Obama and the Derivatives Merchants

[I]n many respects, working with [Barack Obama] will be very much like working with President Clinton…. I think he will be just fine.

— Top Obama adviser Robert Rubin, former Clinton Treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs chair, currently an executive with Citigroup, August 28, 2008.

The “progressive” Barack Obama that many supporters imagine is itching to break free once his corporate host’s body is securely in the White House, remains dormant. Not even the groans of finance capital’s collapse can waken him — a strong indication that no such progressive inner Obama exists.

Certainly the progressive Obama was nowhere to be found when the candidate endorsed the $700-plus billion “cash for trash” Wall Street bailout. So eager was Obama to “save” the bankers, he forgot which party he was supposed to belong to and offered to allow Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to keep his job in an Obama administration. Although the offer was coached in terms of facilitating a smooth “transition” from one regime to another, it is yet another telling indication that, in January, the baton will essentially be passed from one finance capital team wearing red shorts to another finance capital team in blue.

Goldman Sachs doesn’t much care which of the big business parties wins, so long as the rich remain in power. Paulson is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, as is Obama’s top economic advisor, Robert Rubin, who served as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Treasury. Corporate politics is nothing if not incestuous. When Rubin says that working with a President Obama “will be very much like working with President Clinton,” he means that the elected players are eminently replaceable, while corporate guys are permanent. Obama “will be just fine” as a front for finance capital’s continued rule.

When the crunch came in September, Obama performed the bailout functions expected of him by his biggest financial backers: Wall Street. After the first attempted heist was thwarted when an outraged citizenry laid electronic siege to the U.S. Capitol, Obama smothered the holdouts with promises to make things right once in the Oval Office. All but eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) sent up the white flag. This was not unexpected, since the CBC as a body had ceased to play a progressive role years ago – neutered by corporate influence. It is sadly poetic that the final collapse of the Black Caucus occurred under the ministrations of history’s most successful Black corporate politician, Barack Obama — a player so masterful he was able to enlist, silence or co-opt virtually all of Black “leadership” before one primary vote was cast.

Now Obama picks up an imaginary sword to fight a phony battle on behalf of the victims of his investment banker friends’ crimes. With his lead widening in the polls, Obama offers a 90-day reprieve on foreclosures to those homeowners who were working with lenders that are part of the bailout deal. Homeowners would also have to show that they were making an effort to pay their mortgages. But at the end of the 90 days the family would still be out of luck if there was no agreement on terms with the lender.

Earlier this year, Obama rejected moratoriums on foreclosures and a freeze on rates, measures supported by his primary opponents John Edwards and Hillary Clinton (Obama called Clinton’s rate freeze “disastrous”). Nearly two million foreclosures and evictions later, after facilitating a trillion-dollar corporate raid on the public treasury, and caught in a bidding war with McCain on spending what remains, Obama still can’t venture any farther left than his corporate leash allows. Obama derides McCain’s proposal to spend up to $300 billion buying up homeowners’ mortgages at face value and repackaging them at terms consistent with current home values, calling it too expensive and a boon to lenders (the latter part is certainly true). But he championed the original $700 billion “cash for trash” scheme that was designed as a pure bailout for speculators – his investment banker friends – and would save not a single family from losing its home.

How bizarre it is to observe Obama playing the people’s crusader in the morning and colluding with his top economic advisers, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, in the afternoon. In February 1999, Rubin and Summers flanked Fed Chief Alan Greenspan on the cover of Time magazine, heralded as, “The Committee to Save the World.” Summers was then Secretary of the Treasury for Bill Clinton, having succeeded his mentor, Rubin, in that office. Together with Greenspan, the trio had in the previous year labored successfully to safeguard “derivatives,” the exotic “ticking time bomb” financial instruments, from federal regulation. Less than a decade later, unregulated derivatives would expand – like the Mother of All Bubbles – to notional values 10 to 15 times greater than the world’s total economic output. The global order would be brought to its knees, in a financial conflagration that has just begun to show its full dimensions and destructive potential. (See New York Times, October 9, “Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy“)

So you might want to thank Obama’s main men on the economy, Rubin and Summers, for the current crisis. Be assured that this crew will deliver another catastrophe from their positions of influence, if Obama is elected.

