Caught in the Aftermath of a Minsky Moment by a Credibility Trap

"I think this is where the academics are kind of clashing with the practitioners. I think on paper negative rates make a lot of sense if you're running academic models, but in reality they make no sense.  Having seven or eight trillion dollars of debt trading at negative rates, having thirty year JGB's trading at fifty basis points is absolutely ludicrous. This experiment that's going on we all know will end poorly at some point in time, I just don't know when that time is...

I think that one of the fears that they have is a run on cash. If they told you and I that they're going to tax your deposits by a hundred basis points, well it's better to put it in a safe or under your mattress. And that's why you see a resurgence in gold. The more they move to negative rates, the more gold is gonna take off because there's no carrying cost."

Kyle Bass, Hayman Capital

This comment [quoted below] about a recent column by Paul Krugman is written by someone I consider to be an ethical and intelligent mainstream economist. It was so simply and eloquently put that I am using it here on my site.  It expresses almost perfectly why there is a broad movement growing in the US that rejects all the  establishment candidates from both parties

And it goes without saying that the words I put in front of it are completely my own, and most likely go far beyond what this person said so well.  We have disagreed on some things at times, but I hope in an amicable way.  This is how knowledge is created from the raw material of data.

What I find to be highly significant right now is how badly the status quo is assessing and reacting to this current political situation.  There is an unmistakable desire for honesty, transparency, and reform in this country, especially among the young.  But those who view themselves as the powerful, the thought leaders, seem to be retreating into a comfortable story that they tell each other.   It is a story about how good things really are, if only the stupid and naive public could be made to understand it. Few may actually believe it in their hearts, but it is a story that serves their cause: it is expedient.

I don't wish to single Mr. Krugman out, not at all, because he is hardly the worst among mainstream commentators and economists.  He is merely symptomatic of these times, more a follower and participant than an original thinker or leader. Like his peers, he has seen others doing it, and it has worked for them.  As Louis Brandeis once said, the government teaches by example.   

What the privileged fail to realize is that by continuing to push forward with their winning strategy, because nothing powerful enough has risen up yet to stop them, will at some point shake the American republic to its foundations.

Since our current system of finance and money is so heavily reliant on confidence in its integrity, I fear that this break in trust, that is already showing signs of advanced development, will lead to a serious tear in the social and economic fabric.  This is certainly something that we have seen before in this country, but thankfully not for many, many years.

Some people will view this gathering storm as an opportunity to gain more power for themselves and their friends, and will attempt to use it as such.  And some ruthlessly so I am sure.  And that is dangerous. It is unfortunate that real change that can provide a more constructive alternative is not happening, because the very serious people, what Larry Siummers categorized as insiders, keep rationalizing the status quo to themselves, and deny anything that suggests that the prevailing system has failed, that they may have failed in anything.  I have called this the credibility trap.

If the fortunate few decide to continue to push down this rising trend towards reform and justice, eventually resorting to force as confidence and willing compliance continues to decline, then history suggests that the Pandora's box that they will open will carry many of them, and far too many innocents, to a place where they would not wish to go.

We do not have 'capitalism;'  what we have is plunder.   We have a corrupt system of kleptocracy ruled over by the big money power of a relative few individuals and organizations, what FDR called 'organized money'.  And a system based on the primacy of selfishness, power,, unbridled greed and a free hand to cheat and deceive and manipulate will serve to create a kind of hell on earth.

I think it is time for all of us to take a deep breath and seriously consider where our passions are taking us, and what this spirit of contentiousness and willfulness is causing us to say and do. The ultimate irony is when we become that which we hate.  I would wish all of us to step back and see what we may become before this goes too far.

Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 05:32 AM (in reaction to the two recent PK columns on Sanders):

"Paul Krugman has decided that if there is any way to destroy a decent, humble, caring, thoughtful candidate for president, a candidate who offers the possibility of actual change in domestic and foreign policies that have created so many problems for so many people for so long, if there is any way, any word that can be used, to destroy that candidate then destruction there will be.

What Krugman has done however is show me what wild intolerance, what authoritarian political thinking in an American context amounts to, and the attempts by Krugman at destruction of a decent person and candidate will with me turn me completely away from the desired effect.

Were I a student of Paul Krugman, I would smile and nod as if in agreement and very quietly go in the opposite direction. After all, I fortunately learned early on which teachers always had to be agreed with.

