Let’s Talk About Solutions, Not Fake Fixes

Since the status quo has no workable Plan B to “growth” in an economy in which household incomes have declined 8.5% in a supposedly expanding economy, real solutions must arise outside the status quo.

It’s a lot easier to talk about what’s wrong with the status quo and fake fixes than it is to talk about real solutions–for a number of reasons.

1. It’s clear to virtually everyone who isn’t being paid to make absurd claims that everything is peachy that the status quo is failing, so discussing the failings is like shooting fish in a barrel.

2. Grousing indignation (at all the failings) is an easy state to sustain; solving problems is an entirely different and not-so-easy state to sustain.

3. Emotional numbness brought on by financial distress and exhaustion reduces interest in solutions–there doesn’t seem to be any when you’re exhausted.

4. The predatory, parasitic status quo generates social fragmentation and an incoherence that breeds disassociation and alienation, neither of which are conducive to discussing solutions.

5. Since the status quo has no workable Plan B to “growth” in an economy in which household incomes have declined 8.5% in a supposedly expanding economy, real solutions must arise outside the status quo, which means the vested interests will lose their stranglehold on wealth and power. This is a no-no, so any solutions that lead to this are marginalized, ridiculed, labeled “impossible,” etc.

6. To solve a problem we must first diagnose the problem correctly. The correct diagnosis of the current pathological status quo is: the problem is not X,Y or Z–the problem is the system itself.

I am indebted to correspondent Tom R. for extracting what might be the core diagnosis of our ills from my discussion with Max and Stacy: “We’ve been brainwashed into financializing the human experience.” (at the 9:20 mark)

This is not a problem that can be fixed by tweaking state-cartel policies (Obamacare, banking, etc.) i.e. fake fixes. This is a problem that requires a complete rethinking of centralization, money creation, empire, wealth, prosperity, consumption and how we live.

We touch on many of these core problems and outline a few structural solutions in this 25-minute discussion:

Summer Solutions with Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert (25:45)

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • jadan

    Sounds like you’ve been having coffee with Michael Snyder. In terms of constructive solutions to “collapse of the empire” it might be useful to point out that the US is not an empire like mother Britain was. It is a large and powerful nation with its fingers in many pies, but it is the leader of a global capitalist enterprise, an orchestrator and facilitator of corporate “private enterprise”. It is not correct to be speaking of the collapse of empire. It is the failure of globalization that should concern us. This globalization is the pet project of the billionaire class, the global elite, the neo-aristocracy. There is a war against nationalism and localism sponsored by this elite globe trotting group. Europe has actually demonized nationalism to the point that separate countries have abandoned self-det3eermination. Vis a vis the elite group, we the people are like Greece. We lack control over our own money and we lack democratic control of our state & federal governments. This control has been taken from us by the billionaire class through its corporate apparatus.

    • diogenes

      The aptly initialed B.S. is a hoax. The Two Party System is a hoax. Political action that proposes to start with or work with the Two Party System is a hoax. Please get real.

    • cityspeak

      I disagree. It is an Empire. This “elite group” has access to a fully functioning and brutal police state (NSA, FBI, CIA) and the world’s most powerful military. We have seen how this intelligence and military apparatus is used repeatedly to achieve the empire’s objectives and goals. Don’t get hung up on the fact that not everyone in the group is of a specific nationality.

      • jadan

        Empire means different countries under the control of an emperor or empress. The Roman empire recognized the emperor as supreme ruler in each dominion. Great Britain subdued India and imposed its political structure. The US is not an empire in this sense. Rarely in modern times does it invade and subdue a sovereign nation, as it did with Iraq. “Regime change” is the usual method of displacing uncooperative leadership. It subverts, as it did in Iran in the 50’s, and installs a dictator, the Shah. It puts cooperative leaders in place to allow the exploitation of a nation’s resources by corporate interests. It dominates sovereign nations through corruption and the threat of force, or false flag incidents. The result of this subversive policy is global interdependency. US steel makers have gone the way of the Dodo bird because the Chinese do it cheaper. Globalization means no nation can stand alone and provide for all its own needs. The US military is the primary tool to support this globalization. We have become interdependent through trade agreements, labor arbitrage, and elimination of tariffs ( “trade barriers”), which means we are no longer independent or “sovereign” as we once were. American hegemony is manipulation, not domination. The empire cannot collapse because it is not an empire! It is a network of interdependency, called globalization, built on trade. This network is failing due to economic stagnation and the failure of financialization world wide. If we are to cope, we should know what it is were dealing with….and it’s not an empire in the classical sense.