The November 4 election will change nothing in the configurations of power in the United States. It is Barack Obama’s mission to ensure that the political transition effects no substantive alteration of power relationships, but rather, provides a new (Black) face for the old, fast-failing system. To the extent that self-identified progressives attempt to ignore or obscure the facts of Obama’s very public allegiance to finance capital, they objectively weaken the people’s ability to resist — or even recognize — the overarching menace of continued corporate rule.

It is absurd to claim that a progressive “movement” with a potential for profound social change can coalesce behind a candidate who repeatedly and reflexively aligns with the worst corporate malefactors on the planet, the very same individuals who brought about the current catastrophe. The great damage that has been done to African American political coherence, may never be repaired. At this crucial juncture in human history, the Black Sampson plants himself firmly among the wobbly pillars of the rich man’s crumbling edifice — to prop it up!

Obama can no more succeed than John McCain in resolving the contradictions of capital by feeding the beast the last remnants of the national wealth. But his “progressive” apologists, by papering over the “real” Obama in favor of the wishful one that only exists in their fantasies, politically disarm the people, and make the inevitable task of organizing against an Obama presidency vastly more difficult.

Glen Ford is Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report, where this article first appeared. He can be contacted at: Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com. Read other articles by Glen, or visit Glen's website.

21 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Donald Hawkins said on October 16th, 2008 at 9:38am #

    I know a little off subject but thought it was important.

    Through the 2008 melt season, a race developed between melting of the thin ice and gradually waning sunlight. Summer ice losses allowed a great deal of solar energy to enter the ocean and heat up the water, melting even more ice from the bottom and sides. Warm oceans store heat longer than the atmosphere does, contributing to melt long after sunlight has begun to wane. In August 2008, the Arctic Ocean lost more ice than any previous August in the satellite record.

    NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.” (See Figure 4.)

    In the end, however, summer conditions worked together to save some first-year ice from melting and to cushion the thin pack from the effects of sunlight and warm ocean waters. This summer’s weather did not provide the “perfect storm” for ice loss seen in 2007: temperatures were lower than 2007, although still higher than average (Figure 5); cloudier skies protected the ice from some melt; a different wind pattern spread the ice pack out, leading to higher extent numbers. Simply put, the natural variability of short-term weather patterns provided enough of a brake to prevent a new record-low ice extent from occurring.

    NSIDC Research Scientist Julienne Stroeve said, “I find it incredible that we came so close to beating the 2007 record—without the especially warm and clear conditions we saw last summer. I hate to think what 2008 might have looked like if weather patterns had set up in a more extreme way. ”

    The melt season of 2008 reinforces the decline of Arctic sea ice documented over the past thirty years (Figure 6 and Figure 7). NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos said, “The trend of decline in the Arctic continues, despite this year’s slightly greater extent of sea ice. The Arctic is more vulnerable than ever.”

  2. Max Shields said on October 16th, 2008 at 10:00am #

    “Obama can no more succeed than John McCain in resolving the contradictions of capital by feeding the beast the last remnants of the national wealth. But his “progressive” apologists, by papering over the “real” Obama in favor of the wishful one that only exists in their fantasies, politically disarm the people, and make the inevitable task of organizing against an Obama presidency vastly more difficult.”

    Perfectly stated. It is not so much what Obama is – a corporate bought pol. It is that he (and the Dem Party) co-opt and undermine what little there is of a progressive movement in the US.

    As some have said, we are so weaned on the two party system, it’s as if our collective worldview cannot concede another option. So, we are left with lies and deceits that make this campaign even more frustrating than the Gore/Bush one where at least many progressives saw Nader as a real option.

    The problem now is that this is not a time for business as usual. We are in a state which will take a complete counterculture, political and economic hard turn. The system is incapable of such a correction. The system (and its establishment candidates) is the problem.

    There are American thinkers and writers who are totally against what Obama supports, and yet they, too, are supporting him.

    The pathology is that deep.

  3. Elias Trud said on October 16th, 2008 at 11:13am #

    I don’t think his supporters want to see any deeper than the trivial soap opera politics that we get on television. When he talks about “national service” he means THE DRAFT, not a public works project. The author raises an interesting point when he writes that it was the Congressional Black Caucus caved in to Obama’s demand that they support the bailout of finance. This was to be expected. Perhaps the best lesson people can learn from this is when Obama turns out to be slightly to the right of Bill Clinton when he finally gets into office. Obama, while cultivating support within his community in Chicago rubbed shoulders with many people. He got himself on the “New Party” list, the New Party being the failed attempt at creating a party like the New Democratic Party in Canada. He appeared at the home of a certain popular and provocative professor at the U of C. He was very careful about establishing “progressive” credentials while being in essence a moralizing center-right bourgeois politician. His article in Foreign Affairs is as imperialist as it gets, I don’t know a single Obama supporter that has ever read it, or shown a desire in reading it.

