The Democrats and Tea-publicans are equally worthless on job creation. Both point to encouraging businesses to hire. (Rs say they need lower taxes and deregulation. Ds say business is spooked by the threat of government shutdowns and threats not to make good on federal obligations.) Both are wrong.
Recovery would begin with consumer spending. For that to happen, consumers need more disposable cash. Whether that’s from extended unemployment benefits for the 99ers, or big public works hiring and WOA-style projects, the government has to jumpstart the economy.
Despooking business won’t help. They won’t start hiring until they have more customers to sell to.
Amazingly, the two parties want to see an American Spring, Yemen-style.
2 Comments.
Senator Durbin of Illinois explicitly concedes that the bankers own the Senate. He speaks only for the Senate but I argue that this is equally true throughout all corporate and banker financed branches of government.
The bankers are but one part of the ruling polyarchy of the USA. Firstly, the fact that no candidate—good or otherwise—is considered by the corporate media to be viable without the substantial investment of private political capital in his campaign ensures that those with the most money have the most representation in government. This plutonomy (as named by a CitiBank memo) is described as democracy in the USA, where the concepts of democracy and market forces are conflated by much of the corporate-media-consuming public.
Secondly, the fact that banks create money from nothing ensures that they can buy the representatives best able to support their money creation privilege at the expense of, and to the disadvantage of, those who are constrained by law to provide value (in terms of goods and services) in exchange for the money they earn. Banks do not create anything of value when they create their money from nothing; their creation of money merely creates debt to themselves and claims on value created by others. Banks are privileged by law to do what counterfeiters can only dream of.
This is only the expected consequence of the senate (and all other branches) legitimizing the private ownership of the bank’s money-creation privilege and the bank’s private ownership of the senate that legitimizes this private issuance of money with debt.
I support legislation such as HR 6550, the NEED Act, introduced in the 111th Congress because its introduction of money into circulation is coincident with the creation of public value without debt. This is contrary to the operation of banks in which the introduction of money into circulation is coincident with the creation of debt for the many and extreme wealth for a privileged and undeserving few.
Big businesses were the ones who created the mess, why should we trust them to fix it?