I have no idea where this disdain for a truly decent person and candidate comes from, obviously not from the person, nor do I care about the psychology on where the disdain comes from. Krugman is being as fierce as can be, harsh as can be. I record the fierceness and harshness, know such an anti-intellectual posture can never be for me and move away.

"As you know, I’m only saying these things because I’m a corporate whore and want a job with Hillary.

Related: Paul Krugman, Why I Haven't Felt the Bern


Jesse in reply:

Paul, you will obtain no objection to that self-confession from me, although it is purposely and dramatically overstated so as to discredit it.   No, you are caught by an idea, to a particular economic arrangement that seems to be failing most people, and to what history is likely to see as a systematic and continuing abuse of power.

This is not capitalism; this is mere plunder by a powerful few. We are caught in the aftermath of a 'Minsky Moment' by a credibility trap, and it has been going on for far too long.

In your defense, there is a lot of this sort of creative rationalization of a rotten system going around these days. It is fashionable.   And that is a big part of the problem.

Deep State: Inside Washington's Shadowy Power Elite

“Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension, and viable public transportation doesn’t even compute. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?”

― Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government


"Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise.

But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Princeton 2014

"As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition.

But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush,  'the deciders.'

Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink,  the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive.

As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said,  'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.'"

Mike Lofgren

Mr. Cohan Responds On His Silver Rigging Exposé - Two US National Publications Refused the Story

"We run carelessly to the precipice, after we have put up a façade to prevent ourselves from seeing it.”

Blaise Pascal

This is starting to make more sense. 

Apparently Mr. William Cohan, a highly respected journalist, did look at all the relevant information he had been provided, and decided to write a story about rigging in the silver markets.

It was submitted and refused by at least two US publications which refused to run it.

Based on past history, one might assume the two national publications that refused to publish it were on the order of The New York Times, and perhaps Bloomberg News or even possibly Forbes.

The actual reasons that they gave for refusing to publish the story are not stated. One can assume they were not sufficient for Mr. Cohan to decide to take his name off of it in his professional judgement, so we can only surmise. 

So we cannot tell if this was editorial scruples, a failure in fact checking, or just good old fashioned minding of one's place.

Insiders never speak ill of insiders.

Bill was good with publishing the piece at ZeroHedge with his name on it.  So he apparently still had confidence in what he had written. 

 

That speaks volumes. 

At that point the whistleblowing parties, if one might call them that, deferred, feeling perhaps that printing something like this on the web alone, even on a large and widely read site, would relegate it to something easily dismissible by the status quo.  The Very Serious Players choose to read only properly vetted, fully credible and approved mainstream sources.

I am being a bit sarcastic, but not so much.  The thought leaders and ruling class in the US are, alas, out of touch almost without regard to their origins. And one does not have to think too hard about it to discover why.  They only read the right publications, watch the right shows, talk to the right people, say the right things, and think the right thoughts.

They live in virtual palaces and bubbles of ease and influence.  To borrow a phrase from one of their less pliant pets, when they go out amongst the common people, it often resembles Prince Charles on a royal visit to Papua, New Guinea.   As George Orwell noted in his diaries, 'apparently nothing will ever teach these people that the other 99% of the population exists.'  

They exist, they just don't matter in the halls of power anymore.

I might have suggested some publishing options a little 'out of the box' like The Guardian or Der Spiegel.  Choosing publications that might be less beholden to the New York financial powers seems as though it could be a more fruitful course of action.  South China Morning Post, or even the Asia Times?  Radio Free America?

So there you have it. We have a story. And the mainstream media refuses to publish it. And there is some wrangling about where and when it might achieve adequate exposure to do some good.

To:  addressees

Thank you all for writing me regarding Andrew Maguire's story of alleged "manipulation" in the silver market. As you may know, I was approached 11 months ago by a PR representative of Mr. Maguire's who wanted to introduce me to Andrew and to his attorney Gordon Schnell, at Constantine Cannon, in New York. I found what Andrew had to say very interesting, especially so in light of a piece I had written in the New York Times about the silver market three years ago.  A Conspiracy With a Silver Lining

I wrote up the story and submitted it to a national publication in the United States, which decided not to publish it. I then tried another, national financial publication, which also decided not to publish it. I then abandoned hope that the story would be published.

About a month ago, Ned Naylor-Leyland contacted me and suggested that Zero Hedge might publish the story. I thought that would be a fine idea.