    I constantly hear noise about the “lesser of two evils” as the reason why workers should support the DP, which is precisely why workers have no political force or voice of their own, or even an independent working class reformist party. Leftists get to “participate” in politics by joining in coalitions within the DP, Social Democrats of America, Democratic Socialist Party, Rainbow/PUSH and of course the CPUSA who loves the Democratic Party more than most democratic party voters do. Their editorials in Political Affairs magazine literally proclaim their “love” of Obama.

    One question should be asked is why do we even fall for this “progressive” stuff? Do people know the origins of “progressivism” and how unabashedly conservative it was? Do they know the Bob Lafollette ran the PP as his own personal family business and that his son dissolved it into the Republican Party? Or do we speak of the term “progressive” in the old-line Stalinist sense of a union of progressive forces? The original progressives were all war supporters, they supported every war the country was in from the birth of their party to its death. In that sense, at least, Obama is a “progressive”.

  4. Martha said on October 16th, 2008 at 11:31am #

    Max, I seem to be trailing you today. Agreed on pull quote. I also think the last two paragraphs of Mr. Ford’s article would be perfect on a coffee cup. Maybe we could buy one and ship it to Ron Jacobs?
    “There are American thinkers and writers who are totally against what Obama supports, and yet they, too, are supporting him. The pathology is that deep.”

  5. Brian Koontz said on October 16th, 2008 at 11:42am #

    Max, what you’re saying isn’t true (about those who don’t support Obama’s positions supporting an Obama presidency). The problem is that we on the left misunderstand just what the left is.

    For example, Naomi Klein, hailed as a “hero of the left”, isn’t even on the left. Interviewed by Tony Benn, she stated that she is a “Keynesian Capitalist”. Therefore she fits into the mold of New Deal Capitalism, a staunch supporter of FDR, and is on the *Right* (center-right) of the political spectrum.

    Noam Chomsky, though a friend to the left on many issues, hailed the post-WWII years in America as the golden years for democracy. Nevermind that America has been *officially* an imperial power since 1898, and unofficially long before that, beginning with the genocide of the indigenous, all of which show a complete lack of democracy. For white landowning males, however, I’m sure the post-WWII years were a golden age.

    So it doesn’t surprise me at all that the “left” in America largely supports Obama, given who our “heroes” are. The “left” in America doesn’t want revolution, it doesn’t want substantial change, at most it wants “Keynesian Capitalism”, and it sees Obama as a step in that direction.

    The left, as a political position, *begins* with socialism and extends through anarchism, environmentalism (true environmentalism, not just the lesser evil of reduced industrialism), and primitivism. Much like various flavors of the right, those positions are all aligned and all need to be fighting together against the right.

    What’s going on here is that the American populace is so far to the right that anyone even center-right (such as Klein) appears to be some kind of extreme leftist. We are so steeped in free market nonsense, neoconservative insanity, and industrial and capitalistic orgasms, that we have become blinded to reality and to political possibilities.

    That’s what happens when you live in the HEART of the global empire. Every imperial society in history is deluded, and Americans perhaps the most so.

  6. ron ridenour said on October 16th, 2008 at 11:54am #

    That is the best analysis I have seen on the Obama candidacy. It was foreseeable albeit still sad. As you wrote, one of the saddest aspects of it all is that so many good progressive, leftist individuals and groups and small parties support Obama as a) a black person–which is progress; and b) the interminable “lesser of evils”.
    And, yes, this does diminish the otherwise potential of creating a true alternative struggle against rotten capitalism and its omnipresent imperialist wars and towards socialism.
    I am glad to have read this, whose main point has been my own since the Obama phenomenon began, and to have discovered your website.

  7. Ron Horn said on October 16th, 2008 at 12:25pm #

    Excellent analysis of the Obama phenomenon! Unfortunately for all of us living in the US, the American public, due to so many years of brainwashing and with our attention devoted to shopping (on credit), is at such an immature stage of political awareness. It is going to take many more shocks to wake them up, which will definitely come, but I am frightened by what these shocks may inflict on all of us. And by the time enough people wake up, it may be too late.

    Brian Koontz: I couldn’t agree with you more.

