Thanks Paul.

 Some might ask why I’m a ZNet sustainer, and comment as much as I do, when I’m a mere “radical reformer” and not a revolutionary.  I do share some values and goals with others here though… anti-imperialism, anti-exploitation, anti-authoritarianism, pro-environmental sustainability, pro-healthcare, etc.  Plus the lefties tend to be a little more intellectually engaging (the smart righties tend to be pragmatists to the extent that they’re busy making money, etc.)

  My “libertarian sustainability” strategy and approach is that of working within a heavily entrenched system (with millennial habits and infrastructure) to de/re-construct it by channeling decentralized laissez-faire freedom and desire (id) through to integrated eco & social sustainability goals (super-ego).  Building something as vast as a world-political-economic system from scratch is beyond me (I’m just a “conceptual systems engineer” & artist)… and I see that goal as fairly arrogant.  I think we have to look at the systems we have, and figure out what key changes are broadly acceptable, and could steer those systems towards a more desirable way of life.

 Hence my “capital regulation” theories that capitalist businesses should be aimed towards being smaller employee owned competing entities by means of progressive business taxes (limiting both size and profiteering margin) that have tax breaks to the extent that employees are the owners and are empowered (although I think ½ of businesses’ ownership should be publicly distributed to insure retirement income diversification—believe it or not, I still advocate an Insured shift of social security into the broader stock market, as with many pensions).  This would help eliminate exploitation, while at the same time encouraging the evolutionary efficiency necessary to meet needs, imo.

 My “radical moderate” perspective is informed by my valuing democracy and it’s relation to the “median voter,” or “median perspective.”  Of course good democracy requires education in critical thinking, resistance and dissent, and also must be held in check by justice and human rights.  I think it is education that may remain integral to the “representative” forms of democracy we currently have.  Donald Wittman’s book “The Myth of Democratic Failure: Why Political Institutions are Efficient” – was a real eye-opener for me on the concept of political markets.  At the very least I think some new structures/laws are necessary to make governments more transparent and responsive to the public, while at the same time recognizing the role of governments as educated educators (a little too Platonic [with his philosopher kings], I know). 

 I think I have a semi-coherent world view… but so do many here; and how different world views could be both coherent and at odds is a little puzzling.  At any rate, the “answers” I’ve come up with often inform the “questions” I pose to other political writers.

 Sorry for the tangent on your blog… I’d blog myself, but usually only have something to say in relation or response to others.

Nicely written answer from a very different  perspective. I\'m an uncreconstructed ZNettist so it is the capitalist profits system (state capitalism since at least the 1930s if not from the start) and its many coordinators  (uber- and otherwise, from your SEC functionary to your local state university history professor) versus survival and democracy for me. 

Paul—Accusations of “understatement” or maybe of often having a “firm grasp on the obvious” (if this is possible with politics) would be pretty apt with regard to my writing.

 If you’ve been paying attention, and I have, you’d note that your positions often fall a bit to the left of mine—but I think mine have shifted to the left a bit, as I think US citizens have, as well as global citizens (who, as was pointed out by David Peterson, favor Obama over McCain considerably… but then again “Bay Watch” was quite a popular global phenomenon too… how often has the “better looking” presidential candidate won in the pop TV age?).

 Putting “financial crisis” in quotes was something of a mistake… I was thinking of the TV glitz graphics that spin out the latest buzz phrases, “Crisis on Wall street,” “Financial Meltdown,” etc.  Who stands to lose the most with the bankruptcy of Lehman Bros, and why?  There are many on the right, who although for the privatization of reward, are not for the socialization of risk (and even that dichotomy doesn’t recognize that many of those very rich folks reaping profits, often, if not always, pay extremely high tax amounts that go to social programs).

 I remain a staunch supporter of regulated capitalism—I just think the regulations have to be smart, and work for everyone (and require, IMO, radical reform).  I don’t think the “candidates are tools of a class system that is deeply and inherently opposed to economic decency, social justice, ecological sustainability, and democracy.”  Sure the rich may want to preserve their wealth… but I think many wouldn’t mind everyone being rich.  They and we are all human beings, mostly not psychopathic, who have our various biases, failures of conscience, as well as finer moments of benevolence and insight.  Many believe, as I do, that socially regulated capitalism is the best course, on a road that has already been largely paved for us by history, which can put food on the tables of the most people globally.  People buy into this, voters and candidates alike, not because they want to keep power to themselves, but because they believe that one can “do well and do good”—that just having a job (even being a CEO) will contribute to society—and that no apologies are necessary for being fairly remunerated for their efforts.

 Some might like to take the current failure of capital regulations as a failure of capitalism.  Yes… unregulated capitalism would be a failure, IMO; and deregulation aiming for just that would not provide safety nets, not only for the needy, but for the system itself.  I think “anarcho-capitalists” really need to “shut it” at this point.  And I’m not denying that those with economic power have the power of access to and to some extent persuasion of political power—but there is no conspiracy (at least a centralized conspiracy) to vet certain politicians… passing muster with the “powers that be” is passing muster with large swaths of the population who also agree that the status quo, in many cases, is acceptable, adequate, and again… is keeping many people fed on a daily basis.

 I think power must force its hand from both “below” and “above.”  People should be agitated, activated, and organized.  But, some people do have jobs as politicians, etc, to regulate the system—uber-coordinators, who must transparently, and without self-dealing (a common human frailty), work to engineer regulations to provide security (in all its forms), and then approach equality (in many many ways).  To this extent, they too must do their economic homework (a bad pun, I admit, about sub-prime mortgages).

 Progress requires answers as well as questions.

Understatement on Rubin

JDC: saying Rubin was "definitely involved"  is remarkable understatement. .Surely you know he was Treasury Secretary and Clinton\'s most influential economic advisor.  CounterPunch is doing a nice job on the bipartisan origins and nature of the financial crisis. See the September 20/21 piece by Lila Rajiva and the one (same date) by Alexander Cockburn . Also I recommend the following book: Robert Pollin, Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity (NY: Verso, 2003). According to Rajiva, Rubin "(along with St. Alan [Greenspan]) was responsible as much as anyone for blocking regulation of the over the counter derivitative trade and for consoldiating the banks - misdeeds for which the rest of the financial industry is now paying."

Why do you put "financial crisis" in quotation markets? It\'s a financial crisis alright.

Why do you hope the candidates are doing their economics homework? I hope citizens do their homework both on "the economy" (the capitalist profits system) but then also do their history homework on how progressive change occurs, which is not by worrying about candidates and politicians and their character and qualities and homework (or lack thereof).  The candidates are tools of a class system that is deeply and inherently opposed to economic decency, social justice, ecological sustainability, and democracy.  Events and the capital regime are transcending party and candidate differences to no small degree....look at the extent  to which the "party of deregulation" has been forced to introduce new levels of intensified state capitalism.  Progressive change for  a fair economy and social justice must be forced from below whoever wins the debates and the elections (the people who win the former have tended  to lose the latter over recent presidential  elections).  There are some inter-party differences on homeowner rellef and the like but the deeper reality is shared subservience to a global profits system that is terminal cancer for the species at this point.

Yes – Rubin is definitely involved with the current “financial crisis” – Goldman Sachs was one of those five (now three) investment banks at the center of the storm (although it’s supposed to be more solvent).  I think a big irony is that “Rubinomics” was partly about keeping the national debt low, in order to lower interest rates and encourage private sector lending and borrowing (if the government borrows heavily, then this creates scarcity of loan potential, and raises interest rates)—irony being now the government is planning to borrow heavily and go further in debt in order for the investment banks to liquidate their poor mortgage backed securities which arose in part out of too much credit.

      Dean Baker’s article on the ZNet front page places much of the blame on the Federal Reserve which heated up the lending process for too long (which I commented on):

 The Financial Meltdown Continues

      I think the other shoe to blame was the S.E.C. for lifting the debt ratio ceiling for investment banks to 30-1 (from 12-1) four years ago (hence the “over-leveraging” of failed investment bank Lehman Bros.)  Basically the regulation system allowed for too much bad debt and encouraged it to.  And now the government plans to buy that bad debt, in the form of what were over-valued mortgages.  My worries are that this injection of cash at the supply side of economics (from the government, and reassured investors) is going to happen before good regulations (regulations that, e.g., make risk—the real value of investments—more transparent with disclosure) are put into effect.  If good regulations aren’t in place, what will stop the new cash influx from going to bad investments too?  A new micro bubble?

      Bill Moyer’s was spot on putting the spot light on fat-cat CEOs who skimmed fortunes off this whole catastrophe.  I have less of a problem with banks making money—when they reinvest it in the economy, rather than paying off their CEOs, etc.  (I personally don’t care if the rich get richer, as long as they don’t spend the money on BS.)

      Also I think the Democrats are right to note that if the Government assumes all these mortgages, they will be in a position to help out many people about to lose their only home by re-negotiating these mortgages on payable terms.  But that’s a lot of micro-management.

      This is likely to be a huge issue for the upcoming debate on Friday—I’d hope the candidates are doing their economics homework like so many more of us have been.

From Reuters

Obama backs recovery plan, says McCain "in a panic"

     John Krumm—there may be other ways to get the text formatted, but I personally use a word processor to write my comments (“Word” on a home-assembled PC; the free “OpenOffice” software should work on many platforms too).  I just copy the text (that can include workable links) and paste it to the ZNet Reply box (there’s a two-tier pasting system).

     Also to Minot—being “overly concerned,” hesitating, indecision, worrying and thinking twice “out loud” are part of my shtick.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080919/wl_mcclatchy/3049890

U.S. strike hit civilians, Iraqis say

Minot— 2004 seems to be a year when a couple of the names you cited started talking about strategically voting for Kerry.  I still think strategic voting is a real issue.

 The IRI link was a Mother Jones article… just background on the IRI, which I think indicates McCain’s demonstrated commitment to “exporting Democracy.”  (Reagan used the words “crusade for freedom” in the IRI’s “self-described history” linked to previously).

 I haven’t entirely “vetted” the Genocide Intervention Network… as to their advocacy of foreign military intervention, this remains unclear to me (I believe they do advocate it).  I’ve looked at Palestine as an Apartheid issue, not genocide.  Some have argued that genocide is not really occurring even in Sudan.

 As far as tone and attitude are concerned… the entire spectrum can be OK (I was fine with Finkelstein); I just think that people should be a little self-conscious about what effect they want to have.  Are you trying to get attention, change minds, chastise, blow off steam, etc?

Minot—although I will be voting, I don’t want to endorse anyone yet—maybe out of cowardice… maybe because the candidates still need to court ME (although I may not be the median voter).

 I think looking beyond the two parties would be much easier if we had run-offs like they do in France—our electoral structure forces many people into a two-party choice.

 “The connection” was in reference to your noting that Democrats are “no less bloodthirsty.”  Some might say more so, if we consider that more than a few Republicans, or at least (past) conservatives, have leaned towards anti-imperialist right-libertarianism (am I correct that the Libertarian party is the strongest third party in the US?)—I was trying to elliptically/sarcastically point out that foreign policy is not the only issue; but also note that there can be a governmental desire for interior empire as well as exterior empire.  Still, I’d remain hopeful that “interior imperialism” would aim towards better health care and not domestic spying.

Minot—

      I didn’t mean to give the impression that I endorse Samantha Power’s inclination to use the military to stop alleged genocide.  I’d like to see the complete de-militarization of all foreign policy—and sanctions aimed at populations.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      And possibly there is a connection with improved social programs, and “exporting democracy.”  Bush said “all the right things” in 2000… but what about 2004?  Was there a difference then?  Now?

       Here’re a couple of links to think about:

 A Power Endorsed Group

 "The Coup Connection" - on the IRI

       I think discussions like yours, and critiques like Paul’s can be more important than “strategic voting”—especially when they lead to more visible protest.  But integration among various “resistance” groups may require some compromises too—sometimes, it’s just a matter of tone and attitude.

      BTW: Respecting Noam, Howard, Jim, Studs, Cornel, et. al. as much as I do, appeal to their authority (or even camaraderie) is not going to switch my vote.

     Minot—you might consider the difference between what might be Obama at his (not perfect) best:

Obama\'s 2002 Antiwar Speech

     And McCain’s history of leadership with institutions such as the International Republican Institute:

IRI\'s Self-Described History

     Although getting to the office of president has shifted both candidates to the right, IMO, the “degree of slaughter” does matter.

     I’d much rather see the carnage of Samantha Power’s purported crusade to “save Darfur” than Dick Cheney’s purported crusade to position Halliburton in the Middle East.

     Your “outrage” is understandable, as is your position of “no compromise, no complicity”—but I think what some folks believe is that a more “realistic” approach by some radicals would actually convince people to change for the better.  Personally, I’m not sure which of the following methods works better… screaming till you lose your voice, or rationally exposing your “enemy” to their possibly contradicting values.  Too many people feel they have no choice, no voice.

      To Griffin Bunn—I think Paul is trying to “get real” with his virulent questioning of Obama; Paul’s questions often raise real problems with the actions and stances of the Democrat’s presidential candidate.  I agree that the majority of US citizens are going to vote for Obama or McCain; but what is a minority of activists going to do about the fact that neither candidate is going to enact what a majority of the public want on key issues (no imperialism, health care that leaves no one behind or broke, etc.)?

     To Ben Rosen—you need to get real if you think “our leader” (fearless leader?) Bob Avakian is going to bring on The Revolution.  As a radical moderate (different than centrist Obama [or centrist McCain for that matter]) in favor of radical reform (only progressive business taxes with breaks for employee owned companies, etc)—and as much as I admire many of Marx’s insights—if you think Communism is a realistic solution… where are you coming from?  “Scorched earth revolution” would take the lives of many more, IMO, than radical reform from within the system.

     To Paul Street—I agree that Obama’s sound-bite about rebuilding the US, not Iraq, sounds callous to the extreme; but I think if you read through to the intent, and not to the letter, you’d see that Obama is talking (maybe) about solving our own US problems, before trying to export “our” US way of life—it’s a sort of soft-pedaled anti-imperialism.  “Proud” America may not be ready to apologize (institutions like the US government or the Catholic Church seem to be worse than the Fonz, when it comes to saying “I’m sorry”)—and Obama may have to represent that institution.  I see no U-turn in the future, but even John McCain is a slight veer to the left of where our country was headed four years ago (at least on a few key  issues; although McCain’s having headed the IRI has me scratching my head about his potential imperialism).

Yeah, let\'s rebuild Iraq, but we should leave first, right? Isn\'t Barack the only one talking about leaving (and now Bush is). Isn\'t voting for Obama "progress" from a Bush or Mccain presidency, which would further decimate the environment and further roll back rights of poor people and a womans right to choose, ect. ect .  I don\'t know, man.. I think if you\'re writing professional articles you should be more realistic. I appreciate the history lesson but not the holier than thou attitude. Did you prefer Bush to Gore, do you really think Mccain is better?