Thursday, December 08, 2016

U.S. Census Bureau, I.R.S. and St. Louis Federal Reserve Added to Washington Post's list of "Russian Propaganda" Websites

Sorry, U.S. Census Bureau, I.R.S. and St. Louis Federal Reserve--you're issuing "Russian propaganda" according to The Washington Post's shoddy "fake news" methodology.
In case you missed it, The Washington Post's criminally careless publishing of "fake news" about purported "Russian propaganda" created a backlash--and the Post's attorney-approved bleating to sidestep responsibility for publishing "fake news" failed to calm the waters.
Here's The Washington Post's "fake news" article in case you missed it: Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say.
The "experts" claims of expertise were not validated or investigated by the Post, and the Post prominently linked to a list of 200 websites (oftwominds.com among them) that purportedly "wittingly or unwittingly" promoted "Russian propaganda"--but The Washington Post did zero journalistic work to investigate the list or the anonymous "experts" that published it.
Since the list is bogus, the entire story qualifies as "fake news"--exactly what the Post claims to be investigating. Talk about irony....
This criminally sloppy publishing of "fake news" isn't journalism--it's propaganda. No amount of slippery legalese can erase the fact that The Washington Post published a "fake news" story and featured it prominently on page one.
Let me explain the "methodology" behind the "Russian propaganda" list: guilt by association. Here's how this works. Say you're in a totalitarian state with a media controlled by a handful of state-corporate interests. (Sound familiar?)
You have lunch with a colleague who is an acquaintance, discuss kids' soccer and gripes about the boss, and you go home, thinking nothing of it.
The secret police are waiting to arrest you. Your crime is "consorting with an "enemy of the state:" your colleague, unbeknownst to you, is considered an "enemy of the state," and by having lunch with him, you are guilty by association.
This is the precise methodology of The Washington Post's shoddy "fake news" list of "Russian propaganda" websites. Any association with an "enemy of the state" site like RT (Russia Today) convicts you by association of being an "enemy of the state."
Neither the "fake news" publishers of the list nor The Washington Post combed through the thousands of pages of blog posts on my site and identified those purported to be "Russian propaganda." They didn't bother, because, well, that would have taken some serious journalistic work.
Instead, they labeled oftwominds.com as guilty by association. Here is a chart of my guilt by association:
Just as a reminder, every major power funds international media outlets.consider BBC (U.K.); Radio Liberty (USA); France 24 (France); NHK (Japan) and China's overseas broadcast empire.
It doesn't take much of a dose of cui bono (to whose benefit?) to grasp that state-owned and operated media (even if it is at arm's length to maintain a claim to "journalism") aim to paint the issuing state in rosy hues while publicizing the woes of its rivals.
Even the most dimwitted mainstream media "journalist" grasps this obvious fact. The rest of us certainly do.
So let's extend The Washington Post's shoddy "fake news" methodology just a bit, to the sources of oftwominds.com's "Russian propaganda." Since oftwominds.com's content relies on statistics from these three websites, clearly they are guilty by association.
Here's the revised chart with another layer of "Russian propaganda" sites: the U.S. Census Bureau, the I.R.S. and St. Louis Federal Reserve (FRED). These sites are integral to oftwominds.com's output, and so by supplying oftwominds.com with anti-status quo content, they too are guilty of wittingly or unwittingly spreading "Russian propaganda."
This is the logic of totalitarianism--guilt by association. Just in case you haven't seen the dozens of charts I use in my "Russian propaganda" from the St. Louis Federal Reserve (FRED), take a gander at this:
My analysis Endangered Species: The Self-Employed Middle Class relies on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and I.R.S. website data.
My analysis on Why We Keep Getting Poorer: High-Cost Housing is totally dependent on data drawn from the US Census Bureau website.
Sorry, U.S. Census Bureau, I.R.S. and St. Louis Federal Reserve--you're issuing "Russian propaganda" according to The Washington Post's shoddy "fake news" methodology. Your data enabled oftwominds.com and other independent journalist sites to issue content that was skeptical of official claims that are endlessly parroted by a bought-and-paid-for corporate media.
You are guilty by association. So go ahead, Washington Post, extend the logic of the absurdly threadbare "methodology" of your fake-news "experts" and add the U.S. Census Bureau, I.R.S. and St. Louis Federal Reserve to the list of websites that are guilty by association of "Russian propaganda."
Oh, and in case you didn't get the definition of "Russian propaganda:" it's anything that is skeptical or critical of America's ruling elite and its corporate-media shills. Remember: America's ruling elite is so wonderful and our prosperity is so fantastic that domestic dissent is impossible. Any dissent must be the work of foreign devils.
And that's why we're now swimming in the raw sewage of The Washington Post's "fake news".


