Goldman Sachs reported second-quarter earnings Wednesday morning that beat analyst estimates for revenue and profit.
Quarterly revenue posted its second-highest reading ever as trading businesses surged on heightened market volatility.
"Our strong financial performance across our client franchises demonstrates the inherent benefits of our diversified business model," CEO David Solomon said.
Goldman shares gained as much as 4.1% in early trading.
And:
U.S. stock indexes finished higher on Tuesday, capping the best quarter for Wall Street in around 20 years…
And then there’s this:
…roughly 50 million Americans have made initial jobless benefits claims in 16 weeks.
Record revenue for banks; record quarter for the stock market; by far, record unemployment. These points got me to think about what became the title of this post. This is not an America worth saving.
There is so much that I agree with the left on…in terms of complaints. By left, I don’t mean what passes as democrats. I mean a principled left. I use different language than does the left, but at its root the list is similar: central banking, criminal justice, government capture, crony capitalism, militarism. Yes, my “cure” is different than theirs, but what we are complaining about is similar.
An America NOT Worth Saving
· Central Banking
· Captured Bureaucracy – including every single intersection of government and big business. Every single one.
· Virtually every single politician in both major parties
· Imperialism
· The Military
· Spying
· Torture
· The (so-called) justice system
· The IRS
· The major media
· The entertainment industry (other than Dream Theater…and Rush, but they’re Canadian, so I guess I don’t have to make this exclusion for them)
· Most sports personalities
· Public schools
· Many private schools
· The universities
· A good portion of Christian leaders
· The Constitution
An America Worth Saving
· The pleasant interactions I have every single day with the vast majority of people with whom I come in contact
· The Articles of Confederation, married to the Bill of Rights (although such concepts are better kept unwritten vs. written). And I would modify the Second Amendment, as follows: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We don’t need any of that confusing “militia” language.
· The history, properly revealed. Without a history – with all of its warts – there is nothing to save.
Conclusion
Look at the list. I am left with an interesting implication. also, a terrible dilemma. In every revolution, the revolutionaries can agree on what they are against. The unfortunate part: they never agree on what they are for – which is why the revolution always eats its young. This current one will as well.
Another thought: there is virtually no constituency that would support the second list while abandoning most of what is on the first.
Scary.
I think there are people who want 1 and 3 on your list. People don't want 2 which is what it would take to have the others.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there are many who want 3. On the whole, it strikes me that we like our myths: Japan bombed us as a big surprise, we had to drop the nukes to prevent a million US deaths, all kinds of stuff. As a society, we haven't been honest about history, so by what right do we get angry that today's rioters are also not honest about history?
DeleteBut my main point about constituency is that those who want even 1 and 3 also want many of the things that are not worth saving.
I think society will take the history as taught. Society didn't formulate the fake history that you mention. People want to feel good about themselves of course, so a positive myth will be easy to believe.
DeleteHowever, the stage was set by Government and Government aligned historians. Most of the lies have been created by Government to justify initiating wars and sustaining wars. We have seen over the last few years what has always been true, the media takes their cues from Government. They aren't an independent organization holding Government accountable. They are a propaganda arm.
The "militia" thing and other language that obscures the liberty-preserving aspects of the Constitution, as I understand it, are the result of forces even then pressing against any overt limitations on gov't power. They didn't manage to completely "eat" the more liberty-minded factions but they certainly sabotaged their mission.
ReplyDeleteEven if the founding documents were flawlessly libertarian and laid out their intent plain as the day, though, it would still need people willing and able to stand by it and successfully resist - violently if necessary - any authoritarian usurpations.
Cultivating such people seems to be the bigger issue, especially in happy times when the authoritarian threat seems distant and those who worry about it sound like anachronistic joykillers. Young people always want to try doing things differently from their predecessors, and the study of history does little to stop them from repeating the same stupid mistakes. They find the rationalizations to say that "this time it's different."
"Cultivating such people seems to be the bigger issue..."
DeleteYes. Families, churches, universities. to varying degrees, all failing at this.
cosmic, I agree and have thought similar things about the founding documents. Libertarians criticize them as leading to State growth or powerless to stop it.
DeleteWell, duh. No piece of paper or law is able by itself to hold tyrants at bay. What the founding documents do is set the stage for the fight and give those who want liberty a legal standing against tyrants.
It was always going to take men of integrity and lovers of liberty to fight and fight and fight against would be tyrants trying to increase the scope of the State.
We have lost that battle, mainly because we haven't fought tyrants well. We have had it good and the encroachments on liberty were painless at first and gradually increased. It isn't until now with lock downs, wage stagnation, continual inflation, that the working class is feeling the result of a century and more of encroachments.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the Constitution vs. the Articles of Confederation is that the Constitution gave the central government an independent income - no longer beholden to what the states were willing to provide.
DeleteThe AoC were sufficient to defeat the most powerful military in the world (for good or bad).
Not saying things would have ended up differently. Just making the point.
If the time under the Articles is of interest, at the bibliography tab take a look at what I have written on a book by Merrill Jensen.
You're right on the money!