  8. Dave Silver said on October 16th, 2008 at 3:35pm #

    Thank you brother Ford for the excellent class analysis that contributes
    to the struggle against the deeply ingrained and poisonous
    consciousness that feeds the illusions that the Democratic Party can be part of a people’s solution rather than central to the problem
    Right On

  9. Max Shields said on October 16th, 2008 at 4:12pm #

    Brian,

    I think you’re mistaking what I’m saying. Perhaps I should just say I agree with Ron Horn and leave it at that.

  10. Jack Harris said on October 16th, 2008 at 11:00pm #

    Max Shields says…

    Perfectly stated. It is not so much what Obama is – a corporate bought pol. It is that he (and the Dem Party) co-opt and undermine what little there is of a progressive movement in the US.

    The problem with the aforementioned comment is that it wasn’t Obama who undermined the progressive movement. It was progressives themselves who undermined their own movement. Obama is only filling the void that progressives created. Progressives undermined their best opportunity to build up the antiwar movement four years ago and the Green Party undermined themselves. It would be more useful if Progressive take the time to examine their own flaws rather than continueously wallow in victimization by the Democrats.

  11. Max Shields said on October 17th, 2008 at 6:02am #

    “Jack Harris” – could it be aka Deadbeat? If the words were not identical one could almost imagine a change of profile to hide the oft repeated comments from DB.

    But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt “Jack” and assume you are in fact a like minded DB believer that “progressives” not Obama AND, as I said the Dem Party, have not undermined what little there is of a progressive movement.

    You “Jack”/DB are as wrong now has you’ve been over the last 6 months or so when you started posting this same drivel.

    First, you need to understand what a movement is and how it is sustained. Movements going head to head with the power-elite – such as the Obama/Dem/Media/Transnation Corporations – are running up against odds which are nearly insurmountable from the get-go.

    Power structures, because they hold the power, can leverage and undermine, and regularly do, all kinds of grass-roots movements. For instance, they call their campaign a bottom-up grass-roots campaign pulling in young progressive minded citizens under their “tent”; they feign an anti-war position of convenience for starters. WalMart will “green-wash” saying they’re going green and put solar panels on their roofs while they continue to step on the high octane scouring the world for cheap labor and goods.

    Co-opting is one thing – NOT delivering, or even planning to deliver, is something else.

    Main Stream Media that gives a candidate non-stop coverage and others NO coverage at all, while never showing what went on outside of each of the Conventions and the last debate are more than complicit.

    How can you have a progressive movement Deadbeat, I mean “Jack”, if no one is informed of it happening. When the uber-right candidate is calling Obama a left wing commie for gawds sake!!

    I stick by exactly what I posted. The flaw is in your eyes which seems determined to condemn a movement which can barely get traction for the fact that there is a military industrial corporate complex that owns nearly all the worlds resources, backed by the worst kind of gangster capitalists, bolstered by a duopoly, and providing the public with a 24/7 dose of fascist propaganda.

    The US is an unraveling empire. The power elite will do ANYTHING to keep it’s power. We’ve seen the use of the media in Latin America to squash dissidents at every turn.

    Are you so naive “Jack” that you think that that is not what is going on here?

  12. Brian Koontz said on October 17th, 2008 at 8:15pm #

    Jack Harris writes:

    “It was progressives themselves who undermined their own movement. Obama is only filling the void that progressives created. Progressives undermined their best opportunity to build up the antiwar movement four years ago and the Green Party undermined themselves. It would be more useful if Progressive take the time to examine their own flaws rather than continueously wallow in victimization by the Democrats.”

    All progressives want is a “kinder, gentler” Imperialism. They will never form a helpful movement for social justice. For the progressives it’s “talk, then bomb” instead of “bomb, then bomb some more”. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive. FDR was a progressive. JFK was a progressive. Carter is a progressive. It doesn’t matter when these people come to power because they don’t want to change the underlying reality of what a capitalist imperial power is.

    The right owns America, and progressives are fully part of that right (capitalists). The left in America is virtually invisible. The left exists as individuals, unorganized, powerless, with zero media presence, which is *necessary* so long as most Americans want Imperialism to continue, and they most certainly do. All imperialists are on the right.

    Progressives largely are non-impoverished Americans (usually middle class) who are pissed off at the reaming they’ve received at the hands of the Bush Adminstration. What they mostly want is a bigger piece of the imperial pie for themselves to devour. “Universal health care”, “higher taxes on the rich”, “welfare reform”, “reduced income disparity”, “environmental protection” (not betterment, just “protection”).

