Pence warns of what will happen to middle class during a Biden presidency Reply

One thing that I actually with Mikey the Empty Suit Toady on is that the Biden-Harris ticket does symbolize the transition of the US economy to the present “California model”(neofeudalism ruled by tech-oligarchs and the new clerisy). The problem is that Mikey still clings to the failed supply-side Reaganite paradigm that made the California model possible in the first place. Mikey is like some 19th-century throne and altar type saying, “Wow. This capitalist industrial revolution think sucks. Let’s go back to royalist mercantilism!”

Kamala: Woke Capitalism’s Dream Pick Reply

Kamala Harris largely symbolizes the transformation that is presently taking place in the entire Western world. The managerial revolution of the middle 20th century still functioned within the wider framework of the industrial capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois nation-state system.

However, the present transformation involves a transition away from a model of capitalism that is rooted in the industrial revolution to one that is rooted in the tech revolution, which is being accompanied by a shift away from the 19th century model of liberal-bourgeois nationalism toward a globalized technocratic multicultural statism.

The last vestiges of traditional religion are disappearing as well (at least among the power elite and managerial classes) with the new clerisy taking its place. Religious conservatives like Rod Dreher are absolutely correct in their assessment of this process, as are critics of the “new feudalism” like Joel Kotkin.

By Rod Dreher

The American Conservative

Let’s stipulate that nobody Joe Biden could have picked for his running mate would have pleased conservatives in any way. Of all the people he could have picked, I think Kamala Harris is the most dangerous, from a social conservative point of view. I’ll get to that in a second. But first, let me explain why I think she was probably the best pick for Biden.

Biden said he was going to pick a female running mate. In any other year, Elizabeth Warren would have been a stronger choice, given the role she’s carved out for herself as a scourge of Wall Street. But in this George Floyd year, Biden needed to choose a black woman — especially because the support of black voters is what saved his presidential candidacy.

Harris is very aggressive in her speeches — and that’s what Biden needs. Traditionally presidential candidates need their veep picks to be bulldogs. Trump doesn’t, but Biden really does. He gets to keep his avuncular Uncle Joe affect for one, and for another, she can throw sharp elbows that elderly Joe Biden cannot manage.

Harris is woke on all the social issues, but some progressives don’t like her because of the years she spent as a prosecutor in California. You might recall how Tulsi Gabbard rattled Harris in a Democratic candidates’ debate by grilling her on her prosecution of marijuana offenders. Overall, though, this reputation will help Biden, I believe. No progressive with a lick of sense is going to sit out the election because Officer Kamala is on the ticket. Given all the rioting this year, it is likely an advantage for Biden to be able to say he has a law-and-order progressive on his ticket — however phony that claim might be. Remember, Biden doesn’t need the pothead vote; he needs the wine-mom vote.

Finally, Biden surely knows that given his age, he is likely to be a one-term president, meaning that win or lose this fall, his VP choice will probably head the Democratic ticket in 2024 — and is a favorite to lead the party after he passes from the scene. The Harris choice is a solid bet on the future of the party.

So what’s wrong with her?


Christian Parenti: How Spoiled Elites Have DESTROYED Hamilton’s Radical Legacy 1

It figures that a full-blown commie like Christian Parenti, son of US Marxist-Leninist godfather Mike Parenti, would be an admirer of Hamilton, and favor Hamilton over Jefferson. However, what Parenti is saying in this interview is what a genuine Marxist would say about economic history and the development of industrial capitalism. Notice that he recognizes that, contra many right-libertarians, capitalist development was the product of statism, not “laissez-faire.” Btw, Christian Parenti’s writings on the prison-industrial complex and his father’s writings on US imperialism and state propaganda techniques are quite good.

Trump’s $400 in unemployment aid: When would it start? Reply

“If I give you $400 will you vote for me?”-Donald Trump

By Aimee Picchi

President Donald Trump on Saturday authorized an extra $400 in weekly unemployment insurance benefits, a potential financial lifeline for the nation’s 16.3 million jobless workers. Yet while his memorandum makes those payments retroactive to August 1, the money could take weeks to reach people and amount to less than advertised for some claimants.

Mr. Trump’s efforts to partially restore the supplemental benefits, which expired late last month, means that states will need to set up new systems for administering the benefits, which could require considerable time to get up and running, according to unemployment experts. The upshot: Unemployed workers shouldn’t count on the extra benefits landing in their bank accounts in the next few weeks.