Unfortunately, Mr. Schnell did not like the idea of Zero Hedge, nor apparently did his clients. They also declined to approve the use of key facts and key quotations that I felt needed to be included in the story to give it credibility. Part of my agreement with them was that they would be given quote approval and without their approval, I could not use their quotations or their information.

They did not approve. At that point, without their cooperation, I did not feel the piece could be published. I explained that to Mr. Naylor-Leyland but he didn't seem much interested in those facts and then went on to encourage the publication of the piece to which you are all responding.

All of which is to say, you are directing your passion to the wrong person. If you want the piece published, you need to reach out to Mr. Maguire and Mr. Schnell.

Thank you for your interest and your passion on this topic.

William D. Cohan

Related:  Ned Naylor-Leyland Suggests Media Overhanging an Exposé of Rigging in the Silver Markets

Bill Moyers: Deep State Hiding In Plain Sight

"Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.

My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an 'establishment.'

All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched.

Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude."

Mike Lofgren, Anatomy of the Deep State

"Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and muleteers, carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt; and the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung. That was their return cargo."

Winwood Reade, The Martyrdom of Man

Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few

"But the biggest clue that Sorkin's take on Greenwald was no accident came in the rest of that same Squawk Box appearance:

"I feel like, A, we've screwed this up, even letting him get to Russia. B, clearly the Chinese hate us to even let him out of the country.

I would arrest him . . . and now I would almost arrest Glenn Greenwald, who's the journalist who seems to want to help him get to Ecuador."

"...As a journalist, when you start speaking about political power in the first person plural, it's pretty much glue-factory time."

Matt Taibbi, All Journalism Is Advocacy Journalism


"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that."

John Dalberg Lord Acton

While I obviously can not agree with everything in this long documentary, Orwell Rolls In His Grave, I found the discussion and examples to be interesting.

I have included a short video clip concerning the standard visual media set piece afterwards just for fun.

The problem is not that there is advocacy in journalism. There is always advocacy in journalism, even despite a striving for objectivity. Taibbi goes to some lengths to show this in the piece I quoted from above.

The problem is the concentration of ownership in a few powerful hands, and the accompanying diminishment of the exposure of all the facts and perspectives. Even deciding what is not covered becomes a form of censorship.

Like the deregulation of the financial industry, the concentration of the media in a relatively few corporate hands was a ongoing trend that took a great leap forward under the presidency of Bill Clinton, and was then continued and reinforced under George Bush and Barack Obama. It was the conscious undoing of reforms from past lessons learned.

It is the concentration of ownership of the corporate media that is at the heart of the problem of the decline of independent journalistic standards. That, and the culture of unprincipled expediency in the service of power and shameless greed.

We are not responsible, but are culpable to the extent we accept this decline in decency and justice, even by doing nothing as simple as passing on a leaflet, conveniently electronic these days. As Sophie Scholl once said, many years ago in Munich, a people deserve the government which they are willing to tolerate.

The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins - Capture, Careerism, and Corruption

The reason why no major Wall Street executives are being investigated and indicted, and why the manipulation of markets continues on, is part credibility trap and the rest capture, careerism, and corruption.

The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustainable recovery.




Jeff Connaughton was Senator Ted Kaufman's chief of staff in January 2009.  After Ted's Senate term ended on November 14, 2010, he retired from politics, and now lives and writes in Savannah, GA, and speaks out about the failures to address the financial crisis.

In 2000 he had co-founded a lobbying firm specializing in university research for The Science Foundation, Quinn Gillespie & Associates LLC.  This helped to broaden his understanding of the political process as it had been evolving.

Prior to that he served in the White House as Special Assistant to the Counsel to the President in 1994-95, where he worked on a variety of legislative, regulatory and constitutional issues.

He previously served from 1988 to 1991 on the staff of then Chairman Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Charles Ferguson: Behind Every Great Con Artist Is a Man Like Glenn Hubbard

Here is a piece by Charles Ferguson, the documentary film maker who produced Inside Job, with an essay that was re-posted by Capitalism Without Failure.  He apparently does not think well of Glenn Hubbard, and I think he might be right.

In Hubbard's defense, Timmy is almost as big of a douche. And I do not think that Hubbard is nearly as dangerously reckless an advisor as John Bolton, who is Mitt's man at foreign policy.

