The world falling apart

[altivo]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised so much, as I've been predicting many of these things for some time, but events of the last few days are still coming as a bit of a shock.

The US markets, of course, did as I expected today. S&P lowered the US government's rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday after the markets closed. I expected a panic to brew over the weekend and it did, so that a massive selloff today dropped the Wall St. indexes by over 5%, or as much as they lost in the entirety of last week's madness. This goes to show that, as I've been saying for some time, the markets are no longer underpinned by rationality, but are running largely on emotional or lemming-like forces. The proof appears particularly in the fact that the interest rates on US Treasury bills, the formal instrument of federal government borrowing, actually went DOWN today. This clearly indicates a lot of buying action, generated no doubt by the shifting of large sums of money being withdrawn from the stock markets. But these "investors" (and I use the term very loosely, because I think "speculators" and "gamblers" would be more appropriate) ran from the stock market because the government credit ratings had dropped, and instead put their money right into government loan certificates, lending it to the very institution whose credit rating has just been lowered. This is not rational, it is clear stupidity or at least ignorance. Meanwhile, S&P was running around lowering the credit ratings of other corporate bodies who, the agency said, "had too much of their funds invested in T-bills." So various large insurance companies and banks had their own credit ratings lowered merely because they owned US government debt paper, even while the market itself was demonstrating INCREASED faith in that same paper. Absurd enough to make you cry, isn't it?

A couple of people have pointed out, as well, that with the departure of the US from the ranks of the AAA rated governments, ALL the remaining AAA countries have universal health care. The US was the only AAA country without it, even though we were being told by conservatives that we couldn't afford it and it would bankrupt us. Odd and ironic, no?

I am also bemused by the rioting in London. Not by the fact that it is happening, but by the way in which many UK dwellers are responding. These are people who oppose the actions taken by various Islamic states against their rebellious citizens in the last few months, yet they are calling for similar actions to be taken by the UK government against its own subjects. If you're trying to make my head explode, folks, you won't succeed. But you will make me lose some respect for you. Any riot, once it begins, quickly draws in a criminal element that has no interest in the original cause and is there just to do damage and take advantage of the situation. But that doesn't mean that there isn't validity to the underlying cause. Western governments can indeed be just as oppressive as those in the Middle East, and they do so far more often than they want to admit. The US has demonstrated the same propensities that Assad or Qaddafi have shown us, and has done so repeatedly during its history. But the pot just loves to call the kettle black, doesn't it?

Then, on a much less earth-shaking level, someone who is a reasonably promising writer and otherwise sound tells me that every English teacher he ever had insisted that the construct "John and me" was ALWAYS wrong and should be replaced by "John and I" in all cases. Holy crap, Batman! Has US education really fallen so low? A quick check of Google shows me that this is not what anyone really seems to be saying. Quite the contrary. "Mary cooked dinner for John and I" is still incorrect, just as it always has been. "John and me went to Mary's for dinner" is also incorrect. Surely nowhere in the US, even in benighted TX or KS, is this being taught in schools. Surely? *whimper*

OK, I'll go bed now and try not to think about this stuff.

Comments

[hrrunka]

It's interesting to see the various agendas getting an airing following the looting and arson of the last couple of nights. Recent and planned cuts in police budgets are getting quite a bit of attention. Police efforts to reduce gun crime, likewise (as a botched anti-gun-crime operation seems to have been the triggering event). Its effect on big sporting fixtures (like the Holland vs England international soccer match tomorrow night at Wembly), and how it all looks to the International Olympic Committee (visiting London at the moment to see the 2012 site). Not so much on the way the shrinking economy creates areas full of young folk with no jobs, no money and not much hope, and so far in the media, nothing at all (yet) about the flip-side; communities getting together to clean up the mess, and so on.

[altivo]

Yes, I've noticed that. The reaction is not very different from what you'd get over here. Slavering right wingers shouting "kill them all" and "human interest" reports on the injured, wronged, and "innocent." No thought about the real causes and antecedents. Oh no, of course not. We can't suggest that rampant and uncontrolled capitalism produces social casualties like these, even though history shows us that it always, inevitably does so.

[schnee]

Any riot, once it begins, quickly draws in a criminal element that has no interest in the original cause and is there just to do damage and take advantage of the situation. But that doesn't mean that there isn't validity to the underlying cause.

Well said.

And you're right about western governments' ability (and, at times, willingness) to be just as oppressive as any dictatorship, too; just look at Julian Assange and Ai Wei Wei, for instance (and examine how the western media reported on either case).