Join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Paul P. ($15), for your very generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.
Thank you, Diane W. ($5), for your most generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Wednesday, December 07, 2016

Populism in America: "Follow the Money"

If you want to understand today's populism, don't look to the mainstream media's comically buffoonish propaganda blaming the Russians: look at the four issues listed below.
One of the most disturbing failures of the mainstream media in this election cycle was its complete lack of historical context for Trump's brand of populism.If you consumed the mainstream media's coverage of the campaign and election, you noted their obsession with speech acts (as opposed to concrete actions), personalities and conspiracy theories pinning American populism on Russian propaganda.
The mainstream media dismisses populism by pushing two absurdly ignorant narratives:
1. Populism (we're told) always leads to authoritarian rules and/or fascism (i.e. Nazism). All populist movements are therefore tarred with the Nazism brush: no good could possibly come from Populist movements because they always lead to fascism.
This is convenient for the apologists of the embattled status quo, but it's utterly false:America's enormous populist movements have never led to fascism.
2. Since the status quo is wonderful and America's economy is strong, dissent or populism cannot be home-grown--it must be the work of the Devil, in the guise of "foreign propaganda."
Notice the classic propaganda ploy being deployed here: since dissent is impossible in a regime as well-managed and prosperous as America's status quo, populism must be driven and controlled by evil foreign agents.
This is laughably absurd: America's populist movements, including the present one, have been revolts against the concentrated wealth and power of self-serving status quo elites.
If the mainstream media actually employed well-informed analysts rather than empty-headed politically correct parrots, you might have learned that America has a long and rich history of populism that did not lead to authoritarianism or fascism.
Mike Swanson of WallStreetWindow.com and I recently discussed Populism and political realignments in a 34-minute podcastCharles Hugh Smith on The Mainstream Media and the Populist Global Revolt.
There have been several major populist movements against the ruling elites:Andrew Jackson's election in 1828 stemmed from such a revolt, and the Populist Party (a.k.a. People's Party) and Socialist Party movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s were progressive/left-wing reactions to the enormous concentrations of wealth and power in the elites of the day.
Both movements attacked the money and credit mechanisms of the elites: in Jackson's case, the target was the Second Bank of the United States; in the Populist Party era, the issue was free silver, i.e. the expansion of the money supply via issuing silver coinage.
There are two dynamics at work beneath the surface of populist movements.One is a transformation in the dominant mode of production, i.e. the organization and ownership of the productive assets that power economic growth, and the second is the political realignment that results from a transformation in the mode of production.
In the 19th century, agrarian interests that were losing power to industry and banking/ finance typically found expression in populist movements.
Such movements included an elite faction that saw its power and wealth being threatened by new elites. For example, England's landed gentry resisted the political and economic power of industrialists, who sought an expansion of the engines of their wealth: global trade and a poorly paid, mobile urban workforce.
Mike mentioned a seminal book, Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems, which proposes there is actually only one party in America: the property party, i.e. those who own the productive assets of the nation.
The winds of change can be understood by tracking which wealthy factions are funding the two political parties. Author Thomas Ferguson makes the case that Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency partly as a result of the financial support of large multinational corporations with global interests.
Roosevelt's opponents were typically domestic companies that depended on cheap labor and stiff tariffs to keep out competition.
The current era of populism is perhaps best typified by Bernie Sanders, who raised a phenomenal $234 million from individuals, with Political Action Committees (PACS) contributing a thin sliver of $6.3 million to his campaign.
There is no better proof that today's populism is deep-rooted and broad-based than Sanders' astounding $234 million contributions from individuals, not elites.Please name me another presidential candidate who raised 97% of their funding from small donors.
Hillary Clinton raised a gargantuan $1.3 billion,of which $188 million came from Super-PACs. A tiny percentage of her total funds came from small donors; her campaign raised $556 million and the Democratic Party's (elitist) fund-raising committees ponied up another $544 million. (source)
Trump's campaign raised about 27% of its funds from small donors, compared to the Romney campaign's 6%.
Today's populism has drawn funding from individuals and enterprises who have been left out of globalism's massive increase in elitist wealth. If we look for issues that crossed party lines, i.e. that drew support from both Sanders and Trump supporters, we find four core issues:
1. Anti-globalism
2. disgust with the Establishment's self-serving corrupt elites, i.e. anti-elitism
3. Economic nationalism
4. Anti-endless-neocon-wars, drone strikes, foreign entanglements
Issues 1, 3 and 4 were encapsulated in Democrat George McGovern's 1972 campaign slogan come home, America, a message disdained by today's Democratic Party elites, who have skimmed hundreds of millions in campaign contributions from global finance and corporate interests.
Take a look at these charts of U.S. corporate profits and the decline of labor's share of GDP, and ask: isn't the source of today's populist disgust and anger at America's ruling elites rather obvious?
Is it coincidence that corporate profits skyrocketed from about 2001, right when labor's share of GDP fell off a cliff? If you want to understand today's populism, don't look to the mainstream media's comically buffoonish propaganda blaming the Russians: look at the four issues listed above and these two charts.
Mike Swanson and Charles Hugh Smith on The Mainstream Media and the Populist Global Revolt (34 minute podcast).

