one reads.

Pretty big talk for a blogger whose daily readership often couldn’t even fill up 747 jetliner, huh?  How could I even say such a thing?  Well, take a look at what he has written for some left wing propaganda outfit called Rolling Stone (I guess that sometimes they have stories about music and stuff too), and then look at anything I have written here at the Golden Geese News, and you tell me who has a firmer grip on reality. I’m also up against much stiffer competition.  Just look at the quality, creative writing that appears on any of the sites of my blogroll.

Apparently, there is some type of talent vacuum at Rolling Stone, Salon, or any liberal media outlet, all the way up to MSNBC, that will suck in anyone willing to spout off some left wing garbage.  Can you think of any liberal pundit that relies upon logic and facts the way Charles Krauthammer or George Will does?  No?  There’s a reason for that.  

Liberalism is the victim of its own success.  Liberal and conservative are relative terms.  Over the last 75 years, this country has moved far to the left, politically.  Today’s conservatives, would be branded socialists by the conservatives of the 1930’s.  By definition, conservatives are to the right of liberals on the political spectrum, and the shift of conservatives and moderates to the left over the three quarters of a century, has squeezed the liberals between a rock and a hard place.  They can’t move right, because then they would barely be distinguished from many who consider themselves conservatives, but they can’t (as much as they would like to) move any further left, because then, they they would be identified as what they truly are.  Socialists.  The collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the ongoing failures of other socialist nations are too much a part of the memories, and on the forefront of people’s minds to do that.

There used to be a fair amount of respectable liberal commentators, but they all either retired, or changed sides.  Krauthammer himself, was once a liberal. So was David Horowitz, and Bernie Goldberg. They’re not the only ones, check out this list.  If one feels that the only way they can maintain their dignity and self respect is to consistently adhere to facts and logic, they must abandon liberalism.  That is the reason that you will find few, if any people with any amount of logic or common sense willing to fight for the liberal cause, and it is the reason that you find what you do, writing for Rolling Stone, or speaking on MSNBC.  They’re the best that those outfits can find.

Want more proof?  Let’s take a look at some of what Meyerson probably considers, some of his best work, and then you compare it to what I have to say, as I rip him to shreds.

source: Rolling Stone

Guaranteed jobs, universal basic incomes, public finance and more

January 3, 2014 10:00 AM ET

It's a new year, but one thing hasn't changed: The economy still blows. Five years after Wall Street crashed, America's banker-gamblers have only gotten richer, while huge swaths of the country are still drowning in personal debt, tens of millions of Americans remain unemployed – and the new jobs being created are largely low-wage, sub-contracted, part-time grunt work.
Millennials have been especially hard-hit by the downturn, which is probably why so many people in this generation (like myself) regard capitalism with a level of suspicion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. But that egalitarian impulse isn't often accompanied by concrete proposals about how to get out of this catastrophe. Here are a few things we might want to start fighting for, pronto, if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us.
1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody
Unemployment blows. The easiest and most direct solution is for the government to guarantee that everyone who wants to contribute productively to society is able to earn a decent living in the public sector. There are millions of people who want to work, and there's tons of work that needs doing – it's a no-brainer. And this idea isn't as radical as it might sound: It's similar to what the federal Works Progress Administration made possible during Roosevelt's New Deal, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. vocally supported a public-sector job guarantee in the 1960s.
A job guarantee that paid a living wage would anchor prices, drive up conditions for workers at megacorporations like Walmart and McDonald's, and target employment for the poor and long-term unemployed – people to whom conventional stimulus money rarely trickles all the way down. The program would automatically expand during private-sector downturns and contract during private-sector upswings, balancing out the business cycle and sending people from job to job, rather than job to unemployment, when times got tough.
Some economists have proposed running a job guarantee through the non-profit sector, which would make it even easier to suit the job to the worker. Imagine a world where people could contribute the skills that inspire them – teaching, tutoring, urban farming, cleaning up the environment, painting murals – rather than telemarketing or whatever other stupid tasks bosses need done to supplement their millions. Sounds nice, doesn't it?
2. Social Security for All
But let's think even bigger. Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs. What if people didn't have to work to survive? Enter the jaw-droppingly simple idea of a universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone's bank account every month. A proposal along these lines has been gaining traction in Switzerland, and it's starting to get a lot of attention here, too.
We live in the age of 3D printers and self-replicating robots. Actual human workers are increasingly surplus to requirement – that's one major reason why we have such a big unemployment problem. A universal basic income would address this epidemic at the root and provide everyone, in the words of Duke professor Kathi Weeks, "time to cultivate new needs for pleasures, activities, senses, passions, affects, and socialities that exceed the options of working and saving, producing and accumulating."
Put another way: A universal basic income, combined with a job guarantee and other social programs, could make participation in the labor force truly voluntary, thereby enabling people to get a life.
3. Take Back The Land
Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve. In a few years, my landlord will probably sell my building to another landlord and make off with the appreciated value of the land s/he also claims to own – which won't even get taxed, as long as s/he ploughs it right back into more real estate.
Think about how stupid that is. The value of the land has nothing to do with my idle, remote landlord; it reflects the nearby parks and subways and shops, which I have access to thanks to the community and the public. So why don't the community and the public derive the value and put it toward uses that benefit everyone? Because capitalism, is why.
The most mainstream way of flipping the script is a simple land-value tax. By targeting wealthy real estate owners and their free rides, we can fight inequality and poverty directly, make disastrous asset price bubbles impossible and curb Wall Street's hideous bloat. There are cooler ideas out there, too: Municipalities themselves can be big-time landowners, and groups can even create large-scale community land trusts so that the land is held in common. In any case, we have to stop letting rich people pretend they privately own what nature provided everyone.
4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody
Hoarders blow. Take, for instance, the infamous one percent, whose ownership of the capital stock of this country leads to such horrific inequality. "Capital stock" refers to two things here: the buildings and equipment that workers use to produce goods and services, and the stocks and bonds that represent ownership over the former. The top 10 percent's ownership of the means of production is represented by the fact that they control 80 percent of all financial assets.
This detachment means that there's a way easier way to collectivize wealth ownership than having to stage uprisings that seize the actual airplanes and warehouses and whatnot: Just buy up their stocks and bonds. When the government does that, it's called a sovereign wealth fund. Think of it like a big investment fund that buys up assets from the private sector and pays dividends to all permanent U.S. residents in the form of a universal basic income. Alaska actually already has a fund like this in place. If it's good enough for Levi Johnston, it's good enough for you.
5. A Public Bank in Every State
You know what else really blows? Wall Street. The whole point of a finance sector is supposed to be collecting the surplus that the whole economy has worked to produce, and channeling that surplus wealth toward its most socially valuable uses. It is difficult to overstate how completely awful our finance sector has been at accomplishing that basic goal. Let's try to change that by allowing state governments into the banking game.
There is only one state that currently has a public option for banking: North Dakota. When North Dakotans pay state taxes, the money gets deposited in the state's bank, which in turn offers cheap loans to farmers, students and businesses. The Bank of North Dakota doesn't make seedy, destined-to-default loans, slice them up inscrutably and sell them on a secondary market. It doesn't play around with incomprehensible derivatives and allow its executives to extract billions of dollars. It just makes loans and works with debtors to pay them off. Sounds nice, doesn't it?
If that idea – or any of the others described in this piece – sounds good to you, there's a bitter political struggle to be waged. Let's get to work.

