The Ethics of Not Supporting Sanders

Sums it right up, short ‘n sweet, keepin’ it simple.

We have to stop doing what we’re doing. It isn’t working.

I’m still gonna’ have a bard time voting someone older than me.

He’s got my vote in the democratic primaries and the general election if he miraculously gets the nomination . If the DNC sticks a fork in him come hook or crook, Bloomberg will be my choice against Trump.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/26/whos-who-people-against-progressive-agenda-dncs-perez-under-fire-convention

Ian,

What’s your back-up plan if Sanders folds, [as he did in 2016] and asks US voters to vote for a Hillarylite?

If there is an economic crash coming, who would be better than Bernie? No one. He is a New Deal Democrat at heart. Who do you want in an economic calamity, a FDR acolyte or someone from the Clinton-Obama-Corporate wing?

Hey Brennan,

You ever sell that Billy Clinton bobble-head doll you spent over two decades fondling? Shoot, it ought to be worth something by now, you held onto it and defended that piece of trash for so long.

Or have you have been too busy spreading lies online about people, like the whopper you told here a few months back that I voted for Obama in the primaries and that was the reason that I had problems with you when there’s not anything I’ve ever wrote that could ever be misunderstood as I ever voted for Obama and it’s always been your lying and intellectual dishonesty that I’ve had problems with.

Oh, I know, tee-hee-hee, I know your pathetic little kid’s games: tell lies about people and then act like you’re trolling them when they respond to them.

Go suck on some poison, liar.

Z

OK, I guess this is kind of the Rogan thread redux, so I’ll bite.

It’s probably? the case that Sanders will be the big tent leftist we’ve all been waiting for, uniting class and other issues in a joyous socialist harmony.

But: just like some people voted for Trump because they wanted everyone else to experience the world burning the way they felt it had been burning for themselves, there’s a case to be made that if you think that Sanders’ supporters will sideline the things you care about most, then maybe you just need to let the world burn a little longer. In the last thread, it appears that at least some Sanders supporters intend just that: not to accede to the social justice demands of “identity” politicians.

Oops, sorry, wrong Jimmy Dore segment. Meant this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHPO1iek4BA , from 4 months, ago.

Already voted for him.

I have been an Elizabeth Warren fan for a long time (BTW – I think she is a nicer human being than Bernie) but I am becoming more convinced that Bernie is the best candidate to beat Trump. I heard an interesting analysis about why Sanders is better than Warren, in this regard. Think of a Venn diagram of likely voters: People who would likely vote for Elizabeth Warren are a circle that has no overlap with the circle representing voters who would likely vote for Donald Trump. However, the circle of likely voters for Bernie DOES overlap with the likely Trump voters. I know some of those folks personally! Men who aren’t college-educated, full of macho bravado who think the US has screwed them over in some way and who see their vote as an act of political vandalism. Like them or not, those are the jugheads we need to get to vote and vote Democratic!

This is it. We’re down to a 78 year-old man who is, and has, given damn near everything he has towards empowering the working class. We’re bossed around day to day by a nebulous power structure that “our” government largely works hand in hand with and against us. We need an adversarial relationship between these entities and a government that truly represents us. We’re also on a planet that is warming at an alarming rate and has sustained significant damage from wildfires in Australia and the Amazon over the past year. Sanders is the only viable candidate that will fight to try to turn that around.

There’s no one but him who has the experience and drive to take this country on the stable, hard left turn we need. In the wings there is Tulsi, who I’d vote for, but only has been in congress for 7 years. Ro Khanna, who doesn’t yet have the following to get voted in and probably the experience to manage it, and perhaps even the gravitas. I would vote for him, but he’s no Sanders yet. Then there’s AOC, who I also would vote for and do almost everything I could to get in her into office because her heart’s in the right place, like Tulsi’s and Ro’s, and I know she’d fight too, but she’s not even old enough to be president and hasn’t even served two years in Congress yet.

IMO, if Bernie doesn’t get elected, as Ian says more articulately: we’re f’ed. People talk that we got ten years before things start really hitting the fan climate-wise. I don’t know, nobody does, but I think we’re going to be in a hell of a spot in ten years, I see deep trouble in five with the way the oceans are dying and the climate and food stocks.

