The movement just wants to elect one party over another when both are equally to blame. Voting for one over the other is a diversion that will not fix anything. Here are a couple ways to see through Tea Party falsehoods:

1. They blame Obama for our problems when we have been following the same economic approach since 1980. After 12 years of un-admitted recession, President Regan ushered in a new approach using, tax cuts, deregulation and massive federal spending to turn things around. This new CUT & SPEND economy favored financial sectors, creating the age of paper entrepreneurs and the bailouts needed to sustain them.

Remember these bailouts: Penn Central, Lockheed, Chrysler, Braniff, LTV, Storage Tech, Texaco, White Motors, the HUD scandal, the Savings and Loans scandal? How many times does the taxpayer have to pay for Republican and Democratic duplicity in these thefts?

No President since Regan has significantly altered the freedom of these adventure capitalist. And no one, not even the Tea Party, is talking about doing it now. Cut & Spent got us into this mess, yet remains our only economic idea.

We should be angry and want to do something serious about it. But blaming Obama for the bailouts that Bush started to save a faith-based financial system created thirty years ago is sure sign that the Tea Party either doesn’t understand what is going on or doesn’t want it to change.

2. They favor one party of the other. No one has any idea how to fix the system. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for creating and maintaining this thirty year dream of unregulated financial markets. Voting one party in over other will do NOTHING to address our situation. Replacing one bailout artist with another will NOT help the country. This is perhaps the most pernicious falsehood of this party; they parade as status quo as change.

3. They have no ideas and offer no ideas on how to fix the system. They very actively support some candidates over others (always R over D) but have no concrete actions or principals on how to fix the an investment system with abstracted ownership, a focus on short terms returns and dependence of ever more complex mathematic formulations. Until we have a something to replace cut & spent, some way to de-emphasize the importance of financial markets in our lives, we will remain beholden to financial slight-of-hand artists. And the Tea Party will remain a false front for the money men.

So go to your local Tea Party meeting and ask them what policies think will fix our system? And don’t take “vote Republican” as a sufficient answer.

No military solution will work in Afghanistan without economic development to reinforce the security. The country has been so poor for so long that rebuilding the economy may be more difficult than securing the peace.

There is a growing movement to focus on the economy first. We should surge our investment in the road, water, waste and electrical systems.  Why not put people to work and pay them each day so they have cash to spend in the local markets?

The military mission would shift to from hunting killers in the mountains to protecting the economic activity.  This would be safer for our soldiers, less costly for the tax payer and would fundamentally shift the situation on the ground for the people of Afghanistan.

Joe Biden said in Brussels on March 11, 2009 : “Roughly 70 percent [of Taliban] are involved because of the money, because they are getting paid.” Biden said this 70 percent of Taliban may be persuaded to lay down arms.

The Taliban pays its soldiers $8 a day.  If we double that, people will work with us.  If we simultaneously start buying the poppy plants from the farmers, as we did successfully in Turkey and India, the Taliban will not have any money to pay their fighters.  By fall, Afghanistan could be full of workers and a blossoming local economy.

Americans back home could then use organizations like Kiva.org to help Afghans create their own businesses, and the US would be deep in the business of nation building instead of fighting a war.

If we are principled enough to follow FDR’s call for self determination, this approach could damage the terrorists much more than any drone attack ever will.  Reviving Afghanistan and getting our troops home might just be the stroke capitalism needs to save itself.

Economic commentators tailor their comments to the expectations of their clients.  We all know that, right? So what? The what is that one of pro-pundits, Zachary Karabell, admits it in Newsweek.

The article is an odd mix of expose (all experts have agendas), advice column (decisive pundits get hired), and apology (the rise of certain pundits is market driven).  Karabell begins the article by describing the fickle, self-interest of financial analysis and ends it by telling not to worry – the market determines who we listen to.  Is this supposed to make us feel better?  Karabell ends the article telling us to question financial experts but his argument suggest that we should question the entire investment system.

1. He contradicts himself about experts skewing their opinions.   First, he says that all analyst “emphasis” perceptions that fit their niche. He worked for a company that focused on growth markets, so he depicted a half -full picture.  Pundits working for more bearish companies provide a half-empty image.  Fair enough, except he also claims that pundits don’t “skew their analysis to serve their own bottom line.”  Emphasizing sounds a lot like skewing to me. Karabell probably meant to say that most pundits don’t out right lie or purposely rig their options.  But we can rest assured that they skew their opinions, for he already told us so. We don’t have to back pedal – they do it.
2. Karabell does not seem worried about disclosure either.  Wouldn’t the public benefit from knowing professional stance of TV experts?  Wouldn’t this information help us decipher their opinion?  Isn’t this a very easy step that would help bring clarity and accuracy to professional economic reporting? Mr. Karabell evidently doesn’t think so, for his confessional article doesn’t even mention such simple adjustments.
3. The psychological basis of markets – the most important thing Karabell says is that investors choose experts based on how they are currently feeling.  When investors feel confident, bullish experts become popular and when worried, bear experts reap the rewards.  For all the fancy number talk and derivative parades, human emotion drives the market.  Could we have a better indictment of our insane wealth transfer system? Again, Mr. Karabell must not agree for he tells us not to worry – the markets drive us. NO, NO, NO – our emotions drive the markets and that is what your agruement suggets.

Karabell pulls a fast one on us but telling us a bit of truth but then pretends that it doesn’t really matter.  Human emotion and self interest drive our financial markets – take it from him, even as he refuses to admit what he said.

The questions is do we really want to continue handing over so much our national sovereignty to these small group of greedy, emotional men?

I don’t.

It is time to get the media to open up their source book and for us to put faith into smaller, local markets. Why give all the money to a few super rich owners who know little and care less about what a company actually does?

Let’s invest in worker ownership and share risks (and benefits) with the people who really work. This is one of the great possibilities of our day and one of the great opportunities of this crisis.

The face of real recovery You live in a cardboard box. It’s fairly spacious, a nice refrigerator crate. A step up from the computer boxes you used to rent from an escaped psychotic named Lou.Right now, you’re standing on the corner. You’re cold. Starbucks is staring you in the face. You want to buy a cup of coffee. You’ve only got 10-cents in your pocket. The coffee scent hits you each time the door is opened. People with those cups pass by, smiling, energized. You wish you were them.

You’re an addict. You’re addicted to Starbucks. And today, you’re fucked.

Until, he came along. He had an air of wealth. Blue suit, yellow tie, hair slicked back. He walked with vintage Michael Douglas swagger.

He sees you staring. He sees the change in your hand. He looks at the change, then turns back to the Starbucks, then meets your eye. This is a man who knows the price of a cup of coffee.

“Need some money?”

You explain you’re homeless. You’re cold. You need some Starbucks. You’re addicted. It’s a terrible thing, and you’ll get help one day, swear to god, but today you just need your fix. Look at my hands shaking. You feel sick.

Read the rest of this entry »