Excited Delirium

From The Nation, we get this article .

By now, some (maybe most) of you are saying, ‘yeah Bill.  We get it.  We’re getting ripped off and this is Georgie’s last stab at the world for making fun of him all these years.  We’re in the middle of the heist of the century.’

At least, I hope you are.

Because once you do, then hopefully we can have a discussion about how to prevent more of it from happening any more than it has already.  Americans were nearly able to stop Congress from voting in the first version of the bailout package and after threats of martial law and painful efforts by bankers, the second version came to light.

Americans need to start to stop the bailout and the first step will likely take place when the election is held on Tuesday, Nov 4.  Whatever the outcome, this will be a day you’ll be able to tell your grandkids about.  It’ll either be the day that history was made or that history ended.

In Canada, we need a strong coalition to oppose the Harper Conservatives.  Despite the hard times, they will cut budgets, download, implement lots of hidden and regressive taxes and fees for everyday activities, and will likely pursue their agenda of letting banks merge or be bought out by foreign entities, as they promised before the election.  Of course, this won’t be as easy after an Obama win in the US, but we’ll have to be relentless and extremely focused on annoying the hell out of them so that they call another election and piss everyone off.  Hopefully, for the last time.

But let’s talk about what else we can do.  I’m all for organizing Facebook pages and writing MPs and taking other actions, but I’d like us to all have a common voice.

What do you think?

Ron Love, organizer of the ‘United Alternative’, explains in this article how his efforts to unite the right paid off in 2000 and how they continue to pay off as Stephen Harper comes closer and closer to a majority government.  He shares his wisdom for the ‘left’ and demonstrates what ‘we’ need to do in order to mount a force that could oppose the ‘right’.

Read it.  Digest it.  Critique it.

And then you’ll realize that his basic premise couldn’t be more wrong .

My guess is that the ‘left’ probably won’t subject itself to the same kind of ham-fisted tyrannical forces that the right did.  What allowed the right to unite is that they had common ground that could arguably be found outside the political spectrum, such as religious dogma.  As a result, their basic political program (that which they revealed to Canadians in their public platform) was easily agreed upon by all of the founding members.  Examples:  neo-con economic policies (including disclosure of what they would do if they had a majority, like sell off public assets and allow banks to merge), tough on crime policies and money for defense.  The ‘Progressive’ part of the Conservatives disappeared.  Even Mulroney looks like a socialist compared to some of the ex-Harris brown shirts.

The challenge for the ‘left’ is that we have become the ‘bucket’ for everything that the Conservatives are not.  Green.  Socialist.  Marijuana Party.  Liberals.  Without speaking for anyone else, I feel that putting such a divergent range of political viewpoints into a single ‘bucket’ would destroy my sense of democracy.

Someone like Ron Love might argue that the ‘left’ would need to find a steady middle ground as we face media pressure and scrutiny, but I think that can only lead to failure because so many opinions and views would be left scattered at the perimeter.

Here’s an example:  right now it looks like Michael Ignatieff is the front-runner for the Liberals.  He has brow-beat every socialist and person with a cause into voting Liberal already and I would NEVER vote for the man if he lead a coalition group of progressive parties.  His views are just marginally left of Harper and if it were up to him, we’d be in Iraq today shooting babies.

More importantly, this viewpoint doesn’t reflect the Long Tail of politics, where everybody should be able to have an opinion and these opinions are negotiated (however long it takes) rationally in a legal setting, such as the House of Commons.

At the core of my opposition to this kind of ‘ramming of the right’ comes the notion that people need to be able to express their point of view and they need to do it within a democratic framework.  The Harper campaign has and continues to focus on leadership.  A single person.  Anything else would be tantamount to anarchy.

So, Mr. Love, you’re wrong to assume that progressive voices in Canada want to be silenced or marginalized into a single voice.  We represent an orchestra.  A choir.  All singing different parts, hopefully in great harmony.

In the short-run, this would take shape as a coalition that represented a balance of progressive opinions.  It would take the form of many people making many educated and informed decisions, with a lot of discussion taking place.  In public and not behind closed doors.