If Bernie doesn’t get elected, we’ll probably eventually get somebody in that’s a true progressive, that’s the way that the generational dynamics are headed. But it will either be a relatively inexperienced congressperson who will have the huge task of properly aligning our government with these concerns, building new agencies, etc. And have to fight and navigate through the entrenched congressional forces that will still be around and dutifully representing corporate America, the fossil fuel industry, the medical-insurance industrial complex, the political-media-propaganda industrial complex, and, of course, Wall Street, the devil’s blood that pumping through all of it.

Again, Bernie is our best chance for a stable turn in the proper direction, if nothing else to get oriented in that direction and begin coalescing forces against the psychotically greedy people and entities that are sucking us into a vortex of hell.

If he doesn’t win, it will be years wasted, maybe too many. It’s Bernie or bust basically.

Z

Dan,

It ain’t going to turn on a dime, I think most everybody understands that, but there’s a hell of a lot that can be done through executive orders, which we only find out about when it’s used against us because the democrats won’t ever use it to benefit the working class. Bernie will.

And it’s well past time to draw the battle lines between the working class and our rulers. Put the politicians on the spot and have them take the stance that they would rather spare Wall Street a transaction tax than forgive student loans that effect the finances of a large part of what is supposed to be their constituency. Have them defend it during an election year, or better yet, in the face of protests that a sell-out like Obama squelched, but Bernie says he’ll support.

Z

Stirling, could you elaborate?

“He rewards the present by taxing the future.”

I gather you view his climate plan as inadequate?

Having Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic presidential nomination AND the presidency is not just about implementing his policies.

MORE IMPORTANTLY: it is about inserting a new leadership, a new vision, for the Democratic Party. It is about purging the centrists, Clintonites, consultants, corporatists, neoliberals, Republican-lites, warmongers from the ranks of the Democratic establishment — eliminate them, expel them, purge them, and replace them with Berniecrats, Justice Democrats, and New Deal Democrats.

It is about reinventing, remaking and reorienting the Democratic Party, just as Trump has permanently changed the Republican Party.

So, even if President Bernie fails to accomplish his policy goals, he — as the leader of the Democratic Party — will change the party, its platforms, ranks and structures. That is what we should be aiming for: a new Democratic Party that is actually for the People.

If it is between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton again… I will vote for Trump over Hillary. I really DO think President Hillary would be a worse outcome than President Trump.

This is the vote Sanders should not court. This is unworthy and unwanted support. Any person who voted for Trump or will vote for Trump, I want removed from the face of this earth because they don’t deserve to live. If it’s unethical to not vote for Sanders, it is also unethical to vote for Trump when you have a choice not to vote at all.

Gloria

Democracy animated evangelicals Epitaphs
constitutional authoritarianism reverie
annus horribilis annexation perish corruption
But you don’t remember flawed Gloria demolition
enthrallment.
electrification communities enriched capitalistic dictatorship.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/03/the-last-time-democracy-almost-died

If you despise our ruling class and want to piss them off, vote for who their political-corporate media-propaganda industrial complex hates the most: Sanders!

Z

Agreed that he’s the best candidate by far.

However, his biggest blindspot if he gets into office is a lack of a global vision. I’ve always thought that the order of attack should be (1) Take over the Democratic party, (2) Defeat the Republicans, (3) Start de-oligarching/re-democratizing America w/ a New New Deal type effort, and (4) global focus on climate, development, and democracy.

But (4) can’t wait for (3) to finish or even get very far along, it should start pretty quickly, and Sanders doesn’t seem to have much going on in (4). Yes, Green New Deal and yes, talking about American democracy, but it doesn’t go much past our own shores. Maybe its possible that he’ll build a coalition that can then move on to (4), but that’s a tricky proposition.

The more I write about this, the more I’m depressing myself. This is going to get ugly, isn’t it?

I agree with both Z and KT Chong. We are in a fight. The System is stacked against us. It will give us nothing. It will concede nothing. Sanders is part of this fight. If he gets elected, it doesn’t mean we can declare victory and go home. It just means the fight will enter a new phase in the Congress, in the Democratic party, and in the country.

