Monthly Archives: October 2008
Looking at the CRISIS in "the financial crisis", or Alan Greenspan was not only asleep all these years but he never was wearing any clothes
I’ve heard a lot about the “financial” in the “financial crisis”, but little regarding the “crisis” in the financial crisis. Perhaps we should stop and listen to an analyst of a persuasion other than the economic one, even if only briefly. Jacques-Alain Miller is one of the world’s most renowned psychoanalysts.
The financial universe is an architecture made of fictions and its keystone is what Lacan called a “subject supposed to know”, to know why and how. Who plays this part? The concert of authorities, from where sometimes a voice is detached, Alan Greenspan, for example, in his time. The financial players base their behavior on this. The fictional and hyper-reflexive unit holds by the “belief” in the authorities, i.e. through the transference to the subject supposed to know. If this subject falters, there is a crisis, a falling apart of the foundations, which of course involves effects of panic.
However, the financial subject supposed to know was already quite subdued because of deregulation. And this happened because the financial world believed, in its infatuated delusion, to be able to work things out without the function of the subject supposed to know. Firstly, the real state assets become waste. Secondly, gradually shit permeates everything. Thirdly, there is a gigantic negative transfer vis-à-vis the authorities; the electric shock of the Paulson/Bernanke plan angers the public: the crisis is one of trust; and it will last till the subject supposed to know is reconstructed. This will come in the long term by way of a new set of Bretton Woods accords, a council enjoined to speak the truth about the truth.
On the related matter of the baselessness of liberal economic theory see RPPE.
You know that in principle I’m profoundly against strategic voting, which I see as the symptom not the cure for a deeply flawed electoral system. But I guess if there’s one thing worse than “strategic voting” it’s “non strategic strategic voting”. “Strategic voting” advocates say to vote for Peggy Nash in the riding of Parkdale High Park.
I know it’s not a shocker, but do link over there for some very compelling reasons to vote for Jack Layton and the NDP.
When Cherniak writes that “Elizabeth May has told her supporters to vote Liberal in ridings where Liberals can win,” he is willfully lying. Cherniak needs either to quote a source that says otherwise, or retract his story. From the Green Party website Oct. 12, 2008, “Elizabeth May did not advise strategic voting”:
Green Party leader Elizabeth May has not called on voters to abandon Green Party candidates. A news story that states otherwise is misleading.
Ms. May did say that, “Being honest with the voters, I acknowledge that there is concern over vote-splitting in a small number of ridings. But I am not going to say ‘vote Liberal here, vote NDP there.’
“I do understand how difficult choices can be due to the perverse results of the first-past-the-post voting system. Canada needs an electoral system that accurately represents how Canadians vote.
“I repeated over and over that I would not advise voters to vote for anyone other than Greens. Attempts to misrepresent my position on this issue are tiring. I do not support strategic voting and I have not advised voters to choose any candidate other than Green.”
Throughout this campaign I’ve written mainly with the “progressive” voter in mind, and have attempted to discredit the Liberal Party of Canada’s claim to represent that label. I’ve discussed things like disingenuous or cynical politics played by Liberals (here, here, here, here). I’ve noted Dion’s highly dubious costing of the Liberal platform and his “regressive” voodoo economics around the Liberal position on slashing corporate tax rates. Progressive voters really just need to keep in mind, that if the Liberal Party of Canada actually stood for “progress”, they would run on electoral reform to address a failing, unfair electoral system which produces things like strategic voting and I believe is partly responsible for decreasing voter turnouts and citizen participation in our democracy.
WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ABOUT PEGGY:
“Peggy Nash brings years of real experience in negotiating with some of Canada’s largest businesses. Canada needs her judgement and skills in the House of Commons in this time of uncertainty and worry.”
Jim Stanford, Economist and Contributing Columnist, Globe and Mail
“This exemplary woman is not a promise. Peggy Nash is a given.”
Cheri DiNovo, MPP Parkdale- High Park
“ You can vote with more than your heart, even your head, for … Peggy Nash in Parkdale-High Park…. and be confident that you will have made your mark beside the name of one of the best MPs that Canada will elect next week.”
NOW, October, 9, 2008
“One of the best local MPs in any party….”