Charles Ferguson: Standing Behind Every Great Con Artist is Someone Like Glenn Hubbard

Mitt Romney has a credibility problem. He changes his beliefs like laundry (abortion, medical insurance, whether Bin Laden was worth killing, attacking Iran), refuses to disclose his tax returns, and won't explain how he could possibly pay for the tax cuts he proposes. But there is another scandal in Romney's campaign -- namely Glenn Hubbard, Romney's chief economic advisor, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush, and is now Dean of Columbia Business School.

I interviewed Hubbard for my documentary film Inside Job, and analyzed his record again for my book Predator Nation. The film interview became famous because Hubbard blew his cool after I interrogated him about his conflicts of interest: "This isn't a deposition, sir. I was polite enough to give you time, foolishly I now see, but you have three more minutes. Give it your best shot."  

But the really important thing about Hubbard isn't his personality; it's that as an economist and an advisor, he is a total, unmitigated disaster.

First, Hubbard has an abysmal track record in economic policy, including the very issues that Romney has made the pillar of his presidential campaign. Second, like Romney, Hubbard refuses to disclose critical information about his income, conflicts of interest, and paid advocacy activities. Third, both in public statements and in my personal experience, Hubbard has been evasive, misleading, and even dishonest when discussing both policy issues and his own conflicts of interest. 

And last but not least, those conflicts of interest are huge: Hubbard has long advocated policies that Wall Street loves, often without disclosing that he is, in fact, highly paid by Wall Street.

Let's start with tax cuts, since Romney claims that he can cut tax rates sharply without increasing the deficit, and without benefiting the rich. Mr. Romney claims that tax cuts will be fully paid for by closing loopholes and deductions, and will not add to the deficit; Hubbard has publicly supported Romney's claims. Interestingly, Mr. Hubbard has quite a record on this very issue. Shortly after becoming chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in 2001, he spearheaded the Bush administration's tax cuts, and he said lots about them.

How did that work out? First, we now know that over half of the benefits of the Bush-Hubbard tax cuts went to the top 1 percent of the population. In part to benefit the wealthy, the tax cuts were also structured to reward investment in financial assets, rather than either consumer spending or real capital investment. As a result, the tax cuts caused huge budget deficits, yet did little to stimulate growth or job creation: there were basically no new jobs created during the Bush administration, despite adding trillions to the national debt.

That is not, however, what Hubbard said would happen. On August 22, 2001, he published anarticle in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Tax Cuts Won't Hurt the Surplus." Oops. In the article, also, Hubbard predicts that his tax cuts would preserve the Clinton budget surpluses by causing GNP to grow 0.3 percent per year faster.

Hubbard also co-authored an article with William Dudley, then the chief economist of Goldman Sachs, entitled "How Capital Markets Enhance Economic Performance and Job Creation." It was published by the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute in 2004, just as the housing bubble was getting seriously crazy.

Read the rest of this at Capitalism Without Failure here.

Chris Hedges: The Rise of the Corporate Class

"Oh you who are born of the gods, easy is the descent into Hell. The door of darkness stands open day and night. But to retrace your steps, and come back out into the brightness above, that is the work, that is the labor."

Vergil, The Aeneid

I struggle with Hedges' perspective at times, because in his revulsion he places himself to the left of 'the liberal class' which is the well-educated middle and upper middle class and traditionally benevolent social power such as church organizations, universities, and the 'thought leaders' or intellectuals and even the media. But his insights are often brilliant.

To me the last thirty years of the Anglo-American empire merely testifies to the corrosiveness and calcifying nature of greed on the hearts of the gifted, and the logical outcome of irresponsible and reckless selfishness on position. This is a euphemism, of course, for what has been traditionally called a rising lust for power and the commensurate 'wages of sin.' The familiar meme is of the gifted one becoming a good guy gone bad through some excess or fatal flaw. One's strength is their weakness. Hamartia (ἁμαρτία).

We are not in hell yet, but the path ahead is easy. It's all downhill from here.

"And I saw a white horse, its rider having a bow, and there was given to him a crown, and he went forth overcoming not in righteousness, but that he may conquer."

Golem XIV: What Are We Bailing Out the Banks? Part Two

It is remarkable how gentle democractic freedom goes into that good night, and how easily the 'reform' movements fall prey to the monied interests. They seem to get better at this sort of thing with time.

Why are we bailing out the banks? Part two. Theory, Ideology and Failure.
by Golem XIV
October 9, 2012

In part One I argued that if we want to understand why our rulers have insisted we MUST bail out the banks we simply have to look at who owns the banks and the vast bulk of the wealth they house. And surprise, surprise the owners of most of the financial ‘wealth’ are…our rulers and their friends.

I ended by suggesting that true though I felt this was, there were also theoretical reasons why some people felt the banks must be protected at all costs -as long as the burden of paying that cost was placed firmly upon the backs of the little people, you understand...

Read the entire essay here.

Robert Johnson: Economists As Marketeers for the Monied Interests

Economics is a disgraced profession because of the actions of a few that were tolerated by many, too often for the sake of grants, appointments, and academic timidity. Careerism.

I would not give many of the Wall Street friendly economists too much credit for an obsession with abstract thinking and even dogmatic blindness, but much moreso a willingly cynical preoccupation with temporal honors, prestige, power, and money handed out by the financial interests in a bubble economy of their own creation.

And there is a fitting emblem for this hubris, the cult of the self, with the long tenure of Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. 

A bureaucrat who is in a position of power for far too long can become a debilitating influence not only on their particular area or department, but on a profession as a whole.  One might think of it as the J. Edgar Hoover syndrome.

Robert Johnson serves as the Executive Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and a Senior Fellow and Director of the Global Finance Project for the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute in New York.

Johnson is an international investor and consultant to investment funds on issues of portfolio strategy. He recently served on the United Nations Commission of Experts on International Monetary Reform under the Chairmanship of Joseph Stiglitz.

Previously, Johnson was a Managing Director at Soros Fund Management where he managed a global currency, bond and equity portfolio specializing in emerging markets. Prior to working at Soros Fund Management, he was a Managing Director of Bankers Trust Company managing a global currency fund.

Johnson served as Chief Economist of the US Senate Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman William Proxmire (D. Wisconsin). Before this, he was Senior Economist of the US Senate Budget Committee under the leadership of Chairman Pete Domenici (R. New Mexico).

Johnson was an Executive Producer of the Oscar winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, directed by Alex Gibney, and is the former President of the National Scholastic Chess Foundation. He currently sits on the Board of Directors of both the Economic Policy Institute and the Campaign for America’s Future.

Johnson received a Ph.D. and M.A. in Economics from Princeton University and a B.S. in both Electrical Engineering and Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Chris Hedges: The Careerists and the Banality of Evil - The Sickness Unto Death

“We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop us from seeing it.”

Blaise Pascal, Pensées

The consciousless functionary guided by expediency is the very image of the regulatory and banking bureaucrat of today, from Tim Geithner to Gary Gensler to Ben Bernanke, and further, almost every member of the governments of the Western World. Expedient amorality is de rigeur these days among the entitled class of power brokers who serve the system, which in their minds is themselves, as a privileged, ruling class.

And it is that very dryness of human empathy, the lack of vigor in moral conviction, the willingness to accept great crimes and injustices as the unfortunate but "necessary outcomes" required by The System, that makes all the difference between a Franklin D. Roosevelt and a Barack H. Obama, between a living human being and a whited sepulchre full of dead men's bones.

After a time it becomes so easy to day, 'I am sorry madam, but the system requires that your child must die.' And so the ceremony of innocence is drowned.

This is not capitalism.  Capitalism does not demand that we destroy human lives for the sake of maximizing profits using any and all means which that end justifies.  The Market is not an end to itself. The Market is not God.  This is beyond capitalism.  This is tyranny.  It is a pernicious form of selfishness and self-indulgence, a privileged arrogance.

To paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith, 'The modern economist is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior justification for selfishness.'

And this is not a choice between poverty for the sake of truth and a very comfortable living, but the overwhelming need for a fabulous, ostentatious wealth and power that seems to have become the god of  this generation.   And it is a sickness, a sickness unto death.

TruthDig
The Careerists
By Chris Hedges
Jul 23, 2012

The greatest crimes of human history are made possible by the most colorless human beings. They are the careerists. The bureaucrats. The cynics. They do the little chores that make vast, complicated systems of exploitation and death a reality. They collect and read the personal data gathered on tens of millions of us by the security and surveillance state. They keep the accounts of ExxonMobil, BP and Goldman Sachs. They build or pilot aerial drones. They work in corporate advertising and public relations. They issue the forms. They process the papers. They deny food stamps to some and unemployment benefits or medical coverage to others. They enforce the laws and the regulations. And they do not ask questions.

Good. Evil. These words do not mean anything to them. They are beyond morality. They are there to make corporate systems function. If insurance companies abandon tens of millions of sick to suffer and die, so be it. If banks and sheriff departments toss families out of their homes, so be it. If financial firms rob citizens of their savings, so be it. If the government shuts down schools and libraries, so be it. If the military murders children in Pakistan or Afghanistan, so be it. If commodity speculators drive up the cost of rice and corn and wheat so that they are unaffordable for hundreds of millions of poor across the planet, so be it. If Congress and the courts strip citizens of basic civil liberties, so be it. If the fossil fuel industry turns the earth into a broiler of greenhouse gases that doom us, so be it. They serve the system. The god of profit and exploitation. The most dangerous force in the industrialized world does not come from those who wield radical creeds, whether Islamic radicalism or Christian fundamentalism, but from legions of faceless bureaucrats who claw their way up layered corporate and governmental machines. They serve any system that meets their pathetic quota of needs.

These systems managers believe nothing. They have no loyalty. They are rootless. They do not think beyond their tiny, insignificant roles. They are blind and deaf. They are, at least regarding the great ideas and patterns of human civilization and history, utterly illiterate. And we churn them out of universities. Lawyers. Technocrats. Business majors. Financial managers. IT specialists. Consultants. Petroleum engineers. “Positive psychologists.” Communications majors. Cadets. Sales representatives. Computer programmers. Men and women who know no history, know no ideas. They live and think in an intellectual vacuum, a world of stultifying minutia. They are T.S. Eliot’s “the hollow men,” “the stuffed men.” “Shape without form, shade without colour,” the poet wrote. “Paralysed force, gesture without motion.”

It was the careerists who made possible the genocides, from the extermination of Native Americans to the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians to the Nazi Holocaust to Stalin’s liquidations. They were the ones who kept the trains running. They filled out the forms and presided over the property confiscations. They rationed the food while children starved. They manufactured the guns. They ran the prisons. They enforced travel bans, confiscated passports, seized bank accounts and carried out segregation. They enforced the law. They did their jobs.

Political and military careerists, backed by war profiteers, have led us into useless wars, including World War I, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. And millions followed them. Duty. Honor. Country. Carnivals of death. They sacrifice us all. In the futile battles of Verdun and the Somme in World War I, 1.8 million on both sides were killed, wounded or never found. In July of 1917 British Field Marshal Douglas Haig, despite the seas of dead, doomed even more in the mud of Passchendaele. By November, when it was clear his promised breakthrough at Passchendaele had failed, he jettisoned the initial goal—as we did in Iraq when it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction and in Afghanistan when al-Qaida left the country—and opted for a simple war of attrition. Haig “won” if more Germans than allied troops died. Death as score card. Passchendaele took 600,000 more lives on both sides of the line before it ended. It is not a new story. Generals are almost always buffoons. Soldiers followed John the Blind, who had lost his eyesight a decade earlier, to resounding defeat at the Battle of Crécy in 1337 during the Hundred Years War. We discover that leaders are mediocrities only when it is too late.

David Lloyd George, who was the British prime minister during the Passchendaele campaign, wrote in his memoirs: “[Before the battle of Passchendaele] the Tanks Corps Staff prepared maps to show how a bombardment which obliterated the drainage would inevitably lead to a series of pools, and they located the exact spots where the waters would gather. The only reply was a peremptory order that they were to ‘Send no more of these ridiculous maps.’ Maps must conform to plans and not plans to maps. Facts that interfered with plans were impertinencies.”

Here you have the explanation of why our ruling elites do nothing about climate change, refuse to respond rationally to economic meltdown and are incapable of coping with the collapse of globalization and empire. These are circumstances that interfere with the very viability and sustainability of the system. And bureaucrats know only how to serve the system. They know only the managerial skills they ingested at West Point or Harvard Business School. They cannot think on their own. They cannot challenge assumptions or structures. They cannot intellectually or emotionally recognize that the system might implode. And so they do what Napoleon warned was the worst mistake a general could make—paint an imaginary picture of a situation and accept it as real. But we blithely ignore reality along with them. The mania for a happy ending blinds us. We do not want to believe what we see. It is too depressing. So we all retreat into collective self-delusion.

