Romney, Financialization and Job Destruction in The Name of Profitability

Dear L,

Thanks for your email. 

Your Zimbabwean viewpoint is refreshing.

Mentioning relatives who "are not looking for facts" reminds me of a recent Republican robo-call insisting that "North Carolina needs common sense solutions!"

Given plutocratic manipulation of "the common man," our common understanding of "common sense" verges curse. 

Under aegis of financialization, "global money movement" has become "everything" while nuts-and-bolts production is deemed a nuisance. 

In consequence, the Moral Void at the top of The Economic Pyramid sucks ever more wealth into the wallets of The Ungodly Rich. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://xuuxbasket.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-campaigns-moral-hole-by-ej-dionne.html

The nation's deceptive Job Creators defy gravity by devising complex financial "instruments" enabling them to profit by the deliberate minimization of job creation. (Automation, robotization and software enhancement contribute mightily to this effortless "turning of the crank." 

http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/forward.html

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/wendell-berry/another-turn-of-the-crank/#review)

"Global capital movement" is pure profit. 

Actual job creation - at least here in the United States - is considered an unnecessary expense.

Why undertake the inconvenience of actual workers when "deals can be cut" and "killings can be made" with keystrokes and algorithms? (Here's an eye-popper. 

 http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html)

If you have not seen "Inside Job" -- the 2010 Oscar-winning documentary about the 2007-2008 economic collapse -- I urge you to view it. 

The following freely-streamable version of "Inside Job" provides Spanish sub-titles as well. 

https://vimeo.com/27292661 

Although "Inside Job" is a documentary, it mesmerizes as effectively as "It's A Wonderful Life," the 1946 movie about America's previous generation of capitalist vility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Wonderful_Life (As you may know, Frank Capra was a staunch conservative. I think his Catholic social conscience -- antipodal to Paul Ryan's budgetary savagery -- saved him.)

Last night, I read a New Yorker article about Mitt Romney that provided the clearest view of the man I've yet had. 

Romney is a remarkably able manager but one who epitomizes the economic financialization that has decimated The Middle Class while leeching the "working class" to its deathbed. (Have you noticed that the term "working class" is becoming as anachronistic as "the steel industry?")

"Transaction Man: Mormonism, private equity, and the making of a candidate" can be read at http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/01/121001fa_fact_lemann 

(For deeper insight into Romney's brand of "private equity," see Matt Taibbi's "Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital" -http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/matt-taibbi-paints-damning-portrait-of.html)

Returning to my recent GOP robocall...

In a world of staggeringly complex financial mechanisms -- "all" of them designed to reap fabulous profits for "The 1%" -- common sense has nothing to do with remedy.

Nihil.

Niente.

Nada. 

To "see through" the catastrophic profitability of highly-financialized capitalism -- a mutant beast as fervently idolized by American conservatives as the wandering Israelites idolized The Golden Calf -- we need uncommon sense to see by the light of paradox and irony. Typically these qualities lead to conclusions that cannot be reduced to sound-bite bumper stickers.

The teat we've sucked since The Industrial Revolution has become internally contaminated by massive amounts of every heavy metal on the periodic chart. Meanwhile most Americans still see this mutant beast as Mom. 

Reagan Budget Director, David Stockman, who oversaw the largest tax cut in the history of humankind, makes this remarkable - and unchallenged - claim: “In 1985, the top five percent of the households – the wealthiest five percent – had net worth of $8 trillion – which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five per cent have net worth of $40 trillion. The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980.” Elsewhere in this CBS “60 Minutes” interview, Mr. Stockman says: "The Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009217n&tag=contentMain;contentAux 

Pax on both houses

Alan

PS "Financialization" 

http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2008/10/kevin-phillips-financialization-of.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization

I have posted this correspondence at http://xuuxbasket.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-romney-debate-seen-from-zimbabwe.html

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:54 AM, LL wrote:

Finally got a chance to watch the debate last night. I agree that Mitt came off looking good - to those of us who are already Obama converts we don't need to watch the debate. But for many in my family who are still wondering if they should vote for Mitt, this was good for them.  And they are not looking for facts - just the tone and the nuance.

I have already cast my absentee ballot - dropped it off at the US Embassy a week ago on Thursday.

L

PS I don't watch CNN very often - mostly because I hate news that needs to make you feel hooked and i find them offensive.  I was surprised at how much before and after 'fluff' I had to fast forward through...

LL

"As much as we need a prosperous economy, we also need a prosperity of kindness and decency." ~Caroline Kennedy

On 4 October 2012 21:49, Alan Archibald <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Maria,

Your assessment of the debate is spot on. 

1.) Obama "won" on actual points, although Romney -- capitalizing on low expectations and spur-of-the-moment "etch-a-sketching" -- won on style. (Check out the following record of Mitt's flip-flops. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/28/1040448/-Democrats-unveil-devastating-video-on-Mitt-Romney-s-flip-flops  ///  http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/romney-flip-flops-collect-whole-set.html  ///  http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/08/dear-i-enjoyed-our-time-at-nanas.html)

2.) I also agree that Obama was not aggressive enough. His failure to mention Romney's "47%" comment was inexcusable. Such a "zinger" would have revealed Romney's concealed contempt for America and could have been easily pre-planned. (In the original video clip of Romney categorizing half the nation as lazy and parasitic - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser - notice not only his words but his tone. I can easily understand Mitt sucking up to a  group of wealthy donors. What amazes me is the vicious animus he brings to bear. Romney holds "these people" in seething contempt.)

3.) Finally, I agree with your view that both candidates mistreated moderator, Jim Lehrer, although I think the ex-Marine could have imposed his will if he wished. I suspect he let himself be "pushed around" to tempt candidates to greater candor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Lehrer)

Since the debate, I have fact-checked both candidates' truthfulness and find Obama significantly more honest - an observation few knowledgeable conservatives argue. Obama was also significantly more substantive, which, "on the downside," is part of his professorial tendency to "get lost in the weeds." 

Also in last night's debate, Romney offered very few particulars, instead adhering to the GOP's theocratic script of invoking "articles of faith," chief among them the catastrophically destructive dogma that taxes must always go down, never (ever) up. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2011/11/daily-dose-112611-niall-ferguson-dogma.html (Ronald Reagan raised taxes three times after he lowered them. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-would-reagan-really-do-newsweek.html

One of the few "particulars" Romney did express was how well he worked with Massachusetts' 87% Democratic legislature when Mitt governed that liberal state from 2003 'til 2007. 

The (overlooked) point in Romney's boast -- a point central to another debate observation that Reagan worked well with Tip O'Neill's Democratic Congress -- is that Yes! it is possible to work with Democratic legislatures because Democrats are, in the main, reasonable people, willing to compromise. 

On the other hand, contemporary Republicans - like those currently dominating the House of Representatives - are unreasonable people who refuse to compromise. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/paul-ryan-tells-truth.html  ///  http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-gop-obstruct-and-exploit.html  ///  http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/10/paul-krugman-republican-obstructionism.html    

***

Check out these fact-checking blog posts:  

Obama-Romney Debate: "Who Told The Biggest Whoppers?" - http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-romney-debate-who-told-biggest.html

"Did Obama really spend $90 billion on Green Eergy?" http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/10/did-obama-really-spend-90-billion-on.htm

***

Love 

Daddy man

PS The Obama campaign posters you painted in 2008 now grace the front lawn. Thanks again!

PPS Check out "Obama: I debated an impostor." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-i-debated-impostor.html