Let the economy die?! Rushkoff’s goals are noble but his plan needs work

A couple of weeks ago author and NYU media theory lecturer Douglas Rushkoff penned a provocative essay for Arthur Magazine. Entitled “Let It Die,” the essay explains why we should stop trying to save the economy.

In a perfect world, the stock market would decline another 70 or 80 percent along with the shuttering of about that fraction of our nation’s banks. Yes, unemployment would rise as hundreds of thousands of formerly well-paid brokers and bankers lost their jobs; but at least they would no longer be extracting wealth at our expense. They would need to be fed, but that would be a lot cheaper than keeping them in the luxurious conditions they’re enjoying now. Even Bernie Madoff costs us less in jail than he does on Park Avenue.

Alas, I’m not being sarcastic. If you had spent the last decade, as I have, reviewing the way a centralized economic plan ravaged the real world over the past 500 years, you would appreciate the current financial meltdown for what it is: a comeuppance. This is the sound of the other shoe dropping; it’s what happens when the chickens come home to roost; it’s justice, equilibrium reasserting itself, and ultimately a good thing. [emphasis in the original]

Lest you reflexively dismiss Rushkoff as a crackpot, let’s be clear on something – he’s a very smart and thoughtful man. Whether you ultimately choose to buy his argument or not – and I’m guessing the “nots” will carry this one handily – he’s making some important points about the house of cards we now find collapsing around us, points that we’d do well to understand as we set about picking up the pieces and rebuilding.

I want to make an observation about the article and conclude with a couple of responses.

The Army of Ludd

First the observation: Rushkoff’s position aligns him with the neo-Luddite movement, and he is not alone in advocating it.

I don’t mean “Luddite” in its commonly (mis)understood, pejorative sense – there are few words in the English language that are more frequently misrepresented. A brief history lesson illustrates the point. The original Luddites revolted against technological advances in the British textile industry from 1811 to 1816. While the term “Luddite” popularly connotes someone who is anti-technology, the actual rebellion was more critically aimed at technology which threatened the sanctity of culture (Rybczynski, Pynchon). Their reaction was not against progress per se – they themselves gladly used the newest weaving technology available, and were “interested in innovation and technical improvements to make their work easier” – but were instead opposed to the dehumanizing dislocations of the industrial economy.

At the turn of the 19th Century, factory looms were the latest innovation, and a factory job meant arriving at dawn for a 15 to 18 hour working day, and the door was locked behind you in the morning and not opened until the end of the shift. To the Luddites, the factory looms spelled the end of a way of life, of craftsmanship, of community and of family (Murphy).

From the perspective of modern-day Luddites, the “original rebels against the future” reacted against technological encroachments on the natural order of human society.

The Luddites had no objection to many technologies such as the carding engine and the spinning jack that supplemented human labour, but were not a threat to their livelihoods. By contrast, the inhuman machines that characterised the Industrial Revolution were new and different in that they were independent of nature, of geography, and season and weather, of sun, of wind, or water, or human or animal power. They not only destroyed jobs, but marked the beginning of an environmental catastrophe (Ludd).

As I was reading Rushkoff’s polemic I couldn’t help thinking about one of today’s leading neo-Luddite voices, Kirkpatrick Sale. I first encountered Sale when working on my dissertation, and his take on the Internet was scalding. For instance, in response to the popular claim that the Net would foster a stronger democracy, finally enabling a truer Jeffersonianism than was ever possible before, Sale replied that, “You can’t democratize – you can’t control – a technology that was established for other reasons.” Created for control and consumption, “This technology does not come with democracy in it” (Robin).

As it turns out, Sale has some thoughts on our current economic situation, as well. Last November, in delivering the keynote before the Manchester Convention, he invoked Thurber (“If you live as humans do, it will be the end of you”) and characterized the 2008 election as a boxing “match fought between two big palookas.”

What can you say about a system that spends nearly a billion dollars and takes two years every four years to produce two palookas to run for high office? What can you say about a system that allows that money effectively to let corporate America buy politicians of so-called “both” parties to serve at its bidding for the next term of office?