In Claude Lanzmann’s monumental documentary film “Shoah,” on the Holocaust, he interviews Filip Müller, a Czech Jew who survived the liquidations in Auschwitz as a member of the “special detail.” Müller relates this story:

“One day in 1943 when I was already in Crematorium 5, a train from Bialystok arrived. A prisoner on the ‘special detail’ saw a woman in the ‘undressing room’ who was the wife of a friend of his. He came right out and told her: ‘You are going to be exterminated. In three hours you’ll be ashes.’ The woman believed him because she knew him. She ran all over and warned to the other women. ‘We’re going to be killed. We’re going to be gassed.’ Mothers carrying their children on their shoulders didn’t want to hear that. They decided the woman was crazy. They chased her away. So she went to the men. To no avail. Not that they didn’t believe her. They’d heard rumors in the Bialystok ghetto, or in Grodno, and elsewhere. But who wanted to hear that? When she saw that no one would listen, she scratched her whole face. Out of despair. In shock. And she started to scream..."

Read the rest here.

Choose your loyalty wisely, because you may be spending a very long time with what you serve. And even if it is not a conscious choice of the moment, what you do, or do not, determines to whom you belong.

"Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants you are; whether of a corruption unto death, or of a righteousness unto life?"

It is not surprising that people sell themselves so badly, but rather that they also do it so cheaply.

The Big Lie

"ONE great puzzle about the recent housing bubble is why even most experts didn’t recognize the bubble as it was forming. Alan Greenspan, a very serious student of the markets, didn’t see it, and, moreover, he didn’t see the stock market bubble of the 1990s, either." Robert Shiller, How a Bubble Stayed Under the Radar, NY Times, March 2, 2008

“I recognise that there is a stock market bubble problem at this point, and I agree with Governor Lindsey that this is a problem that we should keep an eye on....We do have the possibility of raising major concerns by increasing margin requirements. I guarantee that if you want to get rid of the bubble, whatever it is, that will do it.” Alan Greenspan, September 24, 1996 FOMC Minutes

"While everyone enjoys an economic party the long-term costs of a bubble to the economy and society are potentially great. They include a reduction in the long-term saving rate, a seemingly random distribution of wealth, and the diversion of financial human capital into the acquisition of wealth. As in the United States in the late 1920s and Japan in the late 1980s, the case for a central bank ultimately to burst that bubble becomes overwhelming. I think it is far better that we do so while the bubble still resembles surface froth and before the bubble carries the economy to stratospheric heights. Whenever we do it, it is going to be painful, however.” Larry Lindsey, Federal Reserve Governor, September 24, 1996 FOMC Minutes (the same Larry Lindsey who was later fired by G. W. Bush for stating that the Iraq War could cost as much as 200 Billion dollars when Rumsfeld estimated less than 50 billion).

"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action...Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests." Gore Vidal, Imperial America, 2004

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it." United States Office of Strategic Services, Adolf Hitler, p.51

"...when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous...If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

" Joseph Goebbels

"All this was inspired by the principle...that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility, because the broad masses of a nation...often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation." Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." Adolf Hitler

"...we're going to redesign the current system...you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)" George W. Bush, May 24, 2005

"...the problem at its root is a flawed business model, and that business model is the product of a government regulatory decision to repeal Glass-Steagall administratively and legislatively, and to seek this tremendous concentration of power; and then the abuse of that power by the investment houses...What we want to do is clean up the system and hold the individuals accountable, and that is what we have tried to do...But there was an understanding that if we were to seek criminal sanctions against either the institution or the most senior people of the institution, the practical impact in our regulatory environment would have been to destroy those institutions, and then structural reform would be meaningless...because the harm to our economy that would result from eliminating a Citigroup or a Merrill Lynch is enormous, and it's disproportionate to the remedy that we want.....It was incredible. It was distressing to me how simple and outrageous it was. It wasn't so complicated that you said, "Wow, at least they're smart in the way they're doing it." It was simple. It was brazen. The evidence of it was overwhelming. It's just that it hadn't been revealed to the public, and that's why could get away with it...Right, we have seen a failure of accountability -- what I call a crisis of accountability -- over the past decade, in many institutions...Over the past decade we've wanted to deregulate, and we've said, "Let's get government out of the business of looking at these issues, and permit industry to control itself, because we can trust them." Maybe that's been a very good thing in some ways. One of the things that is eminently clear from our investigation is that all the compliance departments, all the self-regulation is nothing. They watched it, but they did nothing. So we've got to think this through, and it's not only the financial community. There are a lot of sectors where we have said self-regulation is the answer. We've got to think about it." Eliot Spitzer, The Wall Street Fix, March 16, 2003