Excuse me, if you mean that comment about Dobbs in a negative way, it is obvious to show you weren’t paying attention. Dobbs specifically DENOUNCED the big corporations in this country. He went out of his way to speak on behalf of the american people as a whole, denouncing the elites, denouncing NAFTA, denouncing the underpaying companies, the list goes on. It is as if he were taking his talking points from a progressive or socialist publication. It truly surprises me that you as a self-described ‘populist’ don’t seem to be more supportive of him.
Okay, just watched the whole thing. I gotta say that this was really more of a drive by than an interview. I think it is quite disingenuous to act all nice, smile at someone, invite them on your show, just to accuse that person of racism, as well as other character attacks, instead of talking about real solutions to problems.
This is part of the reason why our country is so fucked up. Journalists and politicians would rather attack each other than talk about solutions.
Dobbs is a problem and Democracy Now is a solution to him.
As far as solutions to *other* problems, specifically illegal immigration, Democracy Now covered the Eliot Spitzer proposal to allow licensing of illegal immigrants. That was a solution that was shot down by the opposition.
The corporate community is split on the issue. Corporations that take advantage of illegal immigrants through employing them love them. Corporations that don’t have access to them don’t like the disadvantage that puts them under and therefore opposes them. This split is the reason why Dobbs is allowed to take a stance on the issue that opposes some corporations.
Democracy Now also presented a solution on the very program you just watched – to equalize the economic opportunities of the US and Mexico which will nearly stop illegal immigration, since it primarily occurs to improve the economic conditions of Mexicans and others.
“Democracy Now also presented a solution on the very program you just watched – to equalize the economic opportunities of the US and Mexico which will nearly stop illegal immigration, since it primarily occurs to improve the economic conditions of Mexicans and others.”
Well then Democracy Now is really just filled with a bunch of daydreamers if they think that they, or some president can just manipulate whole economies like that. By the way, economic management is actually PEOPLE management. It is unfortunate that they seem to have such high esteem for such top down management, placing all of their faith in some omnipotent bureaucrat. I wonder if they even studied economics.
It seems that you’re the one with high esteem for top down management, given that you’re implying that the solution requires that.
I agree with you that “economic equalization” is very ambitious. They didn’t say it was an *easy* solution. Right now the world is moving toward economic equalization, just in the negative sense of high profits for capital and high poverty for everyone else.
Establishing a strong international economic policy is probably an excellent way to move toward economic equalization. I don’t mean a policy directed from Washington. One directed from the United Nations or similar agency controlled by the international community.
First of all, I am extremely against top down management of any form. I want NAFTA canceled. You have to agree that it has done NOTHING to benefit the average Joe. Same thing with WTO and CAFTA. The Chamber of Commerce should be terminated, as well as the so-called ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership’. Big Business has no moral right to write laws for us.
The Federal Reserve, an extremely corrupt organization, needs to be either seriously reformed or taken down. All the banksThe Israel Lobby needs to be cut off. They are responsible for quite a considerable amount of American misdeeds around the globe.
I could go on with the list of corrupt organizations, some of which are actually government agencies, that need to have their funding cut off.
Second, I disagree with you about the UN. So many on the left portrays them as a group of Angels. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are also quite manipulated by money, and have a lot of bad people in very powerful positions. Take for example, their ‘Human Rights’ commission, which is polluted with Third World Dictators. From any perspective, even that of far leftist, the UN can simply not be trusted, once examining what really goes on with them.
“All the banksThe Israel Lobby needs to be cut off. ”
Sorry, meant to say “All the national and international banks need to get their hands out of our treasury and our lawbooks, as they have been proven to use government to distort the market in their favor and against the little guy”.
NAFTA can be cancelled immediately. Institutions like the WTO can only be cancelled after better institutions that serve a noble mandate are formed ready to takeover, otherwise economic anarchy will ensue.
Positive aspects of the left’s portrayal of the UN are not so much based on the current UN, which is largely influenced by Washington, but on how they perceive the UN to be in a more just political world. That is to say, the left has great hopes for the UN, which I share. The good news is that Washington is declining in power and will likely continue to decline. The bad news is that noone has an accurate vision of what follows such a decline with respect to the status of the UN.
“Institutions like the WTO can only be cancelled after better institutions that serve a noble mandate are formed ready to takeover, otherwise economic anarchy will ensue.”
Nonsense. The WTO is relatively new. The world got by for hundreds of years without it. Trade was far more in favor of the middle and lower classes. Even Chomsky and Nader are and were against the WTO. The fact of the matter is, is that things were almost consistently better before the WTO, except for plutocratic elites. The WTO is nothing more than Neo-Mercantilism disguised as free trade.
“I have no idea how you can say this, after the events of the past 40 years and especially the last 7.”
That’s exactly why I’m saying it. Destroying the American economy is beneficial to the American elite but disastrous to the country and by extension it’s government (it’s future government).