The standard operating procedure of the Democrats nowadays is not to even bother to fight unless they have all the votes they need and so do not need to fight. Me, I see their blood on the floor, I will support the Democrats or whoever, win, lose, or draw. I see no blood, then they aren’t serious and can go to hell.

If that were your spouse, how would you vote?

I wouldn’t be married to someone in the military. Neither would my wife.

It’s nice to see the commentariat believes it’s ethical to vote for Sanders and/or for Trump. That’s a contradiction, but there you have it. That’s the world we live in. These are the people that share our air.

@nihil obstet,

For those who want a “Sanders Plan B” ready to go, just in case . . . . it might be time for them to free-lance on-their-own begin planning for a very fast and hard pre-organized push ready-to-go to get Sanders separately qualified on all those ballots . . . right now.

To actually start DOING it right now would dilute focus and awareness. But having the organizational stub and in place ready for real fast recruitment and build-out might be wise.
If the Obums and Clintoads of the DNC cheat the process to cheat Sander-wanters out of their Sanders . . . then a Separate Qualification process ready-to-go and ready-to-spin-up would be the only way to get it done fast for all 50 states.

Now, if the Clintobama voters really DO outnumber the Sandervoters and really EARN themselves a not-Sanders nominee . . . then we will have to respond to that sad reality, one way or another.

Stirling S. Newberry:

Why all the Zen-koan obscuration? Say what you mean, mean what you say, and then maybe someone will listen.

Sanders 2020, because he (and the Organizing) are all we’ve got.

@Carey,

While you’re at it, why don’t you ask Stirling Newberry why he wrote that Cambodia brought its Nixon-era bombing on itself.

Only a Russian, nay a communist, would hold the position of voting for Sanders and/or Trump. Any Sanders supporter who claims they would vote for Trump if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination is for all intents and purposes a Russian and lends credence to Hillary’s accusation that the Russians support Bernie as well as Trump.

Mandos: just like some people voted for Trump because they wanted everyone else to experience the world burning the way they felt it had been burning for themselves, there’s a case to be made that if you think that Sanders’ supporters will sideline the things you care about most, then maybe you just need to let the world burn a little longer. In the last thread, it appears that at least some Sanders supporters intend just that: not to accede to the social justice demands of “identity” politicians.

the narcissism that arises as polarization interacts with identitarian frames creates a variation of the classic problem of people not wanting to join any club that would have them as members.

it is true that some “social justice demands” when framed in identitarian terms are incompatible with universal(ist) claims. if a thousand people are killed in undisciplined police violence, and the only way to organize politically is to focus on the 250 cases where race can argued as a critical factor, is that likely to be an effective politics in terms of policy outcomes?

BLM seems to me to have been effective as a campaign for public attention. It may well be that it would not be possible to organize or get a sympathetic response from elites without the race angle. BLM did get a hearing for grave injustice and that was important.

think about the long campaign against Mayor Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy in NYC. the legal as well as political strategy — fairly successful in the end — to oppose and end this police state practice depended on proving racial disparity in who was arbitrarily stopped and frisked. I would hope you understand the moral and constitutional problem with stop-and-frisk is the arbitrary use of power against the individual and the invasion of privacy. Having to argue racial disparity means taking a risk of NOT vindicating the universal rights of the individual, of implicitly conceding that abusing citizens is OK in the absence of suspected racism.

i think there is some suspicion that the Me,Too movement has a class component as relatively wealthy women have won claims against previously more powerful men. Beyond that, some claims for justice in individual cases made with popular support have sometimes seemed to lack a respect for context and proportionality.

calls have been made for reparations for slavery or the taking of American Indian lives and land. there is certainly an argument for social justice to back advocacy of such a policy. how calls for reparations might interact with other programs of ameliorative wealth or income redistribution raise one set of questions, while the political problems of resentment in holding together a coalition pose another set.

my point in bringing up examples is that identitarian claims are problematic vis a vis universalist programs for both politics and policy.

the profound weakness of the political movement(s) for universalist claims has meant that issues that may be universal in their complete dimensions have been ignored and the only effective protest has been organized — has had to be organized — along identitarian lines.

