Further and further to the right

[kraft-t]

You're speculating with a simplistic solution but usually those simplistic solutions produce unentended consequences. Much like the tax cuts of this last decade. All hunky dory with lower taxes and a booming economy. A decade later we have 14 trillion in debt and counting. Plus the good old boys advocate more of the same.

[GoredHusker]

Things that would create a general revolt?  The only things I can think of that would create a revolt now would be ending welfare and other social entitlements.  We've all known for quite some time that banks were being loaned money at zero interest and then going out and buying gov't debt receiving a 3+% margin.  According to the EIA report yesterday, we hit 1.1 billion barrels of free stock oil.  This is the highest free stocks of oil since records have been kept which was around 1981 or 1982.  Yet, we still have right at $4.00 gas.  This hasn't caused a revolt either.  While there is a growing wedge between the have's and have not's in this country, I don't see any kind of revolt until the gov't pulls the rug out from beneath the have not's via removing welfare, extended unemployment, etc.  If you take the numbers of workers in the U.S. from a decade ago and compare them to now, the number of workers has shrunk but the general population has grown.  Thus, we're left with fewer people pulling the wagon while more people have climbed in the wagon. 

Here's how I see it:  As long as the have not's continue to receive their gift from the gov't each and every month, they have no reason to revolt.  The have's for the most part have done pretty darn well during this recession.  Therefore, they also have no reason to revolt. 

[bruce MN]

Which brings us to the point where all that anybody or any institution has left in terms of power to do anything can't really do anything more than to simply, and more often than not futilely, try. Which is probably all that stim or cuts in witholding taxes ever were, in reality. TARP? Maybe a different story...significantly different drivers.

I've tended to agree with Sam ever since Sept. 2008 that letting 'r all go where it would might have not been any worse in the end. it's been 3 1/2 years and it hasn't gotten as bad as it could and probably still will for a good number of people, so who knows? But the fact that so much of it went into massive profits that aren't being re-invested  in the general economies remains an argument against the overall wisdom of it.

And if the money, all of it,  is just so much foo-foo then it's likely that it's  beyond what govt. or The Fed or even the IMF can do without some really difficult to imagine world wide reforms.

I read this 2 or 3 weeks ago, printed it off and then found it in a pile of papers a few nights ago. Been making a point to re-read it at least a couple of times a day. Not sure what an understanding and acceptence of it, or of the premise of it is worth, but...... **bleep**.....I can't find anything near by or far away that totally disputes it.

http://macrobusiness.com.au/2011/05/overruled/

SNIPS:

For instance, the $3.8 trillion that is transacted every day in the US dollar makes the annual budget deficit of over $1 trillion look like chump change. About 8 hours trading.

AND

The global stock of derivatives is $US600 trillion, about twice the capital stock of the world (all the shares, property, equities, bonds and bank deposits).

[kraft-t]

You're assuming there is a wagon to pull. I don't agree that punishing the have nots to reward the haves is a good policy.

The result being the haves have more and the have nots have less. If we just kick the unemployed off of welfare they will have to get a job and the only one that pays decently is bank robberies. I honestly think that the right wants to treat menial workers like slaves. The idea that the haves would prefer to force the have nots to work for nearly nothing so that the haves can prosper.

BTW the unemployed for the most psrt have already paid for their benefits. Why do you call it a gift?

[bruce MN]

The poor are nowhere close to as covetous and protective of their entitlements as the upper middle class and the well to do are.

They would universally rather not have them or depend upon them. Would much rather work and have a little something of their own. Only since the vulgarity that was the 1980 Reagan campaign has the idea that the poor like it that way and that they set out to game the system has that not been generally understood. And viewed and treated empathetically, in a "there but for the grace of God go I" manner by the vast majority of Americans.

The plutocracy and the bourgeois see their entitlements and scores of cascading subsidies, either directly administered or through tax codes and commerce rules,  as achievements.

[GoredHusker]

I'm not arguing that the poor would rather have jobs.  I'm simply stating they will not be revolting as long as the current system stays in place.  Revolution is all about numbers.  The have not's significantly outnumber the have's.  While the upper middle class and well to do might very well be more protective of their entitlements, they're not stupid enough to revolt if those entitlements are lost because quite frankly they don't have the power in numbers. 

There have been several revolts against the gov't in other countries since the great recession has hit, but there will not be one here unless the game changes for the have not's.  The poor in a lot of countries aren't affected by gasoline prices because they don't own cars.  The poor in the U.S. own cars and have cell phones. 

When New Orleans was devastated by a hurricane, several small towns around here reached out to the displaced residents offering to relocate these residents here.  There was quite a bit of interest in this by these residents until they found out there would be jobs involved.  They were all for relocating and the homes, but when they found out there were jobs involved the deal fell through.  As far as I know, not one single resident took these towns up on their offers.   

[GoredHusker]

Who said anything about punishing the have not's?  The gov't is not foolish enough to punish the have not's because in doing so would cause a revolt.  During this recession, the gap between the have's and the have not's has grown wider.  Wasn't this what the article Bruce posted alluded to? 

Unemployment benefits were already paid for, yet it was before they had been extended four times.  The normal unemployment was for 26 weeks.  Now, it's nearly four times that amount to 99 weeks.  While the first 26 weeks was funded, the remaining 73 weeks was not.  The fourth extension alone cost 34 billion.   

[bruce MN]

Nor was I. Wasn't trying to be argumentive, but then some days my wife says I am by simply getting up in the morning.

I remember the Katrina offers. Quite a bit was reported on it. It seemed that the double whammy of beig dislocated and the requirement of making such an extreme cultural shift way too much for it to work out very well. It wasn't like they were leaving a starving country, as many in the North Atlantic and  Europe did in the 1800s.

Could be seen as the direct opposite of how easy it has been for so many change fleeing re-located white South Africans to come to the rust belt and midwest to work for idealogically conservative white Americans.

[bruce MN]

Yo! don...hah...I just saw this. If only everybody who voted had seen it back last November then Iowa, Minnesota and Oklahoma could be Wisconsin..

A great humorist writing in Wm. Kristol's conservative flagship magazine, The Weekly Standard. Will have to remember it for next time. Enjoy:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-hate-our-guts_511739.html

[bruce MN]

GH says, most profoundly:

"While the upper middle class and well to do might very well be more protective of their entitlements, they're not stupid enough to revolt if those entitlements are lost because quite frankly they don't have the power in numbers. "

What they've done to offset that , of course, is to support and assign the leadership of the Democratic Party to keep the have nots in line and on board.  Sort of in the fashion that the EU and the European Central Bank have given that same responsiblity to the "liberal" governments of Greece and Iceland to get the citizenry in line in acceptance of their new found general impovrishment and servitude to the ECB, IMF and primary EU bondholders. This administration has been good at that so far but I'm not sure they can keep all of the rats on the ship. Total failure to face the housing ownership and jobs crisis squarely. The numbers (understated, as always,) out this week are horrific.

Neighbor told me the other day that the problem with a 3rd party sprouting up would be that danged near everybody would want to join it.