For what it's worth, my copy editor reckons Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) is my best book. It is, if nothing else, highly relevant to today's economic/social schisms.


Join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Albert F. ($5/month), for your monumentally generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.
Thank you, Edward L. ($50), for your splendidly generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Read more...

Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Our "Gaslight" Economy

If you don't like what these charts are saying, please notify The Washington Post to add the St. Louis Federal Reserve to its list of Russian propaganda sites.
Yesterday I described our gaslight financial system. Today we'll look at our gaslight economy. Correspondent Jason H. alerted me to the work of author Thomas Sheridan ( Puzzling People: The Labyrinth of the Psychopath), who claims to have coined the term gaslighting.
As noted yesterday, gaslighting has often been used in the context of personal relationships to describe a manipulative person's attempts to undermine and control their romantic partner.
In a larger context, these manipulative techniques can also be applied to our perception of the entire economy:
1. Questioning, belittling, discounting and undermining our experience of economic "animal spirits" and general conditions.
2. Overwriting our memory of the economy of the past, again by undermining, questioning and belittling our memories.
3. Discrediting and marginalizing our definitions of economic well-being, in favor of the manipulator's definition of our well-being.
4. Using authority and "experts" to disqualify and discredit dissenting views.
5. Denigrate and deny our lived experience of economic conditions by repeating the institutionalized authority-approved narrative of "what actually happened."
6. Disorient, discredit and destroy dissent with a torrent of false statistics, false narratives, false accusations and false claims of our errors.
It seems obvious to me that we are being gaslighted to forget the widely distributed prosperity of the past and accept that the stagnation of the past 16 years is equivalently prosperous--in direct contradiction to the lived experience and memories of the bottom 80%.
Please compare the following four charts of unemployment, real hourly pay, inflation and full-time jobs with your economic experiences of the past two decades. The mainstream media and financial media are saturating us with claims that the economy is doing great: unemployment is a historically low 4.6%, real wages rose an astonishing 5% this year, millions of new jobs have been created, interest rates are at all-time lows, inflation is subdued and all in all, the U.S. economy is doing great--and if you disagree, well, you're a Russian propagandist because legitimate dissent is impossible.
Here are the charts that illustrate our phony gaslight economy, with my notes.Please note the charts are from that well-known website of Russian propaganda, the St. Louis Federal Reserve (FRED).
Over the past 60 years, an unemployment rate of 4.6% correlated with a booming economy of strong job growth and rising wages. Do you think the economy is booming, outside of hotspots such as San Francisco, CA and Portland, OR? The top 5% have done very very well over the past 16 years, but what about the bottom 95%?
Official inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index shows a mere 10% total inflation since mid-2008. Does this align with your experience of real inflation? Here is my view: The Burrito Index: Consumer Prices Have Soared 160% Since 2001 (August 1, 2016)
While hourly compensation has gone up 60% since 1970, when adjusted for inflation it has declined. If this is prosperity, then what does stagnation look like?
Here's a chart of full-time employment. Does that tiny blip higher after eight years of "recovery" look like a widely distributed boom to you?
What else can we make of the vast gulf between the status quo's ceaseless projection of "the economy is strong" and these charts--and our own experience? As for memory-- those of us who have been working for the past 40+ years recall real prosperity--and the past eight years are not at all like periods of prosperity in the past.
Rather, the few at the top have amassed vast wealth while the bottom 95% have experienced stagnant wages and declining real wealth.
If you don't like what these charts are saying, please notify The Washington Post to add the St. Louis Federal Reserve to its list of Russian propaganda sites.

