03 October 2011

Ray of sunshine followed by evidence of hopeless naivete.

Now, it looks like [the correction in the economy] will take longer. Maybe forever. At least, it will seem like forever.

This is partly because the feds interfered. They panicked when it looked like the process of de-leveraging was out of control. People were going broke — even people who made large campaign contributions! Even people who were members of that privileged fraternity — bankers! So, they came in…and locked up the economy in its depressed state, keeping zombie institutions alive indefinitely.

But that’s not all. It will also take longer because it is a more serious correction. It has a lot of work to do. What exactly?

Well, we don’t know exactly. But many of the governments of the developed countries are not likely to survive.
That's the happy talk part. Mr. Bonner's view of the (near?) future.

Now, as an aside, although referencing Bonner's witty observation, I axe why are we locked into a political process that is absolutely dependent on the expenditure of huge amounts of money and which inevitably magnifies the political influence of large donors? I'm sure this is hopelessly naïve of me to say, but why exactly are we locked into such an obviously dysfunctional system?

Major political contributors are like black holes. Arguably salutary political ideas that drift too close to these black holes are sucked in and compressed to the size of a gnat.

Are Americans just so incurious and so anesthetized that mendacious, scurrilous political "spots" can pull them this way and that like kelp in the ocean tides?

We seem to be a nation that decides its political future by listening to political ads that are the equivalent of Johnny Rotttencroch jokes. The best we seem to be able to do about this is monkey with limits on campaign contributions and publication of the names of donor who make large contributions. Everyone seems to accept this as the outer limits of what we can do.

Alternative views on the web site go a long way toward adding immense value to the process but they are still only secondary evidence of what the candidate's themselves say.

Why not one radio station, one TV station, one cable channel, and one web site where every candidate can, for free, have a 30-sec, 60-sec, three-minute, 10-minute, and 30 minute spot that they own and can change at will at any time prior to the election? Round-the-clock availability. Total candidate control. Each candidate can pose 10 questions for all other candidates; responses optional. Participation by MSM, ad agencies? Zero.

Why are we stuck with what we've got? Do you have a better idea?

"Read more: Bernanke's Plot to Overthrow the US Dollar." By Bill Bonner, The Daily Reckoning, 9/30/11.

1 comment:

Zenster said...

Per Bonner: This is partly because the feds interfered. They panicked when it looked like the process of de-leveraging was out of control. People were going broke — even people who made large campaign contributions! Even people who were members of that privileged fraternity — bankers! So, they came in…and locked up the economy in its depressed state, keeping zombie institutions alive indefinitely.

The entire notion of "too big to fail" flies in the face of properly functioning Capitalism. Does anyone seriously think that GM would have simply vanished from the marketplace?

Absolutely not. Some other auto maker would have comprehended the simple value of GM's brand name aone and bought out the moldering hulk.

Instead, GM's incompetent but all-too-skilled executive looters were richly rewarded for their malfeasance and the cycle of corporate brigandage begins all over again.

Now, as an aside, although referencing Bonner's witty observation, I axe why are we locked into a political process that is absolutely dependent on the expenditure of huge amounts of money and which inevitably magnifies the political influence of large donors?

The famous bank robber, Willie Sutton, was asked why he robbed banks all the time. He blankly replied, "Because that's where the money is."

We are locked into a system of money-based political influence because the American people have not yet made it sufficiently unpleasant for those who choose to be corrupt.

When corruption begins to involve intolerable levels of physical discomfort or actual pain, then America's political elite will begin to rethink their drink.

Does anyone honestly think that post-Breivik Liberals in Norway aren't giving their lusty support for unlimited immigration some serious reconsideration right about now? At least those that still have some living children certainly are. You can bet the farm on that.

So long as corporate and political corruption goes unpunished it is de facto being rewarded.

I'm sure this is hopelessly naïve of me to say, but why exactly are we locked into such an obviously dysfunctional system?

It's only dysfunctional if you happen to dwell outside the ranks of these vampire elite. Inside their plush little circle it's all Beluga caviar and Dom Perignon. What's not to like about it for them?

Change will happen only when it becomes physically painful for politicians to ignore their oath of office. Until then, it will be business as usual and America's electorate can take the hindmost.