TEA: Ending Complicit Naivety.

Let’s start with an example of crafty duplicity. Krugman in “Monoposony Begets Monopoly, And Vice Versa.

“Nothing to see here, folks, says Comcast. The cable giant’s defenders insist that its already awesome market power won’t be increased if it acquires Time Warner… we see clear evidence that this is nonsense. Comcast’s size gives it monopsony as well as monopoly power — it is able to extract far more favorable deals from content providers than smaller rivals. And if it’s allowed to acquire Time Warner, it will be even more advantaged… should Comcast succeed in acquiring Time Warner Cable, it will use its enlarged scale to its advantage, potentially negotiating to pay lower fees to cable and broadcast networks.

This would, in turn, make it even harder for potential competitors to enter markets served by ComcastTimeWarner, strengthening its monopoly position.” Astoundingly, Krugman naively concludes with:

“What possible justification could there be for approving this scheme?”

Is Paul Krugman deliberately stupid? Is he really that dumb, or just playing one on TV? To try to enlighten him I sent, with my characteristic generosity, the following comment:

Your question at the end is rhetorical: why media manipulation? For the same reason that makes the New York Times practices censorship. Although I have had a full subscription at The Times for more than 30 years, at the same address, I get very heavily censored.

The rise of giant media monopolies is all about controlling the minds of We The People so that the plutocracy can be served in the appropriate frame of mind, ever more. However the arrangement is unstable, and We The People are getting irritated. Thus, the molding of the minds, with ever more censorship and disinformation, has to get ever stronger.

I sent the preceding comment to Krugman, and, of course, he censored it. The New York Times has censored ALL my comments for weeks, including some in the supposedly philosophical section. Apparently I am philosophically dangerous.

The New York Times is (mostly) owned and controlled by the same family of plutocrats since the Nineteenth Century. The company’s chairman is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., whose family has controlled the paper since 1896. The plutocratic order is articulated around vast, very old families, discreetly controlling the essence of the system, thanks to tax free foundations.

There are the new men, the likes of Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men, flamboyant and outrageous. But that’s new money. To some extent, they are decoys: if one accuses Ellison or Jobs, or Brin, or the Facebook guy to be rich, plutophiles reply that they are job creators, and product creators. The same cannot be said of families who paid no tax for centuries, and control everything, behind the scenes.

Clearly someone up high at the New York Times decided my theories about plutocracy were impolite, a form of political pornography, and that, even if I talk about purely philosophical issues, I should be unpublished. (High level employees of the New York Times I talked to denied this, but, of course, they lied. When a person’s salary depends upon telling lies, generally, they will. Same for Krugman.)

Above the new technologies creators, there are the intermediate men, such the Gates, rich and influential, even before Bill was old enough to attend a few months at Harvard. (Founders of locally dominant law firms, such as Gates Senior, used to be rich and influential, although, since the Clinton financial deregulation, they are nothing relative to financial types.)

And then there is the old money, dispersed all over in vast families, foundations, and political organizations, attending the Ivy League and other plutocratic universities.

That plutocratic network is colossally influential: they hold the fort. Run in the Grand Tetons National Park and, in one of the most scenic locales, wedged between the Grand Teton ski resort and the soaring national park, fall on the giant walled estate of the Rockefellers. It goes mountain to mountain, complete with lake. Contemplate that immensity and you will get a feeling for how immense USA based plutocracy is.

Especially if the experience is renewed again and again throughout the USA: go to wild places, and stumble on the barbed wire of plutocratic estates, horizon to horizon (Senator Baucus, leader of Obamacare in the Senate owns such a property). Europeans would never stand for it.

That immense, mostly invisible network of power controls the CEO class (and, in particular, the boards of corporations). Just like the aristocracy of the Middle Ages, they pay less tax, and are racially different from the plebs, being taller.

That old, ingrained aristocracy explains much of the timidity of president Obama. He was awed when he became someone important for the masters of the plutocratic estate. At the same time, he felt cautious: the fate of JFK is clear of all to see, an unexplained, and unexplainable death.