You think of the American government as being separate from the corporate sector, but unfortunately that’s false. The corporate sector is multinational, which means they can relocate at any time. So once America is bankrupted (the taxpayers who feed the corporate sector) the “American” elite can just move to another country. The American government has no interest in maintaining the American nation because they are tied to this sector that is itself multinational. They have little incentive to maintain America.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the increased American investment in China. That’s not you or me investing in China, that’s American multinationals. They don’t care if America is bankrupted because their China interests live on, their French interests live on, their Israeli interests live on, their Saudi interests live on, etc. They’ll take the money and run, and then do the same thing to the next country.
It’s *us* who care about America the nation, because we (for the most part) don’t hold interests in other countries. We’re the ones who don’t want to see the country bankrupted. And we’re the ones without any political power.
The good news, however, is that when America is bankrupted and the American Elite moves to the next victim the American war machine is dead. Even if other Empires emerge it will take decades to build up militaries and in that time the world will experience tremendous peace and most likely prosperity, especially if the world learns from the American debacle. The 21st century could be truly great. It could even be great in America, at least politically. Economically not so much. The fallout from the destruction of the Empire will be severe.
The insane aggression of the Bush Administration indicates that they themselves believe the American Empire to be ending. If they didn’t there would be no need to take such a risky approach.
Check your history. The rise of multinationals coincided with the rise of neoconservatism and neoliberalism which meant the end of American corporations being interested in maintaining America. For some reason analysts (at least those I’ve read) don’t make note of this, but it’s the key to understanding the increase in corporate vampirism of the domestic population. In the old days corporations were more decent not because they were moral but because they needed America to be healthy for *their own* sake. Now they no longer do.
The world got by for thousands of years without electricity too, and even more without computers. It doesn’t mean that if you suddenly take it away chaos won’t ensue. I’m glad you’re not in charge of the world. It’s absolutely necessary to prepare for any large change to global political structures.
I may not like a rickety bridge, but I don’t wave my hand and say “demolish it!” while I’m standing on it.
I never said or thought of the government as being separate from the corporate sector. On this very blog, I have stated on various occasions the crooked relations between corporations and government. Sometimes I wonder if you actually read and comprehend what I say.
I am most certainly familiar with China’s increasing influence. Most of the borrowed money happens to come from China. Why do you think that there is quite a silence from the American government regarding China’s human rights abuses? Could it be possible that they don’t want to cut off their piggy bank?
I am aware of the rise of multinationals, alongside Neoconservatism/neoliberalism. More recently, I have read that the roots of NeoConservatism actually date back to the 1950’s rather than the era of Bush, or even Nixon, courtesy of Bill Buckley. Buckley had demanded that there be a totalitarian bureaucracy on our shores, in order to ‘fight communism’. Pretty ironic, considering that the Soviet Union was an ally in the second world war.
Regarding the WTO, it simply has no track record of improving anything, only making things worse. I hope some day you will learn that an organization with such great power can simply not resist the temptations that come with it.
“Sometimes I wonder if you actually read and comprehend what I say.”
I wonder if you comprehend what you say. You often talk about the “nanny state”, not the “nanny corporate-state”. The “nanny state” clears conjures up images of a government separate from the corporate sector. The idea is of a “big brother” government where the free market is the savior. The idea is to get rid of government so that the free market (hence the corporate sector) can reign.
“Why do you think that there is quite a silence from the American government regarding China’s human rights abuses? Could it be possible that they don’t want to cut off their piggy bank?”
The American government is silent on human rights abuses because they don’t give a fuck about human rights abuses. They only pretend to when it serves their political purposes (such as the “condemnation” of the Armenian genocide). The American elite is the biggest human rights abuser on the planet, of both domestic and non-domestic humanity. The tens of thousands of torture victims at CIA black sites and others is just one example. The 1.2 million fresh Iraqi corpses is just one example. The 2.5 million internally displaced Iraqis caused by the American occupation is just one example. The 2 million externally displaced Iraqis caused by the American occupation is just one example. COINTELPRO is just one example. Economic Hit Men are just one example. Neoliberalism is just one example. The World Bank is just one example. Unaccountable private tyrannies run amok is just one example. Hollywood/Pervasive Advertising/Mass Marketing is just one example. Practically the entire modern world is the result of the American elite’s (corporate/government/media) abuses. The victims number in the billions. The abuse has become so widespread it’s often invisible.
Leo Strauss is considered the founder of Neoconservatism. The issue is open to some debate in terms of influences but I don’t think Bill Buckley is a serious candidate for being a top tier influence. Nixon was the first political figure to implement the philosophy (his schizophrenic genius was a great groundwork for future administrations) and was very influential on future executive offices.
What do you mean by your comment “demanded that there be a totalitarian bureaucracy on our shores, in order to ‘fight communism'”. Are you saying he recommended totalitarianism? That doesn’t mesh with how most people understand Buckley.
Your words on the WTO with respect to my position are nonsense. What we disagree on is whether or not to immediately dismantle it.