I am not sure it is either fair or accurate to characterize the shift from identitarian claims toward more universal framing to be necessarily a case of putting aside the claims of justice of a smaller group in favor of the different claims of a larger group. More universal claims can mean a more comprehensive policy frame as well as a larger coalition.

It could mean rethinking whether, say, poverty and drug addiction are really distinctively racial problems. There is also the very real risk that racial or feminist claims may so far lose potency, that poverty and drug addiction cease to be seen as problems the government respond to and effectively amerliorate.

@Mandos,

Is there any evidence that Sanders himself is against the identitarian left or wants to sideline them? The only “evidence” I see is guilt by association as with the Joe Rogan situation and some references to some of his supporters, the infamous Bernie Bros. But Sanders has no control over who supports him and from a purely practical standpoint any candidate running for president must gain some votes from people who may disagree with the identitarian left.

Poor and working class people have been told for decades that they must accept compromises in order to win elections. The result has been decades of declining living standards and now rising death rates for this group of people. As Ian points out, this election is literally a life or death situation for million of Americans. I can see why many people are no longer in the mood to take a back seat to a identitarian left that is often a vehicle for neoliberalism.

People on the identitarian left can vote for whoever they want but at the same time they have to accept that people can criticize them too. The identitarian left doesn’t get a free pass any more than Bernie does. People are not going to take it anymore. The identitarian left has obtained power in the political sphere all out of proportion to its numbers in the population so I have to say that a lot of the opposition to Sanders from that group looks like crying with a loaf of bread under one’s arm and pure class politics, the politics of the professional/managerial elite that seeks to lord it over everyone else.

As I said, people can vote for whoever they want. If Bernie loses fair and square, that is just life. But Sanders and his supporters have the right to strike back when they are accused of being friendly to the political right or being reactionaries themselves. The current moment is a case of the contradictions of Democratic Party politics coming out into the open, just like what happened with the Republicans in 2016. I say let it out. It is like a family that has had problems brewing for years but tried to minimize them for the sake of unity and keeping up appearances. This cannot work anymore so it is time for people to lay their cards on the table.

Good stuff Herman.

Hmmm . . . . in case there are any Clinton supporters and/or nostalgiasts reading this thread . . .
I voted for Trump aGAINST Clinton in the last election because after due consideration and careful analysis; I came to realize that Trump was the lesser evil. He posed less of a danger of thermonuclear exchange with Russia than Clinton did.

And here we are, three years later, and we are still not a cloud of ionized gas-plasma. So it looks like el Trumpo has avoided, so far, that which I most wanted to see avoided.

@Herman

Well said. When the Woke Left grows the f#$$ up and realizes they bred themselves out of the gene pool and pissed off the Heartland who they need on their side to live a decent life, I will welcome them to adulthood. Till then I will despise them as the easily manipulable useless idiots they are. If Bernie locks in the nomination, good. But to truly bring change he has to break the Republican Party and flip Texas and the Red Wall. He can only do that by going pro-gun, pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, and then whacking the Republicans to death over their hypocrisy.

If he doesn’t he can still win, but the structural problems will remain as the Republicans can keep the Heartland locked in place and Texas and simply filibuster his plans. He can still forgive Student Loans, purge the Federal Reserve, bring troops home, and go after corporations on numerous violations of the law, but deeper reforms won’t be possible. And we need deeper reforms and a new Constitution that streamlines Congress to a Unicameral Senate of 600 Senators elected by proportional vote of parties so that the 2-party system is broken and Gerrymandering ends. Sanders has to make the choice and soon as to whether he wants to pander to an irrelevant group of voters who have bred themselves out of the gene pool or bring in the Heartland Voters who are necessary to secure real structural reforms.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/27/tom-perez-stacks-2020-convention-committees-swamp-nominations

Besides the blatant old-fashioned rigging like Perez is practicing, how do we deal with a system where we can’t trust the voting results?

This is what we are up against –

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/does-microsoft-have-a-boeing-737

“a decision at the National Security Agency to focus not on making computer networks more secure through defensive strategies, but to focus on offensive capabilities. The NSA wanted to be able to hack our enemies when they use our own software, and that meant keeping our software shitty. Essentially the shadow regulator of software security became our spies, and they regulated to ensure there would be more vulnerabilities, not fewer.”