Alright, alright, you all ready for me to kill Jesse Meyerson here?  Here we go.  Check out the very first sentence of his piece.  “The economy still blows.”  Now, when was the last time that you heard Charles Krauthammer say that something “blows”.  Yes, I use crude, childish language here too (In fact I feel some bubbling up to the surface at this very moment.), but Jesse’s writing for a magazine that wants believe that some people actually take it seriously.  With my miniscule readership, I obviously have a lot more freedom to do whatever I want.  I’ve always wondered, what’s Rolling Stone doing pieces about politics for anyway?  Aren’t they supposed to cover music? - and rap?  Politics is so far away from their realm.  It’s like Hot Rod having a section about fine dining, or Field & Stream doing stories about nuclear medicine.
After that, he goes on with the same old liberal crap you’ve heard a thousand times before, but he adds that Millennials have been “especially hard hit” by the current recession.  Really?  The Millennials, especially hard hit?  Hey, maybe they were.  Maybe all those twenty somethings, had their net worth cut by 50%.  If today, on average, it’s $125, a smartphone, and a McDonalds gift certificate, their net worth in 2008 would have been, uh, uh, uh, twice that.  Especially hard hit.  Gimme a break.  Tell that to a 50 year old whose business failed.  The only thing the Millennials lost was time, but so did everyone else, and we know where the blame for that, correctly lays.
All this has caused him and his fellow children, to “regard capitalism with a level of suspicion”, and as if he couldn’t resist it any longer, out comes the red flag code word, “egalitarian”.  Jesse, we all know you mean socialist.  Just go ahead and say it.  You pretty much do with the rest of your piece anyway.  
Now don’t get me wrong, Jesse, I hate the bankers every much as you do,when the day comes to hunt them down and feed them to the dogs, I’ll be right there to help you.  However, your attempt to blame our current mess on capitalism is ridiculous.  The evil bankers you mentioned, deserve some of the blame, but they would have never been able to do the damage they did, if it weren’t for some of your egalitarian impulses.  
Capitalism in and of itself, is nothing to be suspicious of.  All capitalism is, is this:  I got something.  You got something.  I want what you got, more than what I’ve got, and you want what I’ve got, more than what you’ve got.  Let’s trade, then we’ll both be better off.  In other words, we’ll both be richer.  Wealth will be created.  That’s capitalism.  A win-win situation for both parties.  
The only thing to be suspicious of, is meddling socialists, trying to “make things fair”.  At best, that creates a drag on the economy, and at worst, it causes an economic meltdown.  Blaming capitalism for our current recession, is like condemning the game of football for problems caused by cheaters, poor officiating, or stupid league rules.
Holy cow!  I just wrote about a dozen paragraphs commenting on Jesse, and his first paragraph.  I haven’t even gotten to his five stupid points yet.  It’s kind of like a car accident.  That only takes a moment, but it can take up to a month to repair the damage.  Same kind of thing here.  It’s going to take a while to pound out the dents Jesse caused with his stupidity.  OK, let’s get to pointy heads’s five points.
1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody - How many times have you heard a liberal say something like this?   The natural response for everyone with a half a brain is, “If such a policy could work, why hasn’t it been implemented long ago, at least in some country, where it is a rousing success?”  The answer of course is, that it could never work, anywhere.  It didn’t work with full blown communism in the Soviet Union, and it doesn’t work here in the U.S., with the kick-me dog of socialism, nipping at our heels.
A government cannot guarantee jobs (not real jobs that produce wealth anyway) any more than a mother lion can guarantee meat for her cubs.  What’s out there (at any given time) is what’s out there.  What Jesse doesn’t understand is that it takes more than just someone willing to work in order for a job to exist.  Just as importantly, a job requires that there be someone willing to pay for the labor of the worker.  Notice how I said willing to pay.  Confiscating money through taxes and redistributing it through government make work jobs, does not create wealth.
Simply paying people to do things for which there is either no, or an already satisfied demand, will not help our economy, one iota.  However, I admit,  it is, better than welfare.
It’s obvious that Jesse is unable to comprehend this, but there is a demand for telemarketers and all the other “stupid tasks” that bosses ask their employees to do, and therefore all those stupid tasks have created more wealth than all the urban farming and mural painting in any universe ever could.  Wealth, you know, the stuff that pays for all your stupid liberal ideas.
2. Social Security for All - You know, ‘cause what we have right now is working out so well, why not expand it?  Jesse, don’t you understand that you and your fellow Millennials, are right now paying over 15% of your income in FICA taxes? (Including what your employer kicks in, which otherwise could have been part of your net pay.)  Do you honestly think that you are ever going to see any of that?  You’re kind of screwing your fellow Millennials over by suggesting that a bunch of deadbeats jump on board.  
By the way, where is all the money needed to implement your ideas 1 and 2, supposed to come from?  Hummmmm?  If participation in the labor force was voluntary, who would work?  It’s not even voluntary now, and people are dropping out in record numbers, and it’s all because they feel that they are too good to do the jobs that they are qualified for.
3. Take Back The Land - In a way, I kinda admire you now, Jesse.  You’re not trying to hide what you really are - a full blown communist.  I wish our Democratic politicians could be so honest.  Those evil landlords and property owners.  Let’s just take their shit.  Why not?  It’s only fair right?  Jesse, since your piece appeared in Rolling Stone, perhaps you might be able to understand why this might not be such a good idea, if I explained it to you this way.  
I suck at the guitar.  In fact, I have no musical talent whatsoever.  Not all, but many of the people featured in Rolling Stone, are talented musicians.  Now that’s not fair to me.  I wish I could get up there and jam on stage, in front of tens of thousands of fans, and make millions doing it, but I can’t.  What can we do about this?  What should we do about this?  The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. (Except maybe, saying boo hoo for me.)  The approach you suggest taking against landlords would be similar to me saying that we should cut off all musicians fingers, so they would not have anything more of an advantage at playing an instrument than me.  Then, no one would be better than me at playing guitar.  Would that make any sense?  No, because then we would all lose the value we receive (wealth produced) from hearing any new music played by artists we enjoy.  A talented musician can produce wealth by playing the guitar.  I cannot.  That’s just the way it is, and it’s the way it should be.
It’s the same way with landlords.  They are the people who are the most successful at providing housing for people.  People who are less successful at it, drop out of the business.  You may not realize it, but eliminating them would have the same effect on housing as eliminating the best musicians would have on music.  Quality would suffer.  Check out housing conditions in countries where all buildings are owned and maintained by the government.
The reason why your landlord may not make improvements as fast as you like, is the same reason you can afford to live where you live.  All landlords would actually love to have their buildings in top condition, because that way they could attract the best tenants, who are able to pay the highest rents, and don’t vandalize the facilities.  There are however, some areas where top quality tenants refuse to live, so it is impossible to maintain a top quality building for the amount of rent that landlords would be able to receive.
That’s good news for you though.  Don’t you understand?  That way, there are apartments available that you can afford.   See how the capitalism and free market (that you so abhor) almost magically, provides all levels of goods and services for all levels of people’s ability to pay?  If all the buildings were top notch, they would all be out of your league, and then you would be looking at living in the cardboard boxes and piecemeal tin shacks that the rest of the world’s lower class people live in.  
One more thing to be said on this.  It’s that pesky wealth generation thing again.  Landlords make money on their buildings.  It’s the reason they have them.  Some of the money they make, pays taxes to fund your stupid liberal stuff, and the rest gets pumped back into the economy, which produces jobs for boneheads like you, Jesse.
4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody - Jesse, you’re an idiot, and I don’t say that as an insult. I say it because you are unable to draw on your own life experiences.  Remember high school, where you were in a community owned building?  Remember all the idiot kids who vandalized everything they could, simply because it wasn’t theirs?  Do you think those kids did that to their own shit?  Do you think that a business owner vandalizes his own facilities?  And that’s just a minor reason why your number four is such a stupid idea.
The biggest reason that it’s such a terrible idea, is that having all means of production community owned, eliminates the incentive for people to be resourceful, efficient, and have ingenuity and this is the reason that your beloved communism never works, at least nowhere near as well as capitalism.  By now you should be asking yourself just why are conditions are better for nearly everyone in capitalist countries than in ones with any other type of economic system.  
5. A Public Bank in Every State - Oh shut up!  You come from the same tribe that calls all people behind centralized banking evil, but you think that a bunch of junior centralized banks is a good idea.
Jesse, I am truly amazed that you ever got any further than writing for a high school newspaper, and maybe you’ll get some stoned, lazy, stupid, Rolling Stone readers on board for your cause.  Just be aware that I (and everyone with even the slightest understanding of economics and human nature), will be fighting against you in that “bitter political political struggle”.

No comments:

Post a Comment