ReplyDeleteI felt so patriotic yesterday finalizing my tax payment to the IRS. I am just embarrassed that we weren't more patriotic and didn't voluntarily mail the check in months ago. I'm sure our portion will only go to feeding the poor in Zimbabwe or teaching inner city children well in Houston.
ReplyDeleteWell this cause for liberty was always a long shot and may always be nothing more than that. By definition the Remnant is going to be a small contingent of a much larger population.
ReplyDeleteI think our best plan forward is coalition building while still remaining true to our core beliefs. That is a tall order though, and one that Rothbard struggled with while he allied with the New Left (having lost many in his smaller camp to the larger one).
Like we've talked about before, the first step is to break up the monopoly. Find a way to separate with others, even if those others do not advocate the way of life and governance we want, just so long as they are a step in the right direction.
Separate with a group who wants 1 or 2 of the 3 and wishes to get rid of 3 to 5 of the 17 you've listed.
Even that, I know, is a dream, but it's a dream I choose to entertain regardless of the considerable odds stacked up against it.
I don't think there's any question that we're in the dying stages of the American Empire. The questions are who will be the barbarians to finish her off, and will we be able to build a New Christendom upon the ashes?
"Separate with a group who wants 1 or 2 of the 3 and wishes to get rid of 3 to 5 of the 17 you've listed."
DeleteThe radical left is very good at this, much better than those who desire liberty in person and property.
"...it's a dream I choose to entertain..."
What else can we do? Act, as best as we can, and hope. Without hope, we have nothing.
"...who will be the barbarians to finish her off..."
The Romans asked barbarians to provide the defense - obviously, it didn't save the empire, but it prolonged the end. Perhaps here is a clue: we are headed toward some sort of military dictatorship, encouraged by those who want to maintain some sort of order.
If the choice is a police state or a multiplication of the violence - even coming to suburbs - what would the majority prefer? They will want a Trump who actually follows through on all the tough talk.
The police state will certainly help accelerate our hopes of secession.
DeleteOr not. Everybody might just accept it, not willing to risk their lives against such a massive Leviathan. Things may have to get much worse, before people decide to stand up. It's easier to make that decision when you have almost nothing to lose.
I don't think it will come to that point. I still have hope for a separation emplying words rather than bullets.
If Jesus Christ represents life and liberty, then it would be wise to consider this.
Delete"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."--Matthew 19:24
And paraphrased quite liberally: "The road to destruction is a paved superhighway, but the road to life is a goat track."--Matthew 7:13, 14
And this: "Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it."--Matthew 10:38
History shows that people will take the easiest path to keep what they presently possess, even if it means that their future is jeopardized. The scriptures referenced bear this out.
Unredeemed, unrepentant human nature will not tolerate personal loss for the sake of what is right and good. Generally, people will not risk their lives standing against evil if they think that they can maintain their current status by compromising with it. Things probably will get much worse before they get better.
Amicable divorce is, more often than not, an impossibility. Even in the case of the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, which separated without bullets flying, everyone was exhausted and spent.
Words over bullets? That's not likely to happen. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
"The history, properly revealed. Without a history – with all of its warts – there is nothing to save."
ReplyDeleteOne man's history, properly revealed, is another man's heresy, fit only to be revised. Which brings up the question, then: What is properly revealed history? And another: How is it written from anything other than a purely subjective point of view, which is always open to revision.
History is written by the victors. It is revised by those who are trying to be victors. Reminds me of the game, 'King of the Mountain'. There will always be a new 'King' and he will always revise the history of the past.
Is there a solution? I don't have one.
I don't know if there is a solution either. I will offer one example.
DeleteEven FDR's strongest apologists admit that he did everything possible to get first Germany, then Japan, to pre-emptively attack the US in order to drum up support for the US to enter the war.
It is almost certain that FDR and his leadership even knew the day - and likely knew the place (for certain, they knew the two possible places). All of this is admitted by FDR's supporters.
Where is the History channel on this? PBS? The major news outlets? Knowingly planning the sacrifice of thousands of Americans in order to have a pretext to enter a conflict that would cost untold blood and treasure.
But...this might then cause people to ask...why does this sound familiar? To events 20 years ago? Could it have happened twice?
Now, I am not saying that even the best historians agree on every detail, nor am I saying that in the future some details will come out that might alter (somewhat) this Pearl Harbor story. But, there it is.
History is a subjective interpretation of past events by flawed people. At best, it is an honest attempt to discover the truth, but even this will be colored by the historian's perspective. Throw in the fact that everyone has something in their past which they want to remain undiscovered and that some will go to great lengths, using vast amounts of money, power, and influence to keep it that way. There will always be resistance to open and honest revealing of history, just as there will always be someone who is trying to pry open the lid...sometimes succeeding, sometimes not. Sometimes ending up dead.
ReplyDeleteTwo things might help.
1. Make more and more information (especially at the State level) open and available to the general public to use and study as it sees fit, deciding its own version of history at the individual level. Get rid of the "official" version. The free flow of information is critical.
2. Radically shrink the size, scale, and scope of government's protection of "state secrets". This would inevitably mean the reduction of the size of government itself and will probably happen naturally as a result of the application of the free flow of information.