The long-run it’s Proportional Representation where the single angry voice of the right is muted by the rising swell of an entire chorus.

I thought this video was appropriate, given some of the frightening stories I’ve read about vote fraud and issues with electionic machines:

Of course, in Canada, we didn’t need corrupt machines.  We just needed a few extra parties to split the vote.

This retelling of the financial situation in Iceland is direct and honest and clearly illustrates how what happened in Iceland over the last 4-5 years can easily happen in most other developed countries.

The main point:  we’ve abdicated our social and financial control to non-governmental and non-democratic organizations that could care less about the welfare of the states that they impose their ‘rules’ on.

I’ve repasted below for your information:

On the Financial Crisis of Iceland
by Steingrímur J. Sigfússon

The current financial crisis in Iceland is of course part of and connected to the international upheaval, but it also has its domestic roots.  To put it briefly, for more than 17 years, we Icelanders have had a right-wing government led by the right-wing Independence Party in coalition with social democratic or center parties.  The main ideology has been neoliberal economics, with great emphasis on privatization and deregulation of most sectors of society, not least the financial sector.  Since 2004 we have had increasing inflation and overheating.  The management of the economy has been poor, and the few voices of criticism and words of warning from us on the left have not been listened to.

In the years 2003-2004, government-supported projects of heavy industry investments in aluminum smelters and big hydro-electrical and geothermal power plants set off inflation and increased overheating pressures.  This was followed by tax reductions, benefiting mostly the high-income classes and owners of big estates and capital.  This, of course, added to the increasing inflation.  The housing market was booming and there was also mismanagement in that area.  On top of all this, the financial sector, based on newly privatized banks and investment funds, expanded very rapidly and bought up subsidiaries overseas that expanded to big operations in the UK, Scandinavia, Continental Europe, and even in the US.

This led to a huge hypertrophy of the banking and financial sector relative to the Icelandic GDP.  Many alarming signs were hovering above our heads in the years 2005, 2006, and 2007, but no measures were taken.  The atmosphere was a thoroughly laissez-faire one.  The government and leading members of the business sector seemed to think that the upswing in the economy and good years would last forever.

As everyone now knows, this did not turn out to be the case.   Before the international financial crisis started in the American housing market — followed by the fall of big banks, which then spread to become a global influenza in the capital market — Iceland already had a problem on its hands.  Due to the instability and imbalances in the Icelandic economy existing before the crisis, the consequences are much worse for Iceland than any other developed country so far and are turning out to be a tremendous blow to ordinary citizens of Iceland.  What we are witnessing is a total collapse of neo-liberal, modern capitalism.  What is left of it, however, is being kept alive with huge public spendings by governments around the world.  The cost is even more devastating in Iceland because the whole banking sector, with the only exception of the local saving banks, has collapsed and is now being nationalized.

The worst of it all is that the Icelandic public, the Icelandic taxpayers, who have already been tremendously hard hit are now, for no fault of their own, being held responsible for overseas debts that the banks piled up through opening accounts in their own names in the UK, the Netherlands, and elsewhere.  This is particularly the case of the former Landsbanki hf, which gathered big sums of money for which the Icelandic national system of savings guarantees is now partly accountable.  What this means is that, in the coming years and perhaps decades, Icelandic citizens will have a burden of huge amounts of overseas debts on their shoulders due to the collapsed banks’ activities during the years of hasty interconnections with and dangerous dependence on other economies.  This is of course totally unfair and will also hinder the rebuilding of a stable welfare society and sound economy in Iceland.

As Chairman of the Left-Green Movement of Iceland, I have personally warned and criticized these devastating neoliberal policies in Iceland for a number of years.  My colleagues and I have repeatedly proposed measures to stop this craziness.  As early as 2005, we put forward in the national parliament a bill to tackle these issues.  But we were at that time and in the years that followed almost the only critical voice.

Now, of course, everyone admits that things went terribly wrong.  But, as of yet, there seems to be great reluctance, especially on the right and the center of Icelandic politics, to admit that it was the global neoliberal ideology, together with bad management and wrong decisions, that got us where we are and is causing us all these problems.

Our role — being the biggest opposition party in Iceland — is now to try to encourage people not to give up in a difficult situation, to demand that these things will all be thoroughly investigated and those responsible brought up for charges.  Above all, we are trying to convince the people of Iceland, and especially the young people, that we — despite all of this — will be able to get through the difficulties.  We do, after all, have tremendous possibilities to build a new Iceland, a better Iceland, where we will build on sound and just policies of openness and democracy, where we will build on a solidary Nordic welfare model, and where we will throw into the dustbin of history the neoliberal philosophy of market liberalization that is now hurting Iceland so deeply.

Despite all, we have a lot going for us when we start this rebuilding process.  We are a big country with magnificent nature, rich in resources, especially bountiful fishing grounds and abundant energy sources in geothermal power and hydropower.  We have beautiful highland scenery and breathtaking landscapes all around which attract a growing number of tourists every year.  And we have a young, skilled and well-educated population used to working hard and willing to work hard.

So, at the same time as we are facing enormous difficulties, we are doing our best to be optimistic regarding the long-term future prospects of Iceland.  We are sure that we have all we need to build a new, strong, and prosperous welfare society in Iceland.  But then we must build on the right foundations.  The new Iceland is going to be open and democratic with a strong public welfare system.  It is going to be feminist and based on full actual equality of all individuals, and it is going to build on the principles of sustainable development as regards energy policy and all investments.

We are at the end of a chapter in the world‘s political history.  A new one is about to begin.  Let us join hands, wherever we live — be it in Iceland, the United States of America, or elsewhere on the globe — to ensure that this new chapter will be a better one for ordinary people, for the global environment, for the North and the South, for women and men, for young and old. If that be the case, something good might come out of this after all.  We would finally get rid of the devastating neoliberal economic philosophy and practice and be able to end up with a better world.

Greetings from the Althingi, the Parliament of Iceland
Steingrímur J. Sigfússon

This story is loaded with all kinds of issues that need to be addressed.  SOON.

First, there is the question concerning the state of the Robert Dziekanski investigation.  Virtually nothing has happened.

Second, the officers who were on duty are still, apparently, on duty.

Third, those that are on duty are clearly having issues with the outcome of the Robert Dziekanski situation.  The story quoted refers to one of the officers leaving the scene of an accident, raising questions about the moral and ethical compass of at least this one officer.

Author’s Note: The following is Chapter 62 of the my online book "Excited Delirium". Please post comments. Please tell your friends about this story. If you’ve missed a chapter, please click here for Chapter 1 (Prelude) or here for the full index .

August 7, 2008

Those with very little experience with Chinese culture, but with significant influence in the West – people like Griffith Garamond – make accusations that the Chinese are unable to innovate. People like Garamond have lead themselves to believe that this mass of population exists to serve the West.

The common suggestion is that intellectual property related to operating system software is stolen and repackaged on a regular basis, or that goods that are normally manufactured in North America are copied and redistributed elsewhere in Asia and Europe at substantially lower prices, exchanging quality and value for a lower price and undermining the economic benefit for the original manufacturer that would like to keep a lock on the distribution of its products. (more…)

I don’t think the little nation of Iceland entered the news much before September 2008.  When it did, it was depicted as iconic in its efforts to purchase hydrogen buses, run everything on geo-thermal energy and the home land of Bjork.

Now, it’s the victim of economic larceny .

The people of Iceland are being forced to pay 18% interest on their debts in order to stave off further meltdown in the value of their currency and their economy in general.

We are now applying IMF and World Bank rituals to ‘First world’ countries, much like we did in the 70s to Latin American, Asian and African countries.  Soon, we’ll all be fighting for clean water and bags of rice to sustain ourselves.

THIS is the cost of letting the inmates run the insane asylum.  If you’re not already worried about tax rates shooting up at various levels of governments in order to maintain the status quo, you’ll be subjected to interest rates that go well beyond the definition of usury.

We need a better and different solution to this crap or the world is going to plunge into chaos.  Throwing the neo-con book at humble little countries like Iceland are going to do nothing to boost the fate of the international economy.