        • animalogic

          At best your point is probably a semantic quibble: whether “empire” or not the US is the apex imperial power of its day– just as Rome and Britain were in their’s.
          Actually, both Rome and Britain often attempted to rule their empires in ways similar to the US: indirect rule through local oligarchies or strong men. Britain ,of course, used private corporations to “rule” some states: ie the East India Company

          • jadan

            Is Ukraine a “semantic quibble”? If the US were asserting its imperial right to seize Ukraine in the traditional modus operandi of empire, nuclear war would be the likely outcome. The comparison with Rome & Britain is misleading. There is no wrangling over the possession of territory. The US is interested in political control only insofar as it impacts the activities of its corporate clients. It is not a semantic quibble when the US has to intervene militarily to enforce its hegemony. Think of Grenada when Reagan had to go after the commies. Did the US invade Venezuela when Hugo Chavez challenged the imperial hegemony? The “collapse of empire” is a misnomer. “Network failure” when globalization bites the dust is a different ball game. We do not go to war to defend the empire. Is this a mere semantic quibble? We are looking at a collapse of an unsustainable financial house of cards. Our response to this is quite different than a response to a collapsing empire. The analogy with classical empire is not helpful and does not provide a precedent as to how we should act. The concept is obsolete.

          • animalogic

            If i understand you correctly, you believe there is somekind of fundamental difference between the imperialism of Rome/Britain and the US. The former you believe is “empire”, the later not. You seem to base this one the fact that the US does not employ the “traditional modus operandi” of direct “possession of terriitory”.
            Very well, i can accept that the quibble is not strictly semantic, if the word empire is the crux. But i still maintain that in terms of imperialism there are no fundamental differences. Nor do i accept that the US can not be compared to Rome/Britain. The truth is that ALL these states used various degrees of direct or arms length control.
            Yes, Rome used increasing degrees of direct control as the Republic gave way to the Empire proper. But still allowed varying degrees of local control of some domestic affairs. Of course the US emplys far “looser” control over its “empire”. Yet it still maintains 800 odd military bases over the world. And lets not forget that major parts of the US mainland were conquored with military force (ie from mexico). Nor did the US decline to use direct control of foriegn conquests wjen it suited: ie Pillipines, cuba).
            And do you really believe that the US would NOT readily go to war to protect its foriegn interests regardless of whether we call it empire or not ?
            Yes, reference to traditional empires for parallels to today must be used cautiously, but nor is it unhelpful or obsolete. The emphasis should be on NOT JUST the mechanics of “empire” but also on the nature of imperialism. Our globalisation, internal finance etc etc may alter the mechanics of profit and control, it does not alter the drive of one group of state actors to dominate another group.

          • jadan

            Do you think the US will readily go to war over Ukraine? Will Britain launch a war over the Falklands as it did in the Reagan/Thatcher time? The notion of empire as the control of territory is defunct. It is not 21st Century. Controlling territory is so costly, one doesn’t need to do it anymore. Imperial conquest is economic control. If your nation allows McDonalds Coca Cola, and blah blah, there’s no reason for war. If you can be bought, there’s no need to beat you to death.

            The point of Smith’s essay and interview with Max is how do we respond to the failure of empire? What happened when Rome dissolved and GB slunk home tail between legs? There is no collapse of empire because no empire exists. It’s the wrong way to frame the issue. What exists is an interlocking network of corporate interests dominated by the US and it’s bloated and mostly useless military which is better suited to another century. Network failure means no out-of-season produce from SA. Tyson will no longer ship its chickens to China to be packaged and shipped back to the US market. The financial house of cards will tumble into a heap. We may be faced with the need to nationalize essential industries. The failure of globalization means the failure of privatization all over the world. The network failure means government must step in. It means socialism and it can also mean fascism. The nation state will once again be paramount.

          • diogenes

            Jadan specializes in semantic quibbles and other forms of leading discussion off topic and creating a sense of helplessness. It’s a pattern with him. Look around this site and see.

  • diogenes

    OK, let’s talk about solutions. First thing, we need to abandon the 100% fake Two Party system , formulate a serious fundamental progressive program and work to put it through by direct voter self-education and action.

  • Jess

    Why don’t they stop the harrp project as it is destroying our planet.
    They way they are just being plane selfish..
    There won’t be anything left of this planet.

    I pray that the good lord is on our side
    And that our sweet innocent children get to go grow up in a safe world.

    But greed is what is making the human race turn into selfish animals l.
    Why can’t everyone realise that if we all helped eachother this world be a better place.

    Greed needs come to a stop what’s the point in having everything if you have no one to share it with

  • turkiye’nin en cok ziyaret edilen chat sayfalari olan http://www.chatodalari.net ve http://sohbet.chatodalari.net sitelerini sizde ziyaret etmek istemez misiniz? buyrun cok guzel ortam var hacilar. huh diyorum size baska da bisey diyorum.