    Universal health care is particularly educational. They might want to look up the term “universal” in the dictionary. What they actually want is definitely not universal health care, but merely free health care for all AMERICANS. Last time I checked the Rio Grande doesn’t mark the border of the universe.

    Worrying that the center-right (progressives) is misunderstanding Obama (neoliberal, soft-neocon) is a real waste of time. That’s according to probably 5 billion of the world’s people, at least. But of course Americans think their own belief trumps that.

  13. Carl Davidson said on October 18th, 2008 at 4:29am #

    First, our group, ‘Progressives for Obama’, has made a point from day one of never claiming our ‘best option’ candidate was ever a consistent progressive. Rather we point out he was a liberal speaking mainly to the center.

    Second, the more interesting question is not this stuff, which is ho-hum. Rather, what kind of liberal is he? Obama is really trying to carve a new niche, opposed to both McCain’s neoliberalism and Clinton’s old corporate liberalism. It’s more market-centered, more Green, more hightech, more alternative energies–a ‘high road’ Green Jobs industrial policy capitalism, but still a capitalism in the multipolar globalist camp, as oppsed to unipolar hegemonists.

    Third, there’s another interesting question ignored here. Socialism is not a mass demand today, so where should the left stand that goes beyond a more militant version of the old liberal redistributionism? What left pole of deep structural reform can we put out that can both press Obama and unity a progressive majority?

    I know these are tougher for many on the left than these little ‘gotcha’ exposes, but it’s what we really need to be talking about.

  14. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 18th, 2008 at 7:53am #

    studying the structure of anything may be by far more elucidating than labeling, personalising; guessing what obama will do or studying what he says.
    structure, if my understanding is correct, is ab how one aspect or fact relates to all the others we can discover and how all the facts we know, relate to one aspect or fact.
    we have cia. now, how it relates to pentagon, administration, healthcare, military, congress, senate, constitution, advisers, plutocrats, (mis)education, disinformation, media, middle class, lower classes, expansionism, wmd, etc., is what we shld study in order to obtain a diff”t picture; a better, more elucidating one.
    posters need to stop attacking people or even their ideas; instead one posits or juxtaposes own ideas, conclusions, plans, facts, etc.
    to have such a golden opportunity to educate onlt to chuck it away by using ad hominem labels or belitling people, makes no sense to me. thnx

  15. Max Shields said on October 18th, 2008 at 9:43am #

    Carl Davidson

    With all due respect you’re way overthinking Obama’s “newness” like so many “progressives for Obama” rationalists.

    The reason why I say you’re overthinking it is because he’s pretty much fashioned himself as a “new” Clinton. His advisors are all from the Clinton administration. There’s really nothing you’ve mentioned that couldn’t have been said of Clinton (to say he was a corporatist and “market centered, is needlessly mincing words). Obama, as far as green, the Green Party has been Green for decades.

    Nader is a consistant progressive, not a lackluster color-me whatever, like Obama. Nader was Green before Obama could vote.

    Every time I read things like “progressives for Obama” I think why not the “KKK for Obama” or “Born Again’s for Obama” or “Jesus Freaks for Obama” or “Flatearthers for Obama”.

    Call yourselves whatever you will. There are two genuine progressives in this race – Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.

    How’s this “thoughtful independent progressives for Nader”? Nice sound to it.

  16. Max Shields said on October 18th, 2008 at 9:57am #

    As to the complaint about the term “progressives”, I think it’s clear that a progressive as voiced by Eugene Debs and Ralph Nader and the Labor movement are far removed from the likes of Woodrow Wilson, or Teddy Roosevelt.

    JFK was not a progressive (in fact I never heard reference to him as a progressive). He was a hardliner hawk, cold warrior, that made Nixon look like a liberal.

    There was a powerful labor, socialist and progressive movement in the US during the early part of the 20th Century; hence the major parties picked up on it. Woodrow Wilson killed the left movement in America when it was strongest. Out of his mouth came the word progressive; then he essentially issued martial law against the socialist, progressive and labor movement in the run up to WWI.

    So, it is clear who the real progressives have been in American history and who have used whatever term would get them elected.

    In other words, McCain calling Obama a socialist doesn’t mean Obama is a “socialist”.

  17. Hue Longer said on October 18th, 2008 at 5:21pm #

    Huey Long voted against the New Deal because it was just an appeasement to what people were demanding…but he caught a bullet and today FDR is a swell guy to so many people using the title, “Progressive”.

  18. Hue Longer said on October 18th, 2008 at 5:35pm #

    Carl,

    It may be just a coincidence but calling real criticism “gotcha” is exactly what McCain did when the press pointed out to him one of Palin’s contradictions.

    I do think it’s impossible to not in some way become these people when you adopt an ends justifies the means policy in endorsing them

  19. li chen said on October 18th, 2008 at 7:18pm #

    The path forward is not electing a true progressive or socialist for president–it lies in creating independent mass movements for real social change that whatever fools in power will be forced to follow–including serious electoral reforms, a country powered only by true green energy, living wages, free healthcare, college education…Obama is not part of that solution, he is the enemy and so is the idiotic storm of media election propaganda. The movement around Nader is excellent, but it is not ‘our chance,’ as change doesn’t occur from top-down, doesn’t occur without force from rightist war criminal trash administrations like Obama’s.

  20. Brian Koontz said on October 20th, 2008 at 3:25pm #

    In reply to Carl Davidson:

    “Second, the more interesting question is not this stuff, which is ho-hum. Rather, what kind of liberal is he? Obama is really trying to carve a new niche, opposed to both McCain’s neoliberalism and Clinton’s old corporate liberalism. It’s more market-centered, more Green, more hightech, more alternative energies–a ‘high road’ Green Jobs industrial policy capitalism, but still a capitalism in the multipolar globalist camp, as oppsed to unipolar hegemonists.”

    Obama has said he will continue the war in Afghanistan, regardless of the opinion of anyone else in the world.

    “Third, there’s another interesting question ignored here. Socialism is not a mass demand today, so where should the left stand that goes beyond a more militant version of the old liberal redistributionism? What left pole of deep structural reform can we put out that can both press Obama and unity a progressive majority?”

    The left isn’t interested in “pressing” Obama at all – in the same sense as the left isn’t interested in “pressing” Dahmer. Obama needs to be taken down – the interests that back him (corporate, multinational) need to be thrown out of power. Which of course means a revolution.

    In terms of the center-right, who support Obama – the people known as progressives, absolutely, they are all about redistribution, all about improved health care and government services, they desire a 2nd New Deal. From the perspective of the center-right, these kind of pressures need to be brought to bear. Of course by now it’s too late.

    Deep structural reform is impossible – only a revolution can achieve that. The Obama years will feature little change – still massive military expenditures – still deep domestic decay, still increased poverty. It could be far worse depending on what happens with America’s role in the global economy.

    What frustrates me about progressives is that they speak the term “2nd New Deal” as if it can happen. America only became a superpower after World War II. Prior to then America’s elite competed against other elites around the globe for markets and resources. The world today is completely different. The global elite is largely unified under multinational capitalism. Markets are interpenetrated, every elite shares the fate of every other, which is why elites around the world are panicked about the outcome of this economic crisis despite it being centered in US financial institutions.

    The point of the first New Deal was not just to alleviate revolutionary power in the United States but to *bolster* poor Americans, since those Americans (like any good slave) were valuable in the perpetual war of the American elite against other elites.

    Now the slavemasters have abandoned the slaves. There will not be a 2nd New Deal under the current global economic system because what used to be a slave is now totally expendable. There is simply no point in multinational capital expending resources to bolster the American populace, since that populace is no longer worth much of anything, since slaves can be had the world over. Slaves in Asia and Africa are far cheaper than American slaves.

    American wealth will continue to be siphoned away to the multinationals, whether through “Green Jobs” or whatever other term is in vogue, so long as the global economic system is structured as it is.

    One very useful thing Americans can do short of all-out revolution is to demand wage increases – NOT in America but for those impoverished slaves that multinationals call the “good slaves”. We need a universal “living wage” – once we have that there will be no such thing as a “good slave” – we will all be equal slaves.

  21. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 20th, 2008 at 4:52pm #

    since the planet is getting poorer by day, some people will get poorer.
    but, 2-3 bn people may perish because of global warmnig that might make africa, parts of asia, australia and americas uninhabitable.
    so most n. amers, euros; some asians r not too perturbed ab the sit’n.
    siberia, poles, greenland w. balmy whether wld house the plutocrats.
    so, as we can see, there is no problem.
    except churches bitterly complaining ab loss of bn of faithful.
    and the poor, the darkies wld be glad to go anyway. thnx