Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton is an invention of the American "village." Personally, I hate her because of her seemingly willingness to do or say whatever is necessary to "get elected," and that is primarily because she simply refuses to acknowledge her vote for the war and subsequent support for this administration as a "mistake." However, when you compare her to the republican slate of candidates, this lesser of evils will probably get my vote (unless Bloomberg or Gore enter the picture), because they helped create this monster. She is, qute frankly, a product of the DC "village," and has navigated it quite skillfully... a point that I believe Mr. Scherer quite understands and articulates.

Although I, like others, feel somewhat apprehensive about the so-called "Dynasty" occupation of the White House, this woman will have certainly earned it... and while I am equally apprehensive about a Democratic inheritance of of the worst leadership in history for the "blame factor" for whatever will probably go wrong, Ms. Clinton as a democratically elected leader couldn't do any worse on the world stage than the currently appointed failure.

Holding neither a a degree in economics, nor a job as a professional in any business in the financial services sector, I can attest that these are not necessary when reading the tea leaves to predict the future of the U.S. economy. Reading the news, business, and opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal over the last few years, and augmenting this with other reading materials, let me submit a few observations as an unaccredited lay person.

More money is made from handling money itself rather than from manufacturing. The former based on debt and speculation, while the latter creates real economic prosperity through exportation of tangible goods and services. This behavior is historically typical of impending economic decline.

Americans spend 125% of their incomes. While this may seem pale compared to the British, who spend 155% percent of their incomes, this is not a sustainable model.

GDP includes all expenditures, even those mired in deficit spending. Our trade deficits with China, a country financing our consumer spending, along with what we're spending on the so-called "war on terror," creates an artificial "GDP" that just accelerates our ever-increasing debt.

And for those who think that capitalism is just a "force of nature," please note a few other "benign" actions of government:

While holding lower and middle class Americans accountable to their debts by restricting bankruptcy protections and upholding often corrupt mortgage practices that continue to squeeze these people, the Bush administration has sought to limit shareholder lawsuits, limit corporate taxes, and limit corporate liability on a number of other fronts.

There is no such thing as "free trade," or "open markets." Anyone who still believes this claptrap is one of the few still benefitting from financial inequality.

As we watch jobs shift around the world under the guise of these so-called globalization attributes, the rich in the financial services sector continue to get richer, and those of us in labor... i.e. manufacturing, IT, and other services sectors, continue to get poorer. And it is these same people who complain about "welfare" and "nanny-states" who still reap the (hopefully) ever-declining rewards of corporate welfare in the form of "bail-outs" or "cash infusions" into the financial markets.

As a casual observer, this system is completely rotten and corrupt, and probably will implode as it seems beyond correction.

Looking forward to 1929, I remain. That will probably seem like a cake-walk compared to what we're now facing.

Re: Oh, Eek... For the Love of Schmidt

While I am inclined to agree almost entirely with Ché's post, I must submit one important contradiction: Phil Angelides is NOT a true progressive. He is another opportunistic political sleazebag, who at best is probably a lesser evil than Ahnold.

In an effort to paint himself as a "friend of the environment," he falsely positioned his Laguna West development in suburban Sacramento as a "sustainable community." It is described by land-use experts as a "California tragedy," and a contribution to the very sprawl that he said the development was designed to counter. And it is this sort of construction that brings me to my second point.

My own personal experience of Mr. Angelides as a casual observer sealed my complete and utter disdain of the man during his gubernatorial campaign. He and his large enterourage of volunteers and a camera-toting press corp crashed the Hollywood Farmers Market one Sunday. Outlasting any welcome -- if any existed at all -- this obnoxious blob oozed through the market for hours, inconveniencing everyone there merely trying to get their weekly shopping done. And outside of a few predictable platitudes, his anti-Arnold message was largely singular, not progressive. If one is going to take the time to exploit a farmers market for campaigning, he should devote at least some time to talk about preserving our food supply, helping small farmers against big agribusiness, healthy school lunch programs paired with CSAs, etc.

I'm sure Mr. Angelides has progressive moments. But I wouldn't label him a "true" progressive.

Financial journalism will survive. The Wall Street Journal, however, provides much more valuable reporting than just financial news. The Journal has been at the forefront of some of the best investigative journalism in the industry, covering a wide range of subjects. Rupert Murdoch has a history of of suppressing these valuable insights into subjects that should be transparent in a democracy, if these works run counter to his interests or the interests of his friends and/or business interests.

I'm not wailing and moaning. But I'm probably not renewing my subscription either. I'll read The Nation, Mother Jones, Harper's, etc... and just skip the dailies altogether.