Why Make the US into a Third World Nation? **UPDATE

A little more bouncing off the Krugman piece. But first, perhaps you'll recall this from a piece by Simon Johnson in the Atlantic back in May of 2009 called The Quiet Coup (he was on Moyers too--worth it):

But inevitably, emerging-market oligarchs get carried away; they waste money and build massive business empires on a mountain of debt. Local banks, sometimes pressured by the government, become too willing to extend credit to the elite and to those who depend on them. Overborrowing always ends badly, whether for an individual, a company, or a country. Sooner or later, credit conditions become tighter and no one will lend you money on anything close to affordable terms.

The downward spiral that follows is remarkably steep. Enormous companies teeter on the brink of default, and the local banks that have lent to them collapse. Yesterday’s “public-private partnerships” are relabeled “crony capitalism.” With credit unavailable, economic paralysis ensues, and conditions just get worse and worse. The government is forced to draw down its foreign-currency reserves to pay for imports, service debt, and cover private losses. But these reserves will eventually run out. If the country cannot right itself before that happens, it will default on its sovereign debt and become an economic pariah. The government, in its race to stop the bleeding, will typically need to wipe out some of the national champions—now hemorrhaging cash—and usually restructure a banking system that’s gone badly out of balance. It will, in other words, need to squeeze at least some of its oligarchs.

Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, such as preferential access to foreign currency, or maybe a nice tax break, or—here’s a classic Kremlin bailout technique—the assumption of private debt obligations by the government. Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk—at least until the riots grow too large.

Now to the Krugman; it starts like this:

Last week, in the face of protest demonstrations against Wisconsin’s new union-busting governor, Scott Walker — demonstrations that continued through the weekend, with huge crowds on Saturday — Representative Paul Ryan made an unintentionally apt comparison: “It’s like Cairo has moved to Madison.”

It wasn’t the smartest thing for Mr. Ryan to say, since he probably didn’t mean to compare Mr. Walker, a fellow Republican, to Hosni Mubarak. Or maybe he did — after all, quite a few prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum, denounced the uprising in Egypt and insist that President Obama should have helped the Mubarak regime suppress it.

In any case, however, Mr. Ryan was more right than he knew. For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy.

So, you might find Johnson persuasive now if you didn't then (and likely you do if you read Taibbi at all).

But to the eponymous point here...why? Well, why not?

Power serves power. And as we read in the earlier post...Power is godly and good--and the Lord has a plan and works in mysterious ways, and etc. Our mentality as a country (if countries have mentalities) is a mixture of Calvinist "election" and Market laissez faire and this has brought us to our current dilemma. Our demigods don't believe in free markets, rather they control the markets--and in doing so use the rhetoric of god and country to establish a market loving god.

So, with that rhetoric serving the powerful, they push. Why? Because the only that actually serves the common man is that Reaganite bugaboo--the government. And by government I don't mean President or Congress. I mean the departments that have been created to manage this vast land and help those of us without any real power. Independent agencies like the FDA, USDA, EPA and so on are there to regulate corporate greed. EPA tries to enforce protections to our air and water...corporations lobby congress to make laws to gut the power of the EPA. The Koch Bros are now the most visible and clear example of the real power and the real reason for this anti-government/pro-market mentality. They want no obstacles to their greed.

And if God the Father in His Heaven is Republican then all of this has been done for his glory...amen.

UPDATE: and now Minnesota

Do Unto Others

Krugman today on Wisconsin:

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

This is true to a degree but very weakly put. Even Krugman doesn't seem to have a voice these days and he's a Nobel Laureate. Money is the only VOTE unless the underclasses vote by demonstration. Finally, Wisconsin's people are voting with their physical presence. It's unclear whether it will make a difference. The only way an oligarchy is "checked" is, as Krugman points out, by Institutions that serve as counterweights to the "corporation". Liberal Institutions used to balance out Conservative Corporations. Now our institutions (like Universities--hell, even churches) are only commodities and our society is out of balance with Power being served by all parties. The real trouble comes when our national government enacts laws that hinder us further but are deemed constitutional by that third corrupt branch, the judiciary. Money has power in all places.

But why do these things happen? Why is the Republican/Conservative mentality so intractable.

Here's a clue from George Lakoff at Huffpost:

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.


The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that. Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on. The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas. Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for business to prosper.

This ultimately blends everything into Might Makes Right. Who's the most powerful? The Father (God?); The Market. Notice how we can be absolved of all responsibility? Let go, Let God; Let go, Let Greed. (In the market greed is supposed to be balanced by something...I forget what--more greed?)

All else is human (liberal) meddling. This is finally where I stand. To be human is to be liberal, open, caring, giving, sharing, hoping. To be anything else is less than human.