What can you say about a system that openly, blatantly proves that its politicians are craven lackeys of the financial plutocracy by having an administration that could invent and a Congress that could pass a measure that robs the public treasury of a trillion dollars, for the benefit of financiers and bankers who created the mess this money is supposed to fix ? And what can you say when that open, blatant admission of corruption, vice, graft, and evil is met by no roar of outrage, no righteous uprising, but passive acceptance by the great majority of the so-called citizenry, who go on to elect a man who thoroughly supported it?

The United States has never shown itself to be more unmanageable and incompetent, more venal and degraded, more undemocratic and ungovernable, than in the last three months.

I don’t want to put words in Rushkoff’s mouth, but I’m not hearing much here that I think he’d quibble with, especially in light of Sale’s comments just last month in Counterpunch.

We’ve got two choices. One is the Lincolnesque way that Obama seems to promise: government subsidies for the larger corporations and banks (as Lincoln pushed in his day, especially for the railroads), refurbishing of the infrastructure (ditto), nationalization of the financial system and reckless printing of currency, increased centralization of the government and its hold on the economy, continuation and expansion of warfare and the war machine (all ditto). That is a continuation of the past, and it is amazing that the nation largely does not recognize it as a recipe for continued collapse. It is in fact not sustainable, nor is the environment in which it is floundering.

The other way is to rejigger, to dismantle, the entire system.

If this all seems a bit radical to you, let’s at least acknowledge the good faith of the authors, who clearly yearn for a better, more sustainable and just way of life for us all. Let’s also acknowledge that it gets harder by the minute to refute Rushkoff’s assessment of our system: “We do not live in an economy, we live in a Ponzi scheme.”

So what went wrong? Nothing. The system worked exactly as it was supposed to.

Bernie Madoff and AIG may be the faces of the crisis as reported by the corporate media, but surely we’re all smart enough to understand that we didn’t get where we are because of them. Surely we’re intelligent enough to distinguish between the disease and a couple of symptoms.

The solution? Well, in Rushkoff’s view (shared by Sale and a great many other extremely intelligent commenters out there), Obama is making it worse, not better.

President Obama may be smarter than most of us, but he’s still attempting to rescue the very institutions that robbed us in the first place. He’s not a socialist, as conservatives may be arguing, but he is a corporatist. Using future tax dollars to fund government job programs is one thing. Using future tax dollars to give banks more money to lend out at interest is robbing from the poor to pay the rich to rob from the poor. [emphasis in the original]

So, he says, “let it die.”

The Natural Trajectory of Complex Systems

In 1995, Wired‘s Kevin Kelly conducted an interview with Sale, and if ever there’s been a one-on-one between two people with more divergent views of the world, I’ve never seen it. At one point, Kelly asks Sale “why are we here? What are humans here for?” The exchange tells us a lot about Sale, and also, I would suggest, about Douglas Rushkoff.

Sale: [Pauses.] To exist.
Kelly: So, what would be a measure of a successful human culture?
Sale: That it’s able to exist in harmony with the rest of nature.

Rushkoff’s closing comments don’t herd us all back into caves, but they do, very explicitly, advocate what we might call a “simpler way of life.” I suspect a lot of us find a certain allure in this, especially now, when the dire complexities of our economic meltdown weigh heavily on us.

History, though, teaches that there’s an inexorable tendency toward more complexity in societies, and if we study what has gone before we can see a pattern: growth, increasing complexity, [something goes wrong], call for return to simpler way of life. Lather, rinse, repeat. Complexity theorists believe that Newton’s second law is countered, in some contexts (biological sciences, economics, social structures, etc.) by an as-yet-unstated law explaining the drive toward ever-higher orders of organization (Waldrop). Obviously economies are one area where we have seen an unrelenting pressure toward greater complexity, and it seems an elementary enough observation that as complexity increases, our ability to fully perceive the system in question and predict its consequences diminishes. If we add the principle of “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” – aka the “Butterfly Effect” – to the equation (which we certainly should) our inability to comprehend, predict and control very quickly becomes functionally infinite.