[altivo]

The Assange incident is a good example, though it didn't involve mob activity. Assange himself seems to be a pretty despicable individual, though.

[schnee]

Perhaps — I never really cared about his private life. I think it's pretty obvious that somebody's trying to shut him up, though — if nothing else, then at least by restricting his ability to travel etc. and making sure all his time, energy and resources (especially financial resources) are spent on defending himself.

[avon_deer]

There's nothing like an accusation of rape or child molestation when it comes to destroying credibility. It works so fantastically well why not utilise it? Why bother refuting damaging evidence, when it's so much easier to destroy the person who brought it to the table?

[altivo]

I'm reserving judgement on that business. But I do question Assange's real motivation for much of what he has done. That doesn't keep me from also criticizing the reactions he has engendered.

[moonhare]

I did my part yesterday and invested in a new plush.

[altivo]

And the two I ordered arrived on Friday. The okapi is with his cousin on my windowsill at work now. The snowshoe hare is at home trying to find a place for himself amongst the carnivores and ponies.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

But that doesn't mean that there isn't validity to the underlying cause.

Unless it is an issue that I cared about *before* hearing about the protest, I tend to draw conclusions as to the validity of the underlying cause by the actions taken in the name of that cause. Is there any reason why I should not?

[altivo]

The difficulty with that is just what I pointed out. The picture of action you see includes a huge number of criminals who have no interest in the original events or causes, and are just in it for the violence and looting. This tends to cover up the sequence of events that produced the original incident.

I'm thinking of the race riots in the US back in 1967 and following years, or the demonstrations that turn to violence in middle eastern nations now. You can't judge the whole situation merely by the appearances that are there when the news finally arrives at the scene.

What I see (and of course I'm at some remove as well) is an incendiary situation that already existed, caused by economic policies and the recession that have increased unemployment terrifically among lower income populations. Then it only takes some callous behavior by authorities or police to produce an outburst. The outburst quickly snowballs into a full scale riot scene, where most of the participants either have no idea what's actually going on or are in fact professional criminals who quickly arrive to take advantage. Historically, this seems to be the course of events more often than not.

In the overreaction that follows, the original cause is overlooked or downplayed, which does nothing to prevent reoccurrence, and that in turn follows inevitably.

The UK, like the US, has fallen into the economic trap that is suddenly concentrating wealth and power into the hands of a very tiny minority. Those who were once at least somewhat comfortable with their place are being forced into severe discomfort. The consequences, just as in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, or Syria, are inevitable. We're just beginning to see it. Expect more and more until things are readjusted. If the adjustments don't take place, we may see a reign of terror to rival what happened in France after 1789.

[avon_deer]

That reply was brilliant. Exactly how I have been viewing the situation as well. I watched "Nicholas and Alexendra" on TV yesterday yesterday, and one

Tsar Nicholas II: I know what will make them happy. They're children, and they need a Tsar! They need tradition. Not this! They're the victims of agitators. A Duma would make them bewildered and discontented."

The state often dismisses insurrection as simple criminal elements. It's a trick as old as time. What *I* see when I hear that line, and when I see government reaction to the atrocious scenes unfolding in the UK is a vested interest scrambling about trying to defend the status quo.

The trouble with the looters in the UK is that they do not appear to be terribly educated. They don't know what is hurting them. They only know they are hurting. Their solution to this is to thieve and generally behave like moronic savages. This makes them very easy to demonise, and therefore bury any meaningful debate about the root cause of this criminality.

[altivo]

I've watched the same things unfold much closer to hand, so the idea isn't new to me. I remember the Detroit riot of 1967 very well and I lived in the suburbs at that time. My mate remembers the Chicago riot of 1968 with equal vividness. Then there were the Los Angeles riots of 1992. I think 1968 is the focal year for my suspicion over government and police activity when incidents like these come along, though.

That was the year in which both Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. It was also the year in which the Democrats held their convention in Chicago and failed to come to grips with any of the big issues of the time. Meanwhile the "Yippies" were demonstrating outside and Mayor Richard J. Daley authorized the use of police force to suppress dissent against the "business as usual" of the politicians. The media circus and trials that followed were a farce, of course. In fact, I wrote an alliterative poem at the time when Abbie Hoffman, Bobby Seale and the rest of the "Chicago 8" were on trial in a kangaroo courtroom presided over by right wing judge Julius J. Hoffmann. It was pretty well received in my undergraduate writing class as I recall.