This does nothing to break the yoke of debt from small economies and only ensures that they are indebted to the end of time again, much like less-developed countries in the south.

Now, what happens when it’s the US that starts defaulting on a couple of loans and they have to hike interest rates in order to attract cash (so that they can continue to print more)?  The interest rates of neighbouring countries will be driven to the stratosphere in order to ‘compete’ with this stupidity.

Ugh.

For those of you who don’t read the Star, I thought this was a great piece , as it added a very unique spin to the whole financial crisis and why our corporations are the way that they are.

After seeing The Corporation several years ago, I understood their point that there was some kind of psychosis that was driving this institution.  However, when you approach the corporation from this historical context, it’s easier to understand why they have a manic anti-social pathology to them!

I’d be curious to know if anyone has more context or research related to this idea.  If so, please post links below.

Please note that any of these blog posts or opinions do not reflect investment advice and any action that you choose to take related to investing should be done so after discussing your ideas with a professional investment advisor.

Original link

This piece is pretty deep in its accusations concerning the financial crisis that we have had no choice but to become obsessed with.  I also found it a little cumbersome to read.  Let me know your thoughts if you review it.

In the interim, it re-confirms my belief structure, in that I believe we are being manipulated on two fronts:

1. This financial ‘crisis’ is a manufactured crisis
2. The media isn’t reporting on why this is happening, just that it is happening (of course, I have found a couple of mainstream examples of people being pretty pissed – on mainstream media – about why we’re bailing out a bunch of pirates).

My favourite quote from the piece (and what that seemed a little chilling):

The top-down approach used to date aids the wealthy bankers, while the homeowners are denied aid. That aid is promised but rarely arrives. The fundamental problem here is that billion$ are devoted to shore up insolvent banks, to redeem their worthless (or nearly worthless) bonds, and to give a giant pass to the executives. Trust has eroded throughout the system. Banks distrust each other’s collateral. The result is that eventually the US Economy will enter not a recession, not a depression, but a DISINTEGRATION PHASE . Despite Bernanke’s studious efforts, borrowing from revisionist history, his liquidity is nothing more than bailouts at the top for the perpetrators of the housing bubble and mortgage debacle. The bank system benefits little inside the US walls of finance. A bottom-up approach might have had a chance to succeed, but a top-down approach is a sham. To expect a top-down solution that actually relieves the housing inventory logjam is insane. That is like feeding a teenager with meals placed inside the human rectum, expecting nutrients to find their way to the rest of the body! The credit mechanisms do not travel upward within the pyramid, but rather in the downward direction, starting with a borrower, a good collateralized risk, and an underwritten loan, when plenty of lending capital is available. The US public has bought this stupid ‘Trickle Down’ philosophy for years, learning nothing. The US Economy is on the verge of collapsing. Short-term credit is being denied at key supplier intermediary steps, soon to result in recognized disintegration.

The primary practical objective of this corrupt trio (JPM, GSax, FDIC) is to avoid Credit Default Swap fires, which would bring an end to their reign of terror. This US Economic failure is in progress and is unstoppable. The 1930 Depression resulted after monumental credit abuse from the bottom up, as hundreds of thousands of people leveraged investments 10:1 with stocks primarily. The 2008 Depression will come after monumental credit abuse from the top down, as hundreds of big financial firms leveraged investments by 7:1 and 20:1 with bonds primarily. The most absurd of all is the CDO-squared, leveraging upon leverage. Total seizures have crippled the banking system. Short-term credit has largely vanished, as letters of credit are routinely not honoured at ports in the United States. The panic will continue, especially when supplies dry up.

I’m always loathe to quote from Canwest Media, but Lloyd Axworthy posted this op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen that you might be interested in.

I have issue with the notion that the opposition parties have to unite, mainly because their views are too disparate.  As I’ve said before, this is the inevitable ‘long tail’ of politics, where fragmentation of power occurs as a result of fragmentation of different voting ‘blocks’.

What I’d prefer to see the opposition parties pursue is a platform devoted to proportional representation.  Nearly 70% of the population is getting a government that they didn’t vote for and this must end.