The problem, as I see it, isn’t the complexity of the economic system per se (although I agree that we have to be careful about what are essentially autonomous systems). Instead, it’s the political economy serving them. Put another way, what we need isn’t necessarily a simpler way of life, it’s a more pro-human set of guiding principles for the “complex adaptive system.”

I say this because idealizing some moment in a simpler past is always easy, but a close examination of that moment in context almost never reveals it to be the utopia it’s imagined to be. If we look at Rushkoff’s pre-corporate banking moment we’ll find that we knew a lot less back then about things like medicine, for instance. On the health front – infant mortality, life expectancy, succepitibility to communicable disease, and overall quality of life – we’re a lot better off than we were. This matters because economic systems don’t exist in a vacuum – without the massively complex growth in our economy, it’s likely that many other elements of our society would be closer to 1509 than 2009, as well. The small, localized economies that Rushkoff wants to return to weren’t capable of generating the massive resource pools necessary to tackle many of the large challenges we’ve overcome in the last 500 years.

We know that complex adaptive systems operate according to fundamental bottom-up rules. That is, they are not governed (at least not effectively) by lots of tinkering and commanding from on high. Instead, there are a very few fairly simple foundational principles, and in the case of our current system one of those rules driving the behavior of capital appears to be something along the lines of “seek out and remain in close proximity to other capital.” Or maybe this rule isn’t even needed, since chaos theory has taught us enough about “attractors” to know that things accumulate – especially things like money and power.

In any case, what I think Rushkoff wants is a system where the basic rules keep wealth from accumulating in too few hands, instead seeking broader and more level distribution patterns.

If you’re thinking that somewhere in the past few paragraphs this discussion got really academic, you’re probably right, because regardless of whether Rushkoff is right in what he thinks he wants or I’m right in correcting his aim, no plan currently on the table in Washington is going to arrive us in either place. And while I do regard Mr. Obama as someone acting in good faith (by politician standards), and there’s no question that he was the best of the viable options on the ballot in November, he’s certainly the corporatist that Rushkoff accuses him of being. This shouldn’t need illustration, but if it does, ask yourself whether Obama appears committed to saving and “fixing” the existing system or, as Rushkoff advises, letting it die and replacing it with something else entirely.

And now, an honest discussion of the costs

Rushkoff understands that getting from Point A – where we are now – to Point B – his ideal economy – will be hard. He acknowledges that it will be painful.

As painful as it might be to watch, and as irritating as it might be to those with shrinking retirement savings, the collapse of the centralized corporate economy is ultimately a good thing. It makes room for a real economy to rise up in its place. And while it may be temporarily uncomfortable for the rich, and even temporarily devastating for the poor, it may be the fastest and least violent way to dismantle a system set in place for the benefit of 14th Century monarchs who have long since left this earth.

There are a number of moving parts in that graf, so let’s take them one at a time. And in doing so, let’s afford him the benefit of the doubt.

…the collapse of the centralized corporate economy is ultimately a good thing. It makes room for a real economy to rise up in its place.

Perhaps. More on this in a minute.

And while it may be temporarily uncomfortable for the rich…

“Temporarily” is a prediction that we simply have no foundations for. I’ve been reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan of late, and I recommend it highly for those engaged in predicting anything about anything.

…and even temporarily devastating for the poor…

What I just said about “temporary.” Also, we’ll talk in a second about that word “devastating,” because I’d like us to walk away from this discussion clear-eyed about exactly what it means.

…it may be the fastest and least violent way to dismantle a system set in place for the benefit of 14th Century monarchs who have long since left this earth.

Yes, it “may” be. Or it may be the surest path to the most violent civil war the planet has ever witnessed.

Like a lot of people, I oscillate back and forth between my idealist and pragmatist poles. There are moments when I can be dreamier than a doe-eyed schoolgirl and other times when my cynical side would give the shivers to Machiavelli himself. As I read Rushkoff’s modest little proposal I found myself torn. The part of me that lives in Magic Wand Land recognizes the fundamental corruption that Rushkoff describes and believes passionately that we’d be better off living in an economic system that served us all. Truth be told, “Ponzi scheme” is a mild descriptor for our current hegemony, and there are lots of people who deserve worse punishment than they’re likely to get (for that matter, worse than is allowed by the 8th Amendment).

My pragamatic side can’t get past the path from Point A to Point B, though. The only term in Rushkoff’s whole essay milder than “Ponzi scheme” is “devastating.” If we “let it die,” yes, it will be hard times for “hundreds of thousands of formerly well-paid brokers and bankers.” It will also be tough on a lot of other people. For instance:

  • Millions will lose their homes. And not just the millions in trouble right now. All of them and millions more.
  • When the stock market declines another 70-80%, we’ll go from a nation where pensions are at risk to one where nearly no one has any retirement cushion at all. Any money that isn’t hidden under a mattress will be gone.
  • Forget universal health care – good luck finding health care period. Yes, all those doctors will still exist but their practices and hospital facilities will be history. Maybe a few will be able to get out the door with something more than their little black bags, and if you know one you may be able to barter for care should you or someone in your family fall ill. If not, pray that the doc in question is a saint and isn’t worried about having to feed a family.
  • And about feeding a family – if you’re not a farmer, you’re in trouble, because the whole infrastructure is going to collapse. No more supermarket – you’ll either be a farmer or a hunter-gatherer.
  • Got a gun? Because you’re going to need one. When your choice is steal or die, steal is going to win a lot of times.
  • It’s hard to say whether what emerges at this point is really war, because the sides may be a little fuzzy. Organized civil war is one possibility, but heavily armed neighborhood gang warfare is another.

In other words, people are going to die. Lots of people. Children are going to starve to death in the streets. Maybe your children, but if not, almost certainly the children of someone you know. And since America is so central to the global economy, let’s try not to imagine what happens in areas that are already impoverished.

If we’re lucky enough, at some point, to emerge from this holocaust, it’s pure fantasy to assert that a “real economy” is what results. It’s at least as plausible to suggest that instead we’ll wind up with a system that makes the Bush/Cheney years look like Mother Teresa at Disneyland by comparison.

Think I’m painting a dark picture here? Fine – feel free to explain how Rushkoff’s prediction is more plausible, given what you know about wealth, power and basic human nature.

The Problem with the Future

If I’m landing on Rushkoff a bit hard, I hope it’s at least clear just how much I agree with him concerning both the problems we all face and our desire for a more sustainable, equitable economy. I also applaud him for having the courage to step up and say these things in a public forum, because let’s be honest, not everybody out there is going to be willing to hear the core message. I wonder how many readers never made it past the first sentence.

However, I don’t have a magic wand and neither does he. Perhaps he believes that the price we’d have to pay to “let it die” is worth it. Maybe he’d look hard at the possibility of hundreds of millions dying – and maybe more – and still say that in the long run that would beat the alternative. There are those who argue that our planet is horrifically overpopulated and that the best thing for both it and us (“us” being the species) would be if all but a few million people were to die.

In the long term, in the macro, perhaps these things are true. But if so, and if that is in fact the argument, then let’s acknowledge the full weight of the word “devastating,” which describes the epic brutality of what would happen in terms so tame it barely qualifies as a euphemism.

Further, let’s demonstrate a little more humility about our ability to predict the future. I’ve always been pretty utilitarian, but have had to accept that doing that which will result in the greatest good is a fine goal, but it’s so afflicted with uncertainty and unknown, uncontrollable variables that it’s an impossible course, literally.

I’m sorry that I can’t offer up a solution here, because I know that would be comforting for some (and would give others an even larger target to shoot at). All I can really do is suggest that as we address our economic system, we do so with those foundational principles I mentioned earlier in mind: does a particular action serve the interests of the hyper-wealthy or does it structure the investment so that it seeks broader distribution and geater equity?

That may be all we can do.

____________
UPDATE: Since I posted this piece I’ve been contacted by someone at Arthur Mag named Jay. A quick glance at their masthead suggests that this is probably the editor, Jay Babcock, who is writing to accuse me of shamefully misrepresenting Rushkoff’s positions. (And “shameful” is his word, not mine.) There is a follow-on to the original essay, in which Rushkoff seeks to clarify his positions, I assume because the response he’s received has convinced him that people are missing the point. I recommend this piece as well as the original.

Now, to Babcock’s charge: First, I can only respond to what Rushkoff writes. If his position is somehow different from what’s in the essay, it’s hardly my fault for “missing” it.

However, I don’t think this is what’s happening. I think Rushkoff makes his case clearly and coherently and I can’t see where I have misrepresented it at all. If I have, I quote liberally and link to the original, and am glad to amend if I’ve inaccurately portrayed the intent of the essay.

Second, I think Babcock is the one who misunderstands what’s going on, and in Rushkoff’s second article I think I see the source of the confusion. There are a couple spots that illustrate. First:

For reasons I cannot understand, people seem to think that my explaining this phenomenon somehow means I want us to go back to a hunter-gatherer stage. Or that I long nostalgically for a return to a late-middle-ages lifestyle. Or that I am somehow renouncing my earlier enthusiasm for new technology and media.

Nothing of the kind.

And here:

When I say it’s okay if the Dow Jones goes down another 70 percent, I’m not calling for an apocalypse. I’m calling for the re-balancing of the speculative economy.

In both cases Rushkoff is correct. Nothing he wrote in either place suggests that he wants to return to the wilderness, nor is he hoping for an apocalypse. Instead, he has a vision of a re-balanced economy based on genuine commerce instead of a rigged game of speculation.

My reaction above makes clear that I think what he’s suggesting would cause the bad things I describe to happen, however. Not that it was Rushkoff’s intent, but rather that it could/would be an unintended result. I didn’t spend all that time talking about uncertainty, our inability to predict and the Butterfly Effect for no reason. My point is that as much as I share his sense for what our economy ought to be, and as much as I sympathize with his assessment of our current rescue policies, I do not believe that his proposed course of action – allowing the market to die, an epic crash where it loses up to 80% of its value, etc. – will get us from Point A to Point B. Or that if it does, it will do so at anything like a tolerable cost.

This, Mr. Babcock, isn’t misrepresentation. It’s a basic disagreement over implications. If you’re going to write people to harangue them about intellectual dishonesty, you’d do well to know the difference.

I have asked Babcock to show me examples of where I have misstated Rushkoff, and as of this update said examples have not arrived. If a credible response eventually does turn up in my mailbox I’ll note it and offer a reply here. ____________
UPDATE 2: It’s Sunday and the ed. at Arthur mag, as anticipated, still hasn’t stepped up to back his charge that I was misrepresenting Rushkoff’s positions. He did, however, make time to delete my comment on the post and a follow-up comment I made a few minutes ago, so his lack of response to my request isn’t because he’s taking the weekend off.

I think I may write Rushkoff directly and invite him to respond here if he so chooses. I may even go so far as to invite him to post at S&R if he likes. He hardly needs us, but we could provide him a with a marginally larger audience and an editor who knows the difference between legitimate disagreement over outcomes and intellectual dishonesty.
____________

  • Ludd, Eliza & Ned. “New Luddite: Challenging the Legitimacy of Science and Technology.” November 1995. World Wide Web. February 4 1999.
  • Kelly, Kevin. “Interview With the Luddite.” Wired June 1995.
  • Murphy, Gary Lawrence. “Are We the Neo-Luddites?” February 1998. World Wide Web. February 4 1999.
  • Pynchon, Thomas. “Is It O.K. to Be a Luddite?” New York Times Book Review October 28 1984: 1, 40-41.
  • Robin, Michael. “Technology for the Coming Millennium: Progress, Technology and Society According to Kirpatrick Sale.” MicroTimes March 4 1996: 138-144, 282-284.
  • Rybczynski, W. Taming the Tiger: The Struggle to Control Technology. New York: Penguin Books, 1983.
  • Sale, Kirkpatrick. “Lessons From the Luddites: Setting Limits on Technology.” The Nation June 5 1995: 785+.
  • Waldrop, M. Mitchell. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon & Schuster, 1992.
Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Let the economy die?! Rushkoff’s goals are noble but his plan needs work”

  1. Wow…wow…wow.

    Can we save it? Or is it already dead and the governmental response is an attempted resurrection/keep grandma on life support and pretend she still enjoys rollerskating?

    The problem with letting it die to be replaced by something else is that the something else needs to be discussed and fleshed out a little before the old system just disappears. Ideally, many people would be already using new systems (at least partially).

    I wonder how strong of an argument could be made for the idea that millions of people already die for the sake of the system we currently live under? (just not so much in our line of vision)

    I’m going to have to think on this more…thanks for the piece, Sam.

    P.S. i recently read that feudalism was actually more efficient and produced better growth than capitalism…so i’ll dig out the details since you were accused of accusing someone of suggesting that he’d prefer a late-middle-ages lifestyle. (i’m leaving the unintelligible sentence because i like it)

  2. Lex,

    I’d like to see that source on Feudalism, what their measures of growth were, and their methods for measuring the growth. I can find tons of information about prices, interest rates, exchange rates ….but no business growth figures for the feudal times. There was very little business, as we know it during those times, save a few like the Medicis, and Arab traders and merchants.

    Jeff

  3. the capitalist system has been dead for a long, long time. It’s just been recent bouts of ‘lucidity’ and the inability to be in the river in Egypt (De Nile) that the stench of death, and the rigor of mortis, has been apparent to those with 401K’s and other annuities that are ‘gone’ now do to the unbridled, unchecked criminality and WHOLESALE LOOTING by everyone under the sun, with the F.B.I. playing with it’s collective selves, torturing people and spying on them.

    so, the ‘let it remain dead’ or ‘DNR’ as I call it, (DO NOT RESCUSCITATE!) sign should be put on this capitalist system so that a social democratic system that’s equitable, and fair, with harsh penalties such as DEATH BY FIRING SQUAD OR HANGING if one is caught with one’s hands in the till, can be put into it’s place.

    this system is dead. let it rot. It’s done enough damage without people pissing away 1.5 quadrillion dollars to plug the holes in the rotting corpse.

  4. You treated Douglas Rushikoff’s piece with all due respect, Dr. S. And thanks for showing us exactly what a collapse of the economy entails:

    And about feeding a family – if you’re not a farmer, you’re in trouble, because the whole infrastructure is going to collapse. No more supermarket – you’ll either be a farmer or a hunter-gatherer.
    # Got a gun? Because you’re going to need one. When your choice is steal or die, steal is going to win a lot of times.
    # It’s hard to say whether what emerges at this point is really war, because the sides may be a little fuzzy. Organized civil war is one possibility, but heavily armed neighborhood gang warfare is another.

    To live in this kind of world, you have to be ready to kill to obtain what you need for you and your family.

    Also note, production of plastic may cease — no more computers.

    This is one of my all-time favorite Dr. S pieces at Scholars & Rogues

  5. A major difficulty in forestalling such an economic collapse is that we have, over the centuries, dispersed the sources, as well as means of production, of those resources needed for our survival. In medieval times, much of what was needed for survival was relatively close, although important items such as durable metals, salt, and wood, weren’t always uniformly available to the masses without the actions of a merchant class. Now we comb the globe for critical resources once either not needed or near to hand: fluorides, for instance, have acquired utility only with recent advances in chemistry, which have in turn created products (e.g. pharmaceuticals) we now consider essential. This dissemination of the means of production around the globe will only exacerbate our pain as the mechanisms of trade are impaired by a general economic collapse.

  6. It seems like everyone is saying roughly the same things in different ways. I think that has been what I’ve marveled over recently. When corpulent worm riders like Rush Limbaugh make audacious statements that seem to imply that he feels that he and his ilk would fare better in an anarchist society where the well-to-do white males wouldn’t have to shoulder the “white man’s burden” any longer. When left wing folks reach roughly the same conclusion because they feel that, likewise, the system is so broken that it’s not worth sustaining.