Anyway, those were tumultuous years and it didn't end there. We had no idea that Kent State was still in the future, and the riots and demonstrations that followed that instance of government over-reaction are still burned into my mind as if with a red hot iron. I have never forgiven the federal or state governments of the US for their actions in that time period, and I look with suspicion on every instance of civil unrest anywhere in the world. What would be the difference between Tien An Min Square in 1989, Kent State in 1972, or the Battle of Lexington in 1775? The only difference is who came out the winner and who got to write the history books.

Mind, I'm not ascribing noble purpose to the rioters in today's UK, nor am I justifying any acts of violence. But I also note that the reaction to the violence that I see is that of the wealthy, comfortable individual who prefers not to have to think deeply about what's going on. Complaints about shuttered stores, or a disruption in the delivery of goods and services, but no thought given to the lives and suffering of the real victims. Instead I'm seeing demands that rioters be denied all government services for the rest of their lives. Welcome, friends, to the 18th century, when the wealthy still had the power of life and death over the under classes, and wielded that power without concern or mercy. We see the vestiges of that era in the writing of many British authors, including very notably Charles Dickens...

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Again, I repeat, if I didn't know or didn't care about what someone was protesting about, *before* hearing about the protests, I am not going to change my mind in their favour if people start smashing things.

And I should add, that I am not likely to give them the benefit of the doubt if ANYTHING associated or even just co-located with the protests is threatening to me personally. I would want the police called whether the looters were part of the protest or not. To be so charitable as to say that I shouldn't want the police involved is just plain stupid.

[altivo]

I never said that the police shouldn't be involved. But what I keep hearing is people calling for all out military action, firing live ammunition into crowds, etc. This puts then on an equal footing with Assad or Qaddafi and is no more acceptable in my mind than the acts of the looters. The assumption that wealth and comfort trumps the human rights of anyone is never valid.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Well, at this point, I'd use your own "some, but not all" logic back atcha to point out that the majority simply want police to stop the rioting, not unleash bloodshed upon the crowds.

[altivo]

But my original comment was directed specifically to the people who have been calling for all out warfare on the rioters.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Your original comment only refers to what various Islamic states have done. That's a pretty broad category, and would seem to include those who simply want a lot more arrests to be made.

To say that ALL the Islamic states have "declared all out war" upon protesters recently... well that's a form of Islamophobia in itself, because it isn't true, and you should check yourself before making such an association.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

I don't think that addresses my point AT ALL.

If a band of thugs was proceeding to smash things and coming towards my house, I would want the police to intervene regardless of whether I agreed with any "legitimate protests" that happened to be going on in the area.

[altivo]

Police intervention of some sort, sure. But army tanks firing live ammunition, no.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Something else I should probably comment on.

universal health care. The US was the only AAA country without it, even though we were being told by conservatives that we couldn't afford it and it would bankrupt us.

This is because countries with universal health care MUST have the tax base to cover such an expense, and therefore have a lot more slack to deal with unexpected expenses. So not only does universal health care make people healthier, but it makes a countries' finances more robust too.

HOWEVER...
That is not to say that now would be a good time for the US to institute such a thing. During the early-to-mid-1990's Canada had to deal with a high debt to GDP ratio, and was downgraded from AAA too. So we had to go through a period of fiscal austerity, which had the beneficial effect of eventually balancing our budget, which stayed balanced until this recession. However, it also robbed money from our health care system for a while, and that has lasting effects that persist to this day: unreasonable waiting lists, people without family doctors, etc...
If Canada, which has the political will to have and keep a universal health care system, could barely manage to keep its existing system together during financial conditions which are not even as severe as what the US is facing today, it is well nigh laughable to suggest that the USA could start up universal health care now. It just can't afford it right now, period.

[altivo]

Right now the US can't find it's own asshole. But that argument was being used even when there was a surplus in the treasury. It's a blatant lie.

If we got rid of Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, we could wipe out the deficit pretty fast. The sad truth is, Reaganomics is and always was a lie. All it does is widen the gulf between the rich minority and a growing poverty-stricken majority. Add the laissez faire attitude toward regulation that Reagan started and Bush carried to an extreme, and you have, as I keep pointing out, a return to the standards of the 18th century. Population exist only to be wage slaves and make more wealth for the few who own everything. "If they be like to die, then let them do it, and decrease the surplus population." Or, if you prefer, "Let them eat cake." That's where we're heading, faster and faster. Inevitably this will lead to revolts by the oppressed, and to the comfortably wealthy those revolts will look like "senseless violence." I'm not accusing you of that, but I think you aren't looking at this in sufficient depth.

Of course it needs to be stopped, but addressing it the wrong way can easily tip it over into an even worse situation.