For what it's worth, my copy editor reckons Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) is my best book. It is, if nothing else, highly relevant to today's economic/social schisms.


Join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Lloyd S. ($5/month), for your superbly generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.
Thank you, Harvey D. ($5/month), for your splendidly generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Monday, December 05, 2016

Our "Gaslight" Financial System

Perhaps the ultimate gaslighting in human history is our current fiat money creation system that benefits the few at the expense of the many.
The terms gaslight and gaslighting are entering the political media lexicon, with partisans of both parties accusing the other side's candidate of gaslighting in the presidential election. The terms refers to the 1944 film Gaslight in which Charles Boyer subtly manipulates the environment to cause Ingrid Bergman to question her memory and sanity.
Generally speaking, gaslighting has been used in the context of personal relationships to describe a manipulative person's attempts to undermine and control their romantic partner.
As I understand it, gaslighting refers to a specific set of manipulative techniques:
1. Questioning, belittling, discounting and undermining our experience of places and events.
2. Overwriting our memory of events with false memories, again by undermining, questioning and belittling our memories.
3. Discrediting and marginalizing our definitions of self and identity, in favor of the manipulator's definition of our identity and place in the world.
4. Using authority and "experts" to disqualify and discredit dissenting views.
5. Denigrate and deny our lived experience and memory by repeating the institutionalized authority-approved narrative of "what actually happened."
6. Disorient, discredit and destroy dissent with a torrent of false statistics, false narratives, false accusations and false claims of our errors.
Correspondent C.D. suggests gaslighting can be applied to the entire financial system. Here are his comments in reference to last week's post Beyond Income Inequality:
Do Wallerstein or Picketty (or any mainstream economists) ever talk about larceny via extortion, fraud, artifice, forgery, false pretense, and conversion, among other types of theft? Do they talk about interest-bearing, debt-based money? If they don't, I think they're missing two gargantuan pieces of the puzzle.
Nations have lost trillions (in today's money) from theft/larceny since the 15th century and have paid many more trillions in interest.....often to the same criminals who stole these vast amounts of money. Economists that don't look at these things are like a business owner who just looks at his costs and sales without looking at the employees who are fudging their time cards and stealing money from the till and then wonders why he isn't making any profit.
It seems to me that only crimes committed on a small and moderate scale are punished; the large crimes are rarely punished. Indeed, people venerate various systems that systematically plunder whole nations and give it a name that ends in "ism" and then the big players in the system are protected and even lionized.
We have a fundamental problem with dishonest weights and measures.... in this case, money/currency. What would happen if someone was using false scales to buy and sell grains? They would go to prison (hopefully). What happens when someone uses pieces of paper that are used to measure ones work/time/effort (money/currency) where there is built in scarcity and an inexorable decline in the value of the that paper due to its debt-based, interest bearing nature? Well, they get to live high on the hog and hire people at banks, government, and universities, who then convince everyone that this paper is good and provides security and prosperity.
The convincing of people to accept this system is a form of gaslighting done by psychopaths. We have been gaslighted so much in our lives, most people can't imagine what life would be without it.
We are bounced from one extreme to another where the "isms" fight over who will steal from whom and how much, all the while, the thieves at the top (who often develop the theories that become "isms") get more and more at the expense of the rest of us. If you have not done so, I urge you to research the concept of gaslighting. I think it will help you in further understanding why things are the way that they are.