In general, when in a society an order entangled with the Dark Side arises, fake naivety helps those who want to partake in it, without feeling culprit. It’s a form of lying, and, as all good lying, it works better if one really believes in it.

This is how Germans who viewed themselves as morally upright learned to tolerate and, finally, appreciate Nazism.

Nazism came to an unhappy end because the French Republic next door declared war, and attacked. The case of plutocracy in its present state is different. It’s truly a continuation of the old one that produced Nazism, among other things. However, it thoroughly infects for all to see, not just the USA but the planetary order, as it extends all the way to China and Moscow.

Chinese plutocrats are part of the Republic Of Offshore, so are the Russian ones, and, as one can see in Ukraine, the American masters have been cooperating with the Russian masters (an echo of Yalta!)  to deny We The People full control of its destiny.

Hence what we are facing now cannot be confronted with straightforward military force. It’s a metastatic cancer.

That’s why I propose having TEA instead. That Transatlantic Economic Area ought to be irresistible to the greedy. But, like a Trojan Horse, it will allow the Reconquista by administrative law of the economic sphere.

I say Reconquista, because the USA used to be very heavily regulated, until Nixon-Reagan-Clinton corroded and perverted the regulatory machinery. When the USA was heavily regulated, the economy worked very well. (That was the real difference between Hoover and FDR; Hoover was also into public works; Roosevelt cracked down on finance with an astounding ferocity: nobody now, even on the extreme left, even proposes such correct measures.)

The EU has an enormous administration which is much less corrupt than the beleaguered one in the USA. The former can help the latter, especially if the change is fast paced (the plutocratically gangrenous Congress will not be able to intervene nefariously).

Most of the law applied every day is regulatory law. In the USA, the rise of plutocracy has been mostly effected by short-circuiting and outpacing regulatory law (thanks to the succession of the corrupt executive administrations). A TEA (Transatlantic Economic Area) would reestablish the dominance of law, and the right wing could be bought as I said, by the prospect of greater wealth.

How will it do that? Because the Europeans protest more readily, both the plebs and the educated professionals. As it is, the plutocratic process has progressed in Europe, but, mostly, under cover. For example the European Commission is right wing plutophile (Olli Rehn, the commissar of economic policy being the best representative of this quasi fascist policy, which, for instance, has cost Portugal about 10% of its population in 5 years). But this is not widely known. Things are coming overboard after the European elections, in a few months.

(The population of the USA is much more subdued, because, in part, universal, republican education was all too much displaced by the cult of “god”, and the anxiety of “peer pressure” (that is to be politically correct in all ways).)

More regulations will allow the wealth to be shared more than it presently is. Indeed, in the global system we have the place with the lowest regulations imposes its deregulation on everybody else. Right now, that place is the USA, and it imposes its system on Europe. By making its imposition clear and obvious for all to see, TEA negotiations will augment effective regulations in Europe.

A TEA Party in reverse…

Patrice Aymé

Advertisements

Tags: ,

12 Responses to “TEA: Ending Complicit Naivety.”

  1. John Rogers Says:

    Ah, “philosophically dangerous”! Just like Voltaire and so many others. My congratulations! As it creeps in on its little cat feet, doesn’t totalitarianism always go after the comedians and philosophers first?

    It’s all good, Patrice. Thanks. Thanks especially for calling out the filters at the NY Times. Alas, your news is not “fit to print.”

    Immanuel Wallerstein has a nice comment up today on the real dynamics of what’s going on in the Ukraine and the role of “Fuck Europe!” neocon mole and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland. Obama’s a smooth piece of work, but you’re right, he doesn’t have the iron for dealing with these people.

    I’m coming around to the view that the whole US National Security Apparatus (NSA, CIA, and all the rest of it) has been hand in glove with Wall Street (and plutocracy) from the beginning. Its real role is (and always has been) not “national security” but acting as a kind of modern-day Praetorian Guard to defend the plutocrats’ interests.JFK was murdered 50 years ago and yet files are still sealed. Why? The assassination itself has the stink of an intelligence operation all over it.