Agree with Ian.

For those who claim “But, but he won’t get any of his platform through”:
1) Rescinding all of the current President’s EOs on Days 1-5 would be a start, and he doesn’t need Congress to do that. The harm to the natural environment and human rights foretold by EOs 2017-2020 is pretty daunting in itself.
2) It’s up to us, really, to elect a Congress that will shift the Overton Window in the opposite direction to that it’s been moving in the last 40 years. Would 100 new Reps whose politics align with Sanders’ and AOC’s help? Yes. Choose a district – doesn’t have to be your own.

For those who claim they’ll vote for the current WH inhabitant over any Dem nominee but Sanders:
1) There is no place for Schadenfreude-induced voting in 2020 – or really, any election.
2) Vote if you are okay with the nominee; otherwise, write in another name if you live in a safe district.

Also agree that the Dem Party needs to change – very difficult, but not impossible. If it could be changed to what it has become, then logic suggests it can be changed again. Parties are organic.

Re: Sanders’ perceived foreign policy weaknesses:
Traditionally a President’s weaknesses in one or another area – nobody can be an expert on everything, after all – are compensated by astute appointments to Cabinet- and Agency-level positions. Why would Sanders not do likewise?

Re: Sanders’ age:
No one can predict with absolute certainty he’ll survive his Presidency. But then, no one can predict with absolute certainty whether anyone will survive til tomorrow. I’m not moved by this argument.

MW: I was going for “self-deprecatingly tongue-in-cheek but ultimately trying to highlight a real issue”. It’s a difficult genre tightrope to walk, though.

No matter what Bernie might have done to piss you off today, his enemies are oh so easy to hate.

Enemies? Bernie has no enemies. He capitulates to anyone and everyone who would dare oppose him. Bernie speaks strongly and carries a little stick. You would think he would consider fascists and fascism an enemy, but no, he welcomes them with open arms if they can help keep his political career alive and well.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamelder/donald-trump-iowa-caucus

Trump is Bernie’s biggest supporter. Why do you think that is? Why do you think his cadre of internet trolls are hitting every commentary section feigning support for Bernie as part of their bait & switch to Trump? Wake the hell up Bernie and denounce this crap, or else continue to be the rube you’ve always been. The so-called “left” should never align with the “right.” Ever. There is no common ground to be found with those who want to make abortion constitutionally illegal and impeachment constitutionally illegal.

Is it possible to support Bernie-ite policies without necessarily going all in for him? My hesitation is simple: he’s damned old (and he knows it), and vigorous as he may be right now, that can change in an instant (and he knows it). If he died or became incapacitated in office, what then? Who has gamed it out?

Someone has, sure, and it isn’t necessarily to “our” benefit. This is true for all presidents, not just ones of age who have heart conditions.

And that brings up the essential problem: putting too much faith in elections to the Presidency and in individual presidents, and not doing nearly enough to generate and sustain a comprehensive set of public policies on behalf of the People at every level of society. The Left (both pretend and real) fails routinely at that critical task.

We wait for them to do it for us. And they won’t. Not even Bernie will. He’s done plenty for decades and decades; he’s a known quantity. (I would point out that Trump was likewise, but all of the “knowns” about him were ignored.) In the Presidency, he would face enormous obstacles, resistance to, and sabotage of his programs and policies, even with — perhaps especially with — a Democratic majority House and Senate.

There are lessons from history to be learned, even from current events, and putting Bernie on the Throne does not change the system or the political dynamic more than a little bit. And even then, it may be in the wrong direction. Think about the arc of history from the assassination of President Kennedy to where we are now. It’s not all good or bad, but as was the case in 1963, we’re still facing existential crises (then nuclear annihilation; now nuclear annihilation and climate catastrophe) and we’re still engaged in seemingly endless wars of aggression and empire. Among so many other consistencies.

I don’t subscribe to the Big Man Theory of history, and I have very little faith in presidents to do the right thing in all things — or even a few. They are in essence captives to a system of rule — not the supposed “Deep State” but a system of rule that long predates them and is intended to last long after they’re gone. That system is relatively rigid; bending it this way or that is at best temporary. It was not and is not designed to serve the masses. And it won’t be by Bernie or any other president.