Here’s the text of Axworthy’s article:

More than 60 per cent of those who cast ballots in the last election did not support the Harper government. If you count in all those who did not participate out of choice or indifference then you likely have a much larger cohort of Canadians who are not in favour of the agenda espoused by this government.

One small piece of evidence to support this assertion comes from a recent BBC poll taken in a variety of countries on preferences in the American election. Sixty-seven per cent of Canadians surveyed support the election of Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential stakes, a candidate who clearly espouses a "progressive agenda."

The problem of course in our recent federal election was that the votes of the majority were split between four other parties. Due to the vagaries of our election system it gave the Conservatives enough seats to return to power, albeit in minority status.

So for another two years or more, Canada will be subject to policies and positions that reflect a point of view out of sync with most Canadians. It also means that if Mr. Obama wins the U.S. election, as it appears he will, Canada will be very offside with our closest neighbour.

What to do?

First, the opposition parties must begin immediately to have direct conversations about the forthcoming parliamentary session. They must discuss how to combine and co-operate to ensure that Stephen Harper does not take advantage of both a split opposition and an imminent Liberal leadership race to force through measures that reflect his particular ideology, which is clearly very conservative. This de facto parliamentary alliance, while troublesome for partisans, is a must and is clearly mandated by their electors who were asked to vote Liberal, New Democrat, Green or Bloc to stop Mr. Harper. To return to the gamesmanship of the last Parliament would be a repudiation of those election vows.

There is an even more fundamental reason for a progressive parliamentary alliance to prevail — the times call for it. We are entering into a perilous period where all the conventional wisdoms about the market, the state and globalization are being ruptured. Yet we have a government that still closely adheres to the old 1980s Thatcher-Reagan view of the world — deregulate, cut taxes and trust entirely in the private sector. The Conservatives have shown a marked disinclination for working in a multilateral, international context and eschew innovative efforts in trade and foreign policy. So they will need help in adapting to a world that will require major reforms, both domestically and globally, that begin to rebuild the notion of a public domain in both spheres.

I am not suggesting that a combined opposition can quickly give birth to a new progressive agenda . This is going to take time and the involvement of a lot more Canadians than just the political parties. But, if one looks at the platforms of the opposition parties from the last election, there was significant convergence on many issues that reflect a different outlook from the Harper government. They should use Parliament to gain a much better, broader and more intelligent discourse than was apparent in the campaign and push for an agenda that stimulates the economy, protects people, jobs, the environment and our human rights, and restores a sense of public stewardship to the federal level.

Standing in the way, of course, will be the eternal quest for power, with each group strategizing toward the next election. However, it should be clear by now that the present mathematics are against any of the individual alternatives attempting to overcome the unified position of the right.

It is the mirror image of the politics of the 1990s when the Reform-PC split gave Liberals a built-in advantage. This is compounded by the shifts going on in the diverse demographics of the country and the advancement of a new generation that does not have the same political loyalties of old. So, as uncomfortable as it may be, there will have to be realignments, along with a serious look at electoral reform.

There is some precedent for this. After the 1980 election, Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent had such discussions, only to be turned down by their respective caucuses. It seems even more imperative today for those who desire a return to progressive governance in Canada to engage in such dialogue.
One major question mark in all this will be the Liberal leadership contest, already under way in sub rosa fashion. Will a leader emerge who is willing to take a chance and be ready to embrace, indeed take a lead in forming, a different kind of political constellation? Or will there be a push by that faction of the party that believes a return to right-of-centre politics will offset the present Conservative advantage.

To this death wish, I am reminded of the comment of Keith Davey, renowned Liberal party organizer, who said that Canadians given a choice will always vote for a real Tory, not a pseudo-Tory in Liberal clothing.

Over the next several months there will be lot at stake in the politics of Canada. Fashioning a credible and unified alternative to Mr. Harper’s government and his committed goal of transforming this country into a conservative state needs serious work, not befogged by the personality-driven politics of the last decade. The present parties that profess to be on the progressive spectrum of politics have tough and far-reaching judgments to make. At the very least, they have to actively explore a basis of partnership of progressive forces and how to translate that into political action. If this can be done, then it may be the most important result arising from the last election.