Don Martin, The National Post, October 6, 2008
“…power chick NDP (MP) Peggy Nash… and MPP Cheri DiNovo, they have the riding all sewn up”
Christina Blizzard, Toronto Sun, Sept 24, 2008
“Kudos …to MP Peggy Nash for spurring opposition to the sale of Canadarm and Radarsat-2 satellite technology to a U.S. defence contractor…”
David Olive, Toronto Star, April 14, 2008
“Laurels to …MP Peggy Nash: For standing up for Ontario; too often our representatives in Ottawa forget their roots.”
Editorial Page, Toronto Star, March 1, 2008
p.s. sadly Democracy Watch also applies “Dishonesty Downgrade” to All parties
This is an embarrassment. I would be ashamed to have this weasling opportunist as my Prime Minister, especially on an international stage. If Dion can only perform in a tightly controled and scripted situation (like the partisan confines of CBC giving him a free hour on Cross Country Check-Up), then Layton was right to punk his ass. If Dion can’t perform the duties of the Official opposition what is he doing running for PM?
“I [said Dion] was elected to lead the people of this party to leave a better planet.”
“No,” said Bob Rae. “You were elected because you’re not me and you’re not Michael Ignatieff.”
Apparently this latest bout of “lack of comprehensionitis”, known more commonly as “What? You expect me to work without a tele prompter!” is contagious. Watch the Liberal candidate trying to defend Dion. What a nightmare!
While the lazy and brazen shills for Dion over at the CBC and the Star prepare to cheerlead Dion’s plan for the economy today, thought I’d post some information on Dion’s economics that you’ll never hear from them, but you nevertheless should know. It vexes me to think that Canadians are heading into polling stations for such an important vote so completely swindled and uninformed, owing in some measure to their own apathy and lack of interest, but in large measure to a negligent and partisan media. Actually, what “progressive” voters REALLY need to understand is that the LIBERALS ARE NOT “PROGRESSIVE.”
corporate tax cuts have not achieved their stated goals of attracting more investment or reported profits to Canada. Certainly, they have not increased corporate tax revenues.
p.s. If you link to PEF article please note the comments section where we see what a healthy and intelligent debate might sound like.
I stand by my earlier argument that they [the Liberals] can’t balance the Budget, deeply cut corporate taxes, oppose new taxes (outside the internally consistent green shift package) AND make major new spending promises outside the green shift – all in the context of a slumping economy.
The costing here is dubious at best.
We get four year spending and tax reduction totals with little or no detail on timing. No adjustment is really made for slowing growth and rising unemployment.
Clearly a lot of the good new stuff outside the green shift is shunted off to the future. As a key case in point, last week the Liberals promised to bring in a $1.25 Billion per year national child care program. Today, that program is costed at $1.5 Billion over 4 years. That’s a slow phase in, to say the least. Another case in point is municipal infrastructure spending, which barely increases over the status quo for the next four years.
We get a modest dose of Reaganomics and supply-side tax cut magic. Cutting the tax rate on income trusts will supposedly raise $1 Billion in new revenues.
The Liberals actually raise the ante on balanced budgets, promising Martin era determination to run surpluses to pay down debt. They promise to restore the $3 Billion Contingency Reserve – to my mind implying spending cuts “come hell or high water” even if we go into recession.
That’s bad enough, What is worse is that their fiscal plan depends on unspecificed cuts of $12 Billion over 4 years – a not inconsiderable sum after continuing rounds of “program review.”
Last but not least, they say they will borrow $25 Billion to fund post secondary education, but this will somehow be done outside the Government of Canada spending envelope and promised debt reduction.
Dion is practicing voodoo “regressive” economics supported by a dubiously costed platform. And he has the gall to dismiss the NDP plan as “socialist” and a “job killer”. I wonder how the electorate become so misinformed when leaders like Dion resort to old canards, fear mongering, and Red baiting. Dion is the WRONG leader! Otherwise Liberals would be staring at a majority right now, instead of same old same old.
While desperately groveling for the “progressive” vote, Liberal hack Jason Cherniak unwittingly tells the truth about why the Liberals refuse to run on electoral reform, and, incidentally, why McGuinty did everything possible to make sure MMP didn’t come to pass in Ontario. Cherniak writes:
Progressive voters need to understand that the seat distribution in Canada favours the Liberals over any other party.
Oh really! Actually, what “progressive” voters need to understand is that the Liberals are NOT running on electoral reform, which, in my view, disqualifies them from any claims to the term “progressive.” Strategic voting is a symptom of the flaw in the system, not a cure! In fact, if we’re going to play to a strength of the FPTP system (i.e. local representation) we should all simply vote for the candidate which best represents our interest and desires.