When the primaries finally get around to my state, I’ll probably vote for him, and barring the unforeseen, I’ll probably do so in the general — even if he’s not the nominee (I certainly wouldn’t vote for Trump). But there’s always a caveat: lowered expectations are better. Local action should have priority. Be the change you want to see. Namaste.

The weakness of identitarian politics is that it often has a “I want mine, Jack” quality to it that provokes more resentment than sympathy. The classic example of this is private sector unions. They were able for a long time to gain benefits for their members. There was often a spillover effect which helped non-union workers, but their failure to reach out and make the needs of other workers their fight alienated them from large segments of the population. This left them open to political attack and led to their decimation.

I do not accept Mandos’ “let them burn” view. It made me think of Hippocrates’ ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν (in the presence of hurt, refrain from injury), that gets translated often as “First, do no harm.”

The chorus in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon says somewhat more eloquently than Mandos,

“He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain, which cannot forget, falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.”

A friend of mine once observed this was hooey. Wisdom was more likely to cause suffering in the wise than the other way around, that suffering would create wisdom. Suffering in itself generally doesn’t lead anywhere but to more suffering. I have yet to see a Trumper run over and ground down by the powers that be gain even a glimmer of a clue, let alone wisdom.

Agree with Ian.

To those who bemoan the fact that Sanders would be effectively powerless to get his platform through Congress:
1) Even if all he did was rescind EOs signed 2017-present that would be something, and it doesn’t require Congress;
2) It’s on voters-activists to ensure that, if nominated/elected he has a Congress to work with: 100 more Reps like AOC – choose a different district to fight for if you’re represented by a Dem you like, or if it’s too red right now. Re: the Senate, there are Dems worth supporting in both WVa and Kentucky running against Capito and the Senator Majority Leader.

To those claiming Sanders lacks foreign policy expertise:
Past Presidents have addressed their lack of expertise in particular areas – nobody knows everything, after all – by nominating highly competent individuals to Cabinet- and Agency-level positions. Why wouldn’t Sanders follow suit, e.g. with DoD and Sos?

To those claiming his age/heart attack make it unlikely he’ll live through a term:
Nobody can say with certainly how long anybody will live – in fact, nobody can say with certainty whether they’ll be alive tomorrow. Sanders is alert, active, engaged, pugnacious, articulate, informed. This argument is, frankly, ageism masquerading as “concern.”

To those claiming they’ll vote for the incumbent rather than a Dem candidate other than Sanders:
There is no role for Schadenfreude-induced voting in 2020 – or anytime, really.
Vote for your favorite candidate as a write-in and then vote a Dem ticket down-ballot.
Campaign for your local progressive candidates – no matter how humble the office they’re running for seems – it’s not.

Also agree that the Dem Party must change. Well, it’s morphed into what it has become today over the past 40 years, it will morph again, because political parties are organic and evolve. Help it evolve as your own experience/knowledge tells you it must.

“The GOP is no longer the GOP — the party of WASPs.”

Yep. Those people are now Democrats. WASPs in rainbow disguise these days, but refugee GOPers deep in their tiny hearts nonetheless.

In the end, the most unifying reason among voters to support Bernie, across the working class from all political persuasions, though they might not thoroughly understand it, is that the entity that fears him the most is also our biggest collective enemy: Wall Street!

Wall Street sets the terms of our economy. Creates the incentives. Lays down the conduit to inequality in this country.

So any desire for political change, and there’s plenty of that brewing amongst the citizenry right now, no matter what political persuasion you are, no matter what direction you want to take a movement, if you really want change you first need to disempower Wall Street, get their boot of our neck, or you’re not going to get very far with any of it. Because when you control the incentives of the financial and economic system that heavily … the carrots, the sticks … with that much leverage … in the market, over the CEOs … you control the system. And Wall Street is empowered to do that due to an essentially unlimited credit line they get hand-delivered by their paperboys at the NY Fed, which backstops them and their bets, allowing them to leverage their way out of losing positions, if need be. They f’ up and their Fed’s dutifully there for them to bail them out.