Thank you, C.D., for an eye-opening application of gaslighting to our entire money/financial system. I have addressed the role of centrally created and distributed money many times, for example If We Don't Change the Way Money Is Created and Distributed, We Change Nothing (December 24, 2015).
Exposing the racket at the very heart of our money is one key topic in my bookA Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology & Creating Jobs for All.
Here's the reality: our currency (money) is created at the top of the wealth/ power apex, by central and private banks. This money is borrowed into existence, so somebody (either taxpayers or borrowers) must pay interest on the new money.
None of this money is created at the bottom of the pyramid where the 99.9% live. You want some new money? You'll have to borrow it and pay interest.
Our entire money system is a "trickle down" racket: the banks and financiers can borrow unlimited sums into existence, and some of this "trickles down" to the 99.9% via mortgages, auto loans, etc., or perhaps a few service jobs if a corporation that's close to the money spigot expands operations in the U.S.
But as I have explained many times, most recently in Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform, those close to the new money spigot can outbid everyone else for income-producing assets, and scoop up the national income without hiring even one more worker.
The "crazy" alternative to the money only benefits the .1% racket I propose is to create money at the bottom of the pyramid when someone performs useful work in their community. In my view, it makes sense to create new money when useful labor is performed, not when a bank or financier needs nearly-free money to buy assets or issue credit cards carrying 23% annual interest rates.
Labor-backed crypto-currency sounds "crazy" until the whole money-only-serves-the-top-.1% system collapses under its own weight. When all the "money" that's been created to serve the central and private banks vanishes in a financial supernova--a possibility considered "impossible" by the mainstream, along with rising interest rates and inflation--then what is "crazy" and "impossible" change rather radically: the "impossible" becomes not just possible but inevitable, and the "crazy" suddenly makes perfect sense.
Perhaps the ultimate gaslighting in human history is our current fiat money creation system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. We've been manipulated into believing this is the only possible monetary system and the only possible financial system.
Not true. Wake up, people. There are other ways to create and distribute new money, and other ways to arrange a financial system to serve the many rather than the few.
The status quo apologists will of course angrily deny this reality (see above graphic). Their own place at the trough requires them to defend the indefensible. Their denial and anger are indicators of gaslighting and their own sad acceptance of servitude.

For what it's worth, my copy editor reckons Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) is my best book. It is, if nothing else, highly relevant to today's economic/social schisms.


Join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Julie P. ($8/month), for your superbly generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.
Thank you, Sae-Hon K. ($5/month), for your splendidly generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Terms of Service

All content on this blog is provided by Trewe LLC for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. These terms and conditions of use are subject to change at anytime and without notice.


Our Privacy Policy:
Correspondents' email is strictly confidential. The third-party advertising placed by Adsense, Investing Channel and/or other ad networks may collect information for ad targeting. Links for commercial sites are paid advertisements. Blog links on the site are posted at my discretion.


Our Commission Policy:
Though I earn a small commission on Amazon.com books and gift certificates purchased via links on my site, I receive no fees or compensation for any other non-advertising links or content posted on my site.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP