Stock Market - Crock Market!

For a few years I have watched the improving numbers on the big board and experienced warm fuzzy feelings for the recovery of our national economy.  No more!  Watching the incredible stock market numbers lately is causing me more and more frustration. 

For all those historic years of our awareness of the fact that a rising stock market meant better economic health for the nation and for us all, perhaps I was simply duped.  Or perhaps the nation really was experiencing good fiscal health back in the late 20th century when those numbers rose gradually through the five-hundreds, the seven-hundreds and after many years finally topped 1000 for the first time.  That was then, ...  But the news this week showing that 13,000 has been topped does nothing for my confidence in any national fiscal health.  It's quite the opposite feeling.

The rising stock market today means only one thing: the very wealthy are piling up more wealth!  There is absolutely no evidence that any benefit of the rising numbers on the big board will trickle down to little people - the general citizenry of our rich nation.  The richness is being enjoyed by the rich - period!

I'm no financial or economic expert in any way, so someone should be quite able to talk me down.  Please try!  Just prove to me that my thoughts on the matter are wrong and that our great nation is becoming substantially greater by the rising stock market numbers.  I do want to know what it means.  What I see is that our general populace is suffering about as much as we were back in 2008 when things had all gone plunging south on the big board.  Yet today the large financial institutions and other huge corporations are raking in the largest profits in the history of our economy.  And I suppose I am expected to rejoice in this fact because now, with the Supreme Court's wisdom and gracious decision in Citizens United, it means that those giant corporations and filthy-rich CEOs can pour more millions into the Super PACs for political candidates and surely bring about better government.  Right!  The ignorance and corruption flow unabated.  THAT is what trickles down!  We all know what runs down-hill, don't we?

If this next national election, not only of the president but of the representatives sent to our national congress, does not clearly come down fairly on the side of the 99% as opposed to the wealthy 1%, then my only conclusion can be that vast numbers of (otherwise nice and perhaps even good) people in our country are willingly ignorant.  Are they purposely supporting the corruption, the corporate greed and the sickening unfairness of the system?  If the huge piles of money poured out by the super-rich are able to buy enough ads to simply dull and overwhelm the masses, drugging them with drivel and drowning them in dreams of possible future wealth of their own, then we will surely go down the drain as a democracy.

Many signs exist to show that people in all walks of life are confused and unable to readily define their frustrations.  One of my earlier posts approached (with little space and no studied expertise on the matter) the concept that the religious among us tend to fall under the thrall of money and power, and do so almost naturally because of their long devotion to invisible powers.  [I'm still waiting for comments, of any type, on that whole epiphany.]  At least the person of a Mitt Romney, even with his abysmal lack of grasp on the plight of the common man, is standing there as a visible reminder to folks of moderate means that real wealth is possible.  Is there some wishful reasoning that the mere closeness(!) to someone who hordes billions of U.S. dollars (no matter where the dollars are stashed) will bring us all nearer the potential of wealth for ourselves?  Pretty sad, in my opinion.

Probably the most vived example of the way the above twisted thinking diminishes us, is shown in oblique views of reality offered by many commentators and writers.  It seems that people who observe a leader who appears to be devotedly and determinedly trying to help the masses, somehow see that effort as something sinister or depraved.  Something socialistic!  Evil! 

An interesting article appeared in the Painful Truth blog [Aug 17, 2011 - Is Obama Right?] that left me scratching my head.  Later I figured out the reason I felt I was missing something.  I was!

Near the end of the rambling article, author Ralph Haulk summed up a bit with this paragraph:

Marx then proposed “centralization of credit in the hands of the state”. A central banking system. This would create what Marx called a permanent revolution. Equality would become the passion of the masses, and the masses would never be satisfied until all barriers are broken down, and everyone is equal. Where all are equal, all are “alienated” from the basic goals and needs, such as property, that once made them individuals. Humankind becomes subject to planning and re-distribution. What was “God” if not an ancient tyrant who brought more war and hate than love and peace? Religion is the opium of the masses.

It's a minor point that "opiate" was the word used in the Marx writing, not "opium" as above, but it is indicative of the common alterations (at times, critical ones) so often used when articles get produced.  A conscientious effort made by Austin Cline picks up far more of the direct writing, and clarifying perhaps more of the intent, of Marx himself.  Cline's coverage of the subject actually convinces me that Karl Marx was not nearly as skeptical of religion as am I.   

What I was missing while struggling to understand the direction Haulk's article was heading, was the fact that the writer is apparently still under the influence of a supreme being concept.  It's amazing to me that an obviously intelligent fellow who was able at the age of twenty to see through Armstrongism (and one could reasonably assume, the cult business in general) and later impress his superiors in the Marine Corps with his clarity on the subject of rights and freedoms, has not long-since kicked the habit of belief in phantoms.  But, be that as it may, he still should be able to avoid the pitfalls of far-fetched associations.  I will hasten to add here that this man has put vast amounts of time and effort into studying economics and many other disciplines - all of which causes me to respect him for strength of character.  But as with many highly educated folks, it's quite possible that the very basis of some of the study is pointless.  Like the degree of Doctor of Divinity always makes me cringe with pity and laugh with irony.  I pity anyone who will waste a life studying fine points of great concern over something that seems to have no foundation whatsoever; I laugh because I can never shake the funny idea that the person has earned a doctorate in making white chocolate fudge!

I do not find Mr. Haulk laughable.  He seems in fact to be erudite and extremely well-versed on the subject of economics - far beyond my capacity to understand it all.  But even if he has the best ideas to ever come down the pike and some kind of plan to fix the problem, a plan which he doesn't clearly articulate, he still would have no more chance of getting it into action than do those folks at The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement who do have great plans.  Or the writers from Star Trek who seemed to handle an intergalactic economy with panache.  The real troubling thing for me about Mr. Haulk's article was his blatant plastering of the name of Obama in the title.  Simply a means to attract attention, I suppose.  The name doesn't appear later, nor does any connection to Mr. Obama get explained through the long article.  The author admits in the first few words that the writing has not much to do with Obama, but to my thinking, the attachment of that name was intellectually dishonest and utterly misleading.  Worse, there seemed to be the subliminal intent to blame all the ills of our economic system on our current president.  That's not only preposterous, it's hateful.  (And obviously wrong.)  The writer even slips in an imagined link between our president and a communist concept.  Makes me question Mr. Haulk's motives altogether and distrust his ability to reason.  Yes, I've already admitted he seems to possess great intelligence; I merely question his exercise of it.

Very likely, the above mentioned writer will fall in line with millions of others this November and align himself with a wealthy aristocratic type who would almost certainly continue the trend of raping the masses.  Far better it would be to vote for a presidential leader who works hard at lifting the masses out of the mire.  But perhaps only we devout Independents can actually see the clear difference.

Meanwhile, the market continues to make Romney and others even more unimaginably rich while you and I struggle to pay the bills and buy gasoline.  And there you go - that Obama character is going to have to be defeated so we can have lower gas prices.  Right!  Strange how foolishness can pass for meaningful discourse and plans for progress can be held suspect through fear of the unknown.


NOTE:  I have rushed back here to add something highly worthwhile.  Kagin at freethought blog posted an article on Sunday that just came to my attention today.  His piece goes far beyond my subject, in a way, but it more than underscores my fundamental concerns.  Since it is beyond my poor power to add..., I will simply ask that you check out this terrific post for yourself.   markman