    You feel almost as though it’s a crisis of cooperation. It’s as though inflation made the cultural markup so high that people feel that sweat equity would outperform the specialization of labor that the original city state concept held so dear. DIY as a means of avoiding interdependence.

    But really, how many of us would fare better in such an anarcho-state? How many of us feel secure in that John Wayne frontier wilderness? Has Hollywood made us feel a little too powerful with our 8-minute abs? That’s my main problem with Rushkoff’s stance. His tone seems pretty rational ’til you get to that “round 1” bell that equals “starting over”. In an age of shoulder-mounted rocket launchers, nukes, and what have you, we’re a little past the realm of nomadic anarchy. We have evolved/devolved to be stronger in our interdependence.

    – TheImportanceOfBeingErnestBorgnine

  7. Folks, the Federal Reserve is not Federal, unless you consider that it is as Federal as Federal Express.

    The Federal Reserve is a private bank, self-regulation didn’t work, wars that the media lied us into to pay off the Fed didn’t work, two more terms of military engagements plus the taxes of the Fed didn’t work and the IRS continued the Federal Reserve’s system.

    Today, the Federal Reserve continues to be an entirely private bank unanswerable to anyone. Let me emphasize the word “anyone”, as alot of people are not familiar with the fact that while the Federal Reserve does support or hamstring the appointment / codifying of laws, it does not actually have to answer to the same, by the Congress, as dictated in the Federal Reserve act of 1913.

    Its entire operation is therefore, kept secret, beyond the minimal information the Treasury Secretary can give us and beyond what check stubs you see when the GAO formally requests those stubs.

    http://www.ronpaul.com

    It can be said that very simply, the Federal Reserve has made itself into a fourth branch of Government right underneath every person’s nose.
    http://www.campaignforliberty.com

    Without oversight or transparency the Federal Reserve can continue to make large mistakes with its Credit Default Swaps, can continue to counterfeit supply & demand, and does not face any audit.

    Which leads us to today’s current issue and a viable solution. HR 1207 has been introduced, the Federal Reserve transparency accountability act. This is nothing more than a nationwide official audit. For the first time in a great many years, the Federal Reserve will have to answer all questions to Congress directly and the people for whom which they serve in full.

    Support HR 1207 and spread the word to your legislators, so that the American people can get much demanded answers and lift the veil of secrecy where we can see what the Federal Reserve bank is really doing, and therefore, take the most supported actions in response.

  8. I don’t think anyone sees the absolute necessity of forming coalitions and mutual defense agreements within neighborhoods for when the shit does indeed hit the rotating blades. Anarchy sounds pretty bad, but in all reality, most people in enclaves would form watch groups, as it is impossible for a human being to stand watch over one’s home, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and still remain sane and able to function. If we’re going to have to tender our gardens and grow food, and do things to keep from killing each other over stupid shit like property rights, we have to have enough humanity left in us to help each other and give to each other things we otherwise know we’ll never be paid back for. The time is rapidly approaching when all of us has to look into a mirror somewhere and realize we have to do whatever it takes to HELP EACH OTHER and not just exist. Existence is pretty ridiculous if you are the SOLE SURVIVOR.

    but we’re headed for something like civil war right now, and that’ll take some skillfully gifted people a lot of effort to avert or minimize the destruction of, otherwise, we’re right back in the same struggle the north and south were in, only much bloodier, much more protracted, much more nasty, without much probability of a good outcome. government will indeed collapse, but as alleged ‘human beings’, do we really need that to keep ourselves moral and sane? I don’t think we do.

  9. That was eloquent Fikshun. Re:

    In an age of shoulder-mounted rocket launchers, nukes, and what have you, we’re a little past the realm of nomadic anarchy. We have evolved/devolved to be stronger in our interdependence.

    . . . as I say, too live in that kind of world, you have to be willing to kill others to fend for yourself and your family.

  10. #1 asks “What is to replace the existing political organization”, and #4 quote the article with the initial answer, which could well be civil war or neighborhood gang fights. Take it all a step further, and look at Weimar’s history.

    Thanks to Germany’s defeat in WWI, there was both organized civil war (the Freicorps) versus anyone to their immediate Left and the early Brownshirts, whose tactics involved street brawls. As these groups merged, the Nazi Party rose to power, and we know the rest.

    It was during this time period that Wall Street – stung by the loss of Russian investment opportunities through miscalculating the power of Lenin’s influence there – turned to the defeated Germany to act as the recovery engine of these opportunities (still lost to this day). American firms like Ford, GM, and IBM played roles in ensuring that Germany wasn’t going to become completely unruly as did Russia, and made Hitler possible. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that American firms would not have been disappointed had Germany won the ensuing war.

    Winning the war against those opposed to corporate exploitation was the goal of putting Hitler in power. That failed miserably, yet in response the Russian target became modernized enough through American aid during the war to defend itself against further Wall Street encroachment. Hence the Cold War, which Russia could not win due to the containment strategy of the West.

    But like the Russians in containment, the West (read: US) Was also constrained through the maintenance via military means of the equivalent of economic colonialization of the rest of the world. It’s difficult to maintain, and very expensive. All it would take would be one mistake (fighting in Vietnam as if it were Europe in 1944) resulting in one defeat, and the illusion that the West was invincible would be destroyed forever.

    This loss of influence and prestige requires that a new image be crafted. Hence the new assault on the admittedly backward regimes in Central Asia. As Africa is still too volatile to attempt to control, Central Asia is where the investment potentials are. As the US is currently in no condition to politically or economically support yet another colonialization war, then a new incentive must be created for the public to do so. that incentive is the establishment of massive unemployment and the termination of the consumer society.

    It is my contention that this was the GOP plan since pushing Ronald Reagan on us. Giving the people nothing but poverty and want is intended to make us willing to serve in their domination wars, for we would have three squares and some good clothing to wear – and an “enemy” to vent our frustrations using the weapons we would be given. We would have nothing without enlistment.

    So #1 is on the right track in asking what comes next, and #4 is on the right track in the initialization of the American decline, but it isn’t going to stop there. The sun will continue to rise in the morning, and the opportunists will still seek to make hay. The will just expect you to perform the labor through the killing of foreigners and destruction of non-captive economies. It will be necessary for you to surrender your own freedoms for the Homeland to do so.

  11. Well said, fikshun. The modern person…especially the modern American…is ill-equipped to truly take care of himself without the support network of industrial society. Even the “off-the-grid” types are dependent on someone to build solar panels and windmills, though the the latter can be cobbled together from things found at the dump.

    And regardless of ideas about how things might have been once upon a time, we’ve always been interdependent…right back to the time when we were hunter-gatherers.

    Still, we have reached a crisis point and it does not look as if the people in charge have any good ideas or even a willingness to seriously discuss the issues at hand. Rushkoff doesn’t seem to have any firm ideas either, beyond a few thumbnail sketch examples and a hope that something good will arise from the destruction of what he argues is bad.

    He mentions CSA’s as a means to feed ourselves, but there aren’t nearly enough of them to do the trick. Apparently when it dies people will magically find good farmland and the skill set to use it, while the rest will have something of value to trade for the food (or some sort of local currency that will be of value to the farmer).

    Jeff: my apologies, the reference to feudalism i have says nothing about “growth”. The authors call it “more successful and affluent, as well as more just and humane, than moderns have been willing to acknowledge.” They also reference Georescu-Roegen saying that in adverse conditions feudalism allows more people to live under conditions of overpopulation and low-productivity. And they refer to Mill singing the praises of the English yeomanry. It does (at least in the presentation) sound very Jeffersonian. It should be noted that the book For the Common Good (book club read) is about how to establish an economy not obsessed with growth…but i’m not far enough to talk about their prescriptions except to say that they’re big on “community” and would probably find a sympathetic mind in Rushkoff.

  12. @#7 Thefederalreserveisntfederal

    Perhaps you ought to revisit the mission statement of the Fed. The Fed isn’t the boogeyman, like much of the crackpot, fringe right would like you to believe. Although they’re quasi-private, they are owned by their member banks. If you own one share in the Bank of America, you are a part owner of the Fed.

    Jeff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s