    Sorry to ramble, but I do like the TEA idea.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear John: Oh no, you do not ramble, not at all. It’s astounding that a well connected neocon such as Nuland is in charge, indeed. Her husband has been named by various Main Stream Media as one of the world’s top intellectuals. He is the major neocon mega star Robert Kagan, founder of many quasi fascist foundation (including the “Project For A New American Century”)… and topmost foreign policy adviser to John McCain. It’s is neocon central there.

      I do agree that the whole security apparatus is in league with plutocracy central. This is something that arose thanks to the Dulles. It followed by a generation the distribution of seized German property to USA private plutocrats in the early 1920s.

      Once I saw Obama’s vehicle in Hawai’i, and there was a guy all in black with a giant gun in the backseat, something to kill T Rex with one shot, and then take out a tank.

      Pretorian guard, indeed. Emperor Septimus Severus had to disband it. The Guard had become all powerful, even selling the throne in an auction! (Proximax a very rich plutocrat, bought it.) That’s something no doubt Obama thinks about, when he lets neocons such as Nuland (also close to Hillary Clinton, naturlich) exert power.

      Obama was chosen, in part because he did not have the iron.
      Thanks for liking the TEA idea.
      PA

  2. Dominique Deux Says:

    A fascinating strategy. Mingle and civilize when you cannot conquer and subdue. Well, it worked for the Han against the Manchus, more or less. The Manchus conquered China – and went native.

    Yet there is a detail. You write “That plutocratic network is colossally influential: they hold the fort.” You should have written, “the forts”. Because you see, in addition to the Capitol, the Dark Side’s banner has been fluttering for years on Brussels’ Berlaymont and other keeps of the vanquished European Union. The European Founding Fathers’ heads are on display on sharpened stakes. Barking nonentities like Olli (not Otto, although he does sound like an Otto) Rehn hold the fort for their lords.

    How do you expect that mercenary bunch to design, much less implement, a grand scheme such yours? What they’ll do is quash it every time somebody raises the issue. Gauleiters believe in fidelity, it is their only honor. Under the present conditions in Europe, anything like a TEA will be an crushing Agincourt, not even a closely fought Waterloo.

    That means the conditions have to be changed first before committing on a scheme like yours. It is an internal European issue, even if much of the world’s future hinges on it. The battlements must be regained from the occupying forces – not shattered, as idiotic or paid-up Euroskeptics (nothing of the skeptic in their fury) are howling – and then, and only then, their taking down and the extension of heartfelt welcome to our US friends can be implemented with all the necessary caution, foresight and generosity.

    Nobody said it would be easy or quick. Where is Sir Winston when we need him.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: Thanks for the Olli not Otto point… Somehow he reminded me of Bismarck. I should have remembered: Oily Rehn. Well, he is running as an extreme right winger in the coming European elections. Hopefully (!) that we will allow us to see him go. Although of course the anti-European quasi fascist right winger like UKIP (UK Independence Party) are running demagogically, being for everything that brings them votes…

      So the mercenary bunch may well be out of a job soon (the Euro Parliament present head, Martin Schultz, is a Socialist… although now, unbelievably, the SPD in Germany is not just in government, but in very hot waters for a pedophilia-kiddie porn scandal. Grrr…)
      Let me change that Olli…
      PA

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Good point about the Hans. Same happened to the Mongols, as they turned into Yuan. The grandson of Genghis Khan, Kubilai, used to be carried in a palace on top of four elephants. Genghis would have slapped him.

      The TEA can, and WILL be negotiated at national government level. The chemistry between Hollande and Obama seems excellent. That means they are the ones who will negotiate (as Hollande made clear it would). Merkel is (rightly) angry, has SPD problems, and will follow Hollande (as the French can hardly be suspected of pro-USA bias). The others, including Cameron, are irrelevant (Italy and Spain are wobbling, and separatist movements in Spain and the UK, growing; there are potential emergency plans to shelter the Royal Navy in… France, a just return of history with a vengeance).

      Anyway, I hope Obama understands the trick and the emergency. Apparently Hollande does, that was (part of) the sense of his Visite d’Eta…

      Sir Winston, an Anglo-American, saw far ahead more than once. He was very pro-European, all the more as he got rolled in flour at Yalta, and deeply screwed by non forgiven debt to the USA, after the war. That his proposal of Franco-British Union was rejected by a plotting gang of idiotic French (soon to collaborate with the Nazis) will long be regretted.

      We will see more clearly after the European elections. I will not vote for the right. (BTW, Hollande seems way more popular than Sarko among the huge French Silicon Valley community… An ironical twist.)
      PA

  3. Dean Hillel Weiss Says:

    I enjoy reading your comments in the NYT. keep spreading the truth.

  4. Patrice Ayme Says:

    I also sent two (unpublished) comments to Krugman, including:

    Monopoly power insures rent to the chosen few. The ultimate monopoly is plutocracy. Thus this is part of a general strategy of those who own the country, its politicians, and most powerful institutions.

    There are two “We” in the USA. “We The People”. And “We The Owners”. “We The Owners” love monopolies, because they want ever more power.

    [Not that it really matters…]

  5. Chris Snuggs Says:

    TEA? You mean with insane EU regulation, sticking its nose into EVERY aspet of our lives? The USA would be INSANE to get mixed up with these bureaucratic lunatics who – have you not noticed – are leading to the ruination of Europe. Over 40% youth unemployment in several European countries? Does that seem something the USA would wish to get involved in?

    The French economiy is in a death spiral, and no wonder, the country being led by morons. Hollande apparently hates the rich, yet wants to attract entrepreneurs. Presumably only POOR ones. The man is a complete IDIOT.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme Chris: Relax. Go with the flow. I propose to break up the jam in a very subtle way. BTW, I saw Hollande in SF, he half understands. The lunatics are going to have a problem after the Euro elections, BTW-bis.

  6. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Chris Snuggs What Hollande proposes in his Responsibility Pact is sensible, even if it is a million light years away from what he said before the election. Immediately after the Presidential election I wrote to my local MP in France telling him EXACTLY the same as Hollande is now proposing, but he said he didn’t agree with me!! Obviously, I should be running the country, as I am 18 months ahead of the current government …..

    But … I wish these people would not give idiotic PR/Marketing slogans to these proposals – “Responsibility Pact”??? It is childish. What he is proposing is COMMONSENSE. It doesn’t need a soppy slogan. And it is a bit thick of the political elite to talk about “responsibility” when they have not set a balanced budget since 1974. I am not an economist, but I take that to mean that for over 40 years France has been living beyond its means. Is THAT “responsible”? It is not MY fault, but this year I have to pay around EIGHT HUNDRED more euros than last year but on the SAME income.

    However, the problem is, DOES HE REALLY MEAN IT? WHERE are the 50 milliard savings coming from? HOW MANY of the 3,650 PAGES of the Code du Travail has he cut? (70 oages in failing Switzerland!!) WHEN is something going to happen? After these committees have met and pronounced? ACTION IS NEEDED AT ONCE.

    But apprently he wants to attract entrepreneurs! Will that be rich ones that he hates or does he only want poor entrepreneurs? The guy is seriously confused, including over the value of marriage. How can you take anyone seriously who refers to marriage as “too bourgeois”?

    If he really BELIEVES in what he said in his famous post-Treiweiler lecture, he has to cut WHOLE SWATHES of French bureaucracy, but I do not believe they can do it. So, only growth will save France, but WHERE IS THAT GOING TO COME FROM?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Vast problems, Chris. Solution? OK, it would be more fun if you were president, indeed.

      I think lots of it will have to be found by looking at the Swiss system carefully. Or should I say Swiss CIVILIZATION? Trichet (ex head ECB) himself said recently that the prosperity of Suisse was due to the wisdom of its direct democracy. In Switzerland, local cantonal law is powerful. So Cantons are in competition, and one can detect what works and what does not work (see the laws about giving tax rebates to tax evading plutocrats: Zurich has forbidden them, and half left, still Zurich did not fall in the ocean)

      Gigantic countries’ fate ought not to be decided by just one guy, be it Russia, France, China, or the USA. It’s not just that they can be wrong, it’s that the very presence of this monarchist myth discourages We The People to yearn for wisdom.
      PA

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: