Wonderful - it always makes my heart jump, when I see one of our great old masters being quoted by brothas and sistas from abroad. And - I mean - she’s really beautiful with that poster.
Who is this woman?
RE-ELECT SHERIFF JOE….PRINT WILL BE RELEASED ON OBEYGIANT.COM
Collaboration between Shepard Fairey and myself.
Krugman tells us why policy makers are throwing the average people — including the unemployed and homeowners — under the bus: they are fawning over the needs of the oligarchs, because they want to be rich someday, too:
Paul Krugman, via
Consciously or not, policy makers are catering almost exclusively to the interests of rentiers — those who derive lots of income from assets, who lent large sums of money in the past, often unwisely, but are now being protected from loss at everyone else’s expense.
Of course, that’s not the way what I call the Pain Caucus makes its case. Instead, the argument against helping the unemployed is framed in terms of economic risks: Do anything to create jobs and interest rates will soar, runaway inflation will break out, and so on. But these risks keep not materializing. Interest rates remain near historic lows, while inflation outside the price of oil — which is determined by world markets and events, not U.S. policy — remains low.
And against these hypothetical risks one must set the reality of an economy that remains deeply depressed, at great cost both to today’s workers and to our nation’s future. After all, how can we expect to prosper two decades from now when millions of young graduates are, in effect, being denied the chance to get started on their careers?
Ask for a coherent theory behind the abandonment of the unemployed and you won’t get an answer. Instead, members of the Pain Caucus seem to be making it up as they go along, inventing ever-changing rationales for their never-changing policy prescriptions.
While the ostensible reasons for inflicting pain keep changing, however, the policy prescriptions of the Pain Caucus all have one thing in common: They protect the interests of creditors, no matter the cost. Deficit spending could put the unemployed to work — but it might hurt the interests of existing bondholders. More aggressive action by the Fed could help boost us out of this slump — in fact, even Republican economists have argued that a bit of inflation might be exactly what the doctor ordered — but deflation, not inflation, serves the interests of creditors. And, of course, there’s fierce opposition to anything smacking of debt relief.
Who are these creditors I’m talking about? Not hard-working, thrifty small business owners and workers, although it serves the interests of the big players to pretend that it’s all about protecting little guys who play by the rules. The reality is that both small businesses and workers are hurt far more by the weak economy than they would be by, say, modest inflation that helps promote recovery.
No, the only real beneficiaries of Pain Caucus policies (aside from the Chinese government) are the rentiers: bankers and wealthy individuals with lots of bonds in their portfolios.
Krugamn’s concern is seemingly near-term: the resolution of the current economic imbalance, and the need to create jobs. But Krugman cuts to the heart of a long-term and structural inequality, larger in many ways that the current slump, although one of the primary reasons that our downturn is so long and protracted. The gamblers that bet so much on the bubble don’t want to pay, and they want the taxpayers to do it instead.
Our only hope is a revolution, since the leaders offered up by the major political parties — even theoretical reformers like Obama - are oligarchs in the making. We don’t control the parties or the political process — that’s in the hands of the parties, who are funded by the wealthy and the corporations.
So, will it be a soft revolution or a hard one? Or we can sit here passively, until the monied interests drive the entire world off the cliff.
Reblog if you agree.