And the tension in the system between Wall Street and labor is this: as long as there is no inflation, which means as long as working class wages stagnate or decrease, then that line of credit stays open from the Fed, no questions asked. One question they DO NOT want asked, for instance, is where’s all this money going to that the NY Fed’s currently feeding their way? What’s it needed for? What’s being hidden? No one in our government even asks, as far as I know. A massive wealth robbery, losses being papered over for the rich, funded by the money mill at the NY Fed and no one stops a robber running naked down Wall Street with bags of money in his hands. Why? Because the cops tip their caps to them as they dash on by.

But if wages go up, workers get more money in their pockets, then they spend more, inflation increases and now the Fed is supposed to, as a defender of the country’s currency, the foundation block of its economy and finances, tighten up on the purse to contain inflation, to maintain the integrity of the fiat financial system, and if that happens that means that Wall Street doesn’t have that unquestioned credit line available to them anymore which allows them to control the market and incentivize the system. Now, if the NY Fed shovels them money to bail them out of bad bets, questions are posed: aren’t you supposed to be reining in inflation, Fed?

And that cushy credit line from the Fed allows Wall Street to decide what corporate behavior gets rewarded. And what do they reward: damn near anything that busts down wages. So, they’re not afraid of bankrolling a company like AMZN, who for lots of years lost money on the business end but basically survived, and thrived, only because of its stock price, not to mention the money AMZN got lent to make acquisitions and whatnot as long as they’re busting everybody on costs and they’re gaining market share.

Wall Street message: We like this business model. We can sell it. No profits? No cares! We got a consortium together to support your business model and the Fed catches the phone on the first ring when we call them up, so what’s to worry? We can always muscle our way out of this. We’ll make it work. It decreases labor costs, puts U.S. retailers out of business, and labor gets squeezed, inflation stays low, and we keep our gucci credit line with the Fed. We can always squeeze the shorts with our leverage and keep the stock price climbing. What’s not to like?

And Wall Street likes any kind of business model that involves busting down labor and gaining market share and they heavily reward the CEOs with higher stock prices for it, via the stock option mechanism.

So a CEO wants to send jobs overseas? Outsource a department (make sure you write off the costs in EBIDTA earnings, Mr. CEO, won’t cost you nothing on the quarterly earnings in the end)? Relocate factories to foreign countries to take advantage of the cheap labor or lax environmental restrictions? Buy out a competitor, increase market share and layoff 30% of the combined work force? … Hey, how about a little bit of skin on brokering the deal? Great! … Hey, hey we can get behind that. Immediate boost to the stock price, on the news alone, promoting company shares on MSNBC, no questions asked, no proof required as to the long-term financial sense of the maneuver or considerations of the danger of stretched supply lines.

See that CEOs? Cut labor costs. That’s good. That’ll get you rich damn near immediately.

And that incentivization that Wall Street places in the system, again, funded by their credit line with the Fed, leads to massive inequality and leads to the U.S. worker struggling harder and harder to make ends meet, which leads them to borrow … Off who? Wall Street! … and Wall Street’s boot imprint on our windpipe gets deeper.

Z

Dear 450.org,

Thank you for your interest in my comment. I am always happy to hear from you. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.

( correction of erratum . . . )

when I wrote ” seeking to oPPOSE the Nixon-Meany Democrats”, I of course meant to write ” seeking to aPPEASE the Nixon-Meany Democrats”.

“Then drive them into the sea, as a matter of good faith.”

Or confine them to islands going underwater because of their greed, as a matter of good faith and poetic justice.

Well, I hope he gets all that too. I almost have to just believe that he does.

And of course Team D won’t just roll over and say ” well, I guess you won fair and square etc. . . ”
And I think Sanders understands that too. And in the event that he is actually gets the nomination, I think the whole Sanders movement will pay very close attention to which Big Ds support Sanders in the election, and which ones don’t. And they will do their very best to spend the next 30-50 years teaching the Big Ds who don’t support Sanders learn that revenge is a dish best served over . . . and over . . . and over again.

Anyway, as one octopus said to the other, ” 8-warned is 8-armed.”