Has the Fed Let the Inflation Genie Out of the Bottle? Reply

By Stefan Gleason, Money Metals Exchange

The dramatic ascent of precious metals markets this summer reflects what could be just the start of a longer-term decline and fall in the Federal Reserve Note’s value and status.

With gold prices surpassing $2,000/oz recently, the monetary metal has now made new all-time highs versus all the world’s major fiat currencies. Gold is, as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has acknowledged, the “ultimate money.”

The Fed, by contrast, is the ultimate inflator.

Fed officials won’t tolerate deflation (an increase in the purchasing power of the currency) – or even “no-flation” (in the form of a stable-value Federal Reserve Note).


Have We Not Had Enough? Reply

By Stratton J. Davis

Originally published at The Cotton Report

The CoronaVirus has hurt Americans more than just medically.

With the economy in a recession and countless businesses closing down leading to skyrocketing unemployment, the American people have looked to the government for answers to their financial problems. This has been a grave mistake, which is evidenced by the stimulus checks and the seemingly never-ending stream of cash printed by the Fed, which has led to rising prices, meaning the value of the US dollar is being diminished even more.


The Neocons Strike Back Reply

A New Republic article from January 2020 following the Suleimani assassination. Probably the most important thing that is happening in US politics right now is something that almost no one is aware of which is the present effort by the neocons to put themselves back in charge of US foreign policy. In recent times, I have noticed that the neocons seem to be waging an “all-fronts” war to reclaim the ideological hegemony they achieved during the George W. Bush administration. They are successfully embedding themselves in the Trump administration’s foreign policy apparatus. Bolton may have been fired for being too uppity. If there is one thing Trump can’t stand it is someone with an ego bigger than his own. But inner-circle neocons like Elliot Abrams have now successfully achieved important positions in the administration and neocon allies like Pompeo hold the highest level positions.


Wall Street and FDR Reply

Both Marxists and radical libertarians like  Antony Sutton pointed out how Roosevelt was not a “traitor to his class” but a friend of the power elite who wished to preserve the position of the ruling class against insurgent populist, labor, farmer, socialist, communist, and fascist movements that were developing on the margins of US politics at the time. He merely represented the reformist and nascent managerialist wing of the capitalist class. Roosevelt is generally disliked by Marxists because he blocked the achievement of socialism in the US, by reactionary conservatives because he presided over the overthrow of the old bourgeoisie by managerial capitalism, and by libertarians because he was a statist. Wall Street and FDR (9781905570713): Sutton, Antony C ...


How FDR Saved Capitalism Reply

Both the reformist left and the reactionary right have promoted the idea that FDR was a socialist or fascist that was either the working class’ savior or a villain who undermined America’s free enterprise system. Neither of these narratives of true. FDR originated from a patrician family, and his objective was to save the “American system” from being overrun by the kind of extremism that characterized European politics during the Great Depression. He did so by successfully co-opting the “far-left” not by joining it.

By Seymour Martin Lipset, Gary Marks

Hoover Institution

With the coming of the Great Depression in the 1930s, a sharp increase in protest and anti-capitalist sentiment threatened to undermine the existing political system and create new political parties. The findings of diverse opinion polls, as well as the electoral support given to local radical, progressive, and pro-labor candidates, indicate that a large minority of Americans were ready to back social democratic proposals. It is significant, then, that even with the growth of class consciousness in America, no national third party was able to break the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Radicals who operated within the two-party system were often able to achieve local victories, but these accomplishments never culminated in the creation of a sustainable third party or left-wing ideological movement. The thirties dramatically demonstrated not only the power of America’s coalitional two-party system to dissuade a national third party but also the deeply antistatist, individualistic character of its electorate.


Trump: Tinpot Dictator? (w/ Noam Chomsky) Reply

This is an excellent interview. Chomsky really puts the phenomenon of Trumpism in context in this interview. In recent years, Chomsky has at times gone off the deep end with hyperbolic comments but he doesn’t drop the ball in this one. It is good to hear Chomsky distinguishing Trump’s pro-plutocratic authoritarianism from fascism’s cult of the state, and Sanders’ New Dealism from Marxism.

Imagine if Israel’s Likud Party and El Salvador’s ARENA  relocated to America, united as a single party, and then adopted Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi as their leader, and you have a near-perfect picture of what the Republicans actually are. The Republic Party ultimately cares about only three things: the class interests of the right-wing of the ruling class, the profit margins of the arms merchants, and the expansionist agendas of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Small Businesses Are Overrated 1

The Jacobin commies attack the petite bourgeoisie.

By Matt Kruenig

The Jacobin

As the anti-monopoly movement has picked up steam in important policy circles, some have begun thinking that small business promotion is a good idea. This seems to be partially driven by the technical view that small businesses are a way to counteract corporate concentration and partially driven by the more ideological and aesthetic view that there’s something inherently just and beautiful about small-time entrepreneurs and mom and pop shops.

In reality, small business promotion is mostly a bad idea. Small businesses pay lower wages, provide worse benefits, are often exempt from important worker protections, and are incompatible with the way unionization works in the US.


After 40 years of capitalism, China’s income is divided almost as unequally as America’s Reply

The Chinese are just now entering their Gilded Age.

By Dan Kopf


Increasing inequality is now at the center of world policy debates, and there is perhaps no person more responsible for that than French economist Thomas Piketty.

His book Capital in the Twenty-First Century examined trends in inequality over the last two centuries in the United States and Western Europe. Piketty found that while inequality had fallen in the mid 20th century, since about 1975 it has been rising at an alarming rate as income from wealth (such as property and other assets) outpaced income earned from working. The 2013 book would become a surprise bestseller and perhaps the most influential economics book of the 21st century.

Now Piketty, along with his colleagues Li Yang and Gabriel Zucman, has turned his sights on China. For a forthcoming paper, the economists use tax data, surveys, and China’s national accounting statistics to estimate the growth of Chinese inequality from 1978 to 2015—the period since China liberalized its economy. The researchers find that while nearly all Chinese people are better off economically than they were three decades ago, the gains have been strongest at the top. They estimate that the share of income going to the top 1% has risen from 6% in 1978 to about 14% in 2015—a share that is less than in the US (20%) but higher than in France (10%).

The researchers say the new data is an improvement on previous attempts to measure Chinese inequality because they were able to use tax statistics available since 2006 on high earners. They claim that older research that only used survey data underestimated inequality because those with the highest incomes were unlikely to get surveyed.


In Rich Countries, the Middle Class Is Getting Smaller and Smaller, Generation by Generation Reply

Feudalism is on its way back.

By Eshe Nelson


Across Western Europe and North America, the middle class is shrinking, according to a 2019 report by the OECD. With each new generation, a smaller share of the population find themselves earning middle incomes.

When the Baby Boomers, who were born between 1943 and 1964, were in their twenties, some 68 percent were in middle-income households. Only 60 percent of Millennials, who were born between 1983 and 2002, could say the same at a similar time in their lives.

The OECD defines the middle class as people earning between 75 and 200 percent of the national median annual income. Its data is an average of results from Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United States.

The “economic influence” of the middle class has also dropped sharply over time, said the OECD report, which was published on April 10, 2019. Across the OECD, middle incomes have increased by just 0.3 percent per year, on average, over the past decade. By comparison, in the decade before the financial crisis, middle incomes grew by 1.6 percent per year, and by 1 percent the decade before that.

Housing costs are squeezing the middle class the hardest; this now consumes a third of disposable income for middle-class households, up from a quarter in the 1990s. Housing and higher education expenses have been rising faster than middle incomes, the OECD said.


The Case for Economic Nationalism Reply

Economic nationalism, which is favored by guys like Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan, is just another term for mercantilism. It’s the system that societies in an early phase of industrial development tend to use in order to protect domestic industries. It’s more or less the system the US used in its early history, which comes through pretty clearly in the writings of figures like Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay. It’s the same model that was used by the “Asian Tigers” (like Japan, Singapore, and South Korea) in the postwar period, and by contemporary China as well. Once a mercantile republic expands into an empire, it usually abandons mercantilism in favor of “free trade” (a euphemism for the domination of international markets through a hegemonic trade position). Capitalist regimes typically do not embrace “free trade” until they have consolidated an imperialist sphere of influence for themselves. It’s something of an inversion of the way small to medium size capitalists tend to favor “free markets” until they grow to a certain size, at which point they embrace state-capitalism now that they have access to the state.