The political battles to come – which will have an enormous impact on our lives and the lives of people around the world – will not be easy. Having a president in the White House who is demonstrably intelligent and reasonable could be a good thing.

But let’s not pretend that, because Barack Obama has been elected, our battles are won.

For instance: today, flush with the glow of yesterday’s victory, Obama announced that he’s chosen the execrable Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff. This is the same man who, as the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, fought tooth and nail to exclude, marginalize, and demonize anti-war Democrats in the 2006 primary races. He withdrew national Democratic support from a progressive Congressional candidate and recruited opponents to defeat her in the primary. Emanuel has, time and time again, shown himself to be firmly allied with the “centrist” (read: “Republican”) wing of the Democratic party, personified by the Democratic Leadership Council. (See this Truthout special for more on Emanuel’s role in recruiting conservatives in the 2006 campaign.)

Rahm Emanuel is the opposite of someone like Howard Dean. After Dean lost his bid to be the Democratic nominee in 2004, he undertook another, far more unusual campaign – he campaigned to be the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). What’s unusual about this is that the DNC chair is usually chosen by party insiders in Washington, who present their choice to the state parties as a fait accompli. Dean fought for the votes of the state party leaders, and when it was clear he had enough support, the other candidates withdrew, and Dean won the chairmanship (much to the chagrin of Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, incidentally).

What Dean did next is stunning: he set out to devolve the DNC’s power to its state party organizations. He believed that the best decisions are made by people who are close to the issues that matter to voters. He also believed that Democrats need to compete in every county across the country. His emphasis on rebuilding (or, in some cases, building) viable state Democratic party organizations laid the groundwork for Obama’s successful use of Dean’s “fifty-state strategy” in this election.

Here’s what Rahm Emanuel said to Howard Dean about Dean’s strategy:

“You’re nowhere, Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That’s fucking bullshit … I know your field plan – it doesn’t exist. I’ve gone around the country with these races. I’ve seen your people. There is no plan, Howard.”

Howard Dean is smart, compassionate, and effective. I haven’t seen his name mentioned as a possible Cabinet appointee in the Obama administration, incidentally.

In Rahm Emanuel’s defense, he and Obama have been friends since their early days in Chicago together. And, since Emanuel served in the Clinton White House, he can be a bridge to the Clinton wing of the party. And, further, many times someone can sublimate his own opinions in the service of his boss. Nonetheless, the selection of this pro-war, anti-grassroots, former-Investment-Banker as Obama’s chief of staff is a clear signal that we’ll have to keep the pressure up throughout Obama’s term of office if we want to see real, progressive change.

Another crystal-clear signal of this sort are the reports that Obama will likely name Lawrence Summers to be Treasury Secretary. Larry Motherfucking Summers is the guy who signed a 1991 memo, when he was Chief Economist of the World Bank, asserting that “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”

Larry Summers was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary from 1999 until the end of his term. He lobbied the Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Financial Services Act, which the Congress ultimately did – leading rather directly to the current financial disaster we’re witnessing. Here’s an excerpt from the 1999 New York Times article describing Clinton’s signing of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act:

“With this bill,” Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said, “the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21st Century — one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy.” Opponents said it would have the opposite effect, creating behemoths that will raise fees, violate customers’ privacy by sharing and selling their personal data, and put the stability of the financial system at risk.

This is the same Larry Summers who announced that efforts by faculty at MIT and Harvard to force their institutions to divest from Israel, due to Israel’s ongoing occupation and subjugation of Palestinian territory, were “Anti-semitic in effect, if not in intent.” The same Larry Summers who drove the African American scholar Cornel West out of Harvard by accusing him of being unserious and contributing to grade inflation. The same Larry Summers who, while President of Harvard, asserted that perhaps the lack of women in top science, engineering, and math jobs was due to their innate lack of ability in those fields.

Obama’s choices of advisers and Cabinet members says a lot about how he’ll govern. The early signs are not very hopeful, at least for those of us who aren’t DLC “centrists.”

Any progressive change that comes out of an Obama administration is going to happen because we organize and fight for it every step of the way. The effort to get real change enacted is going to need the same organization, the same energy, and the same stamina as the effort that put Obama in the White House. And this time, we’re going to have to do it without Obama’s national and local organizations, without the support of the Democratic party, and – crucially – without their hundreds of millions of dollars.

We’ve only just begun…

Seriously. We’ve been hearing for years that Americans need to curb their excessive consumption habits. We’ve been told that we drive too many cars, we use too much electricity, we throw away too much plastic, we import too much oil, and on and on and on.

Suddenly, we’re using less oil; we’re driving fewer miles; we’re buying fewer cars; we’re buying fewer goods; and we’re using less electricity. But this is all being reported as “bad” news!

We obviously are in desperate need of new ways to measure economic and social well-being. It shouldn’t be a headline crisis when U.S. auto sales drop 50%, it should be a sign of much-needed progress!

Spending and growth are not the measures of a healthy and satisfying life. I’ve been thinking about this stuff a lot since I read Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy. I’ll do a “dogeared” post on it soon…

“[Oil company] reports record profits…”

That headline ran today. It also ran in July, 2008. According to my search of the New York Times archives (oil AND record AND (profit OR profits)), it also ran in April, 2008. It also ran in February, 2008. It also ran in February, 2007. It also ran in July, 2006. It also ran in January, 2006. It also ran in October, 2005. It also ran in August, 2005. It also ran in February, 2005. It also ran in August, 2004. It also ran in July, 2004. It also ran in October, 2000. It also ran in July, 2000. It also ran in May, 1997. It also ran in January, 1997. It also ran in January, 1990. It also ran in October, 1988.

It’s funny. I guess if you control the supply of something vital to every sector of the economy, and there’s no limit on your pricing power (other than “the market”), then you can pretty much guarantee you’ll earn a shitload of money.

Here’s the relevant graf from 11 years ago:

Exxon, the largest oil company in the United States, said its profit jumped nearly 49 percent to a record $2.49 billion, or $2 a share, in the fourth quarter, compared with a profit of $1.68 billion, or $1.35 a share, in the similar quarter of 1995. Revenue climbed to $37.62 billion from $31.50 billion.

And here’s the word today:

Exxon Mobil Corp.’s third-quarter net income rose 58% to a new record of nearly $15 billion… Exxon Mobil said it earned $14.83 billion, or $2.86 a share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70 a share in the year-ago period.

Those are quarterly profits, not gross receipts. That’s a profit rate of almost $2,000 per second!

I also enjoyed finding this little nugget in an April 27, 1986 article in the New York Times:

President Reagan urged the repeal of the ”windfall profits” tax on domestic oil in an attempt to help out those companies hit by the price drop.

That tax was repealed on August 23, 1988, and has not been reinstated – although oil prices, which were around $38/barrel in 1980 and had fallen below $20/barrel in 1988, peaked above $140/barrel this summer.

A Sinfest comic.

(Via The Black Snob)

Picked this one up over at Calculated Risk; too good not to share.

You know times are tough when GE’s quarterly profit is a paltry $4,310,000,000 (that’s over four billion dollars for the innumerate)!

Poor General Electric’s shareholders! Their company’s profit has dropped to only $32,000 per minute in the last quarter!

I guess this really is a financial disaster!

This just gets better all the time:

Under this program, the New York Fed will borrow up to $37.8 billion in investment-grade, fixed-income securities from AIG in return for cash collateral. These securities were previously lent by AIG’s insurance company subsidiaries to third parties.

In other news… if you’d like to borrow my collection of broken old Macintosh SE’s (I swear, they’re INVESTMENT-GRADE, really!), I’d happily accept cash as collateral.

Apparently, this transaction makes sense… I’ve only listened to about 2/3 of the This American Life program mentioned a few days ago, so… it only makes 2/3 sense to me. The New York Times explains it thusly:

By stepping in and permitting A.I.G. to lend the securities onward to the New York Fed, the Fed will allow A.I.G. to preserve cash. It will also keep A.I.G. from having to mark down the value of the securities at a time when their market value is constantly changing.

The central bank said that the new program would help A.I.G. use cash more effectively and provide enhanced credit protection to the taxpayers, who stand behind the $85 billion loan.

As a taxpayer, I feel well protected, don’t you?

If you’re not reading Krugman’s blog, you’re missing out:

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Fear and negative equity … The two things we have to fear are fear itself and negative equity, and the depleted capital of financial institutions … Amongst the things we have to fear are fear itself, negative equity, and the depleted capital of financial institutions.

Of course, he links to the text of the original.

Back in 2005 – flush from their success at stealing winning another election – the Bushies set out their plan to “Strengthen” Social Security:*

As we fix Social Security, we must make it a better deal for our younger workers by allowing them to put part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts… The money would go into a conservative mix of bond and stock funds that would have the opportunity to earn a higher rate of return than anything the current system could provide… Best of all, it would replace the empty promises of the current system with real assets of ownership.

If you’re reading this blog, you probably know what’s coming next. From the AP, via MSNBC:

Americans’ retirement plans have lost as much as $2 trillion — or about 20 percent overall — in the past 15 months, Congress’ top budget analyst estimated Tuesday.

This American Life did a terrific show on the origins on the subprime mortgage crisis, which is available for free as streaming audio here.  If you haven’t already listened to this, you really need to.

This week, they’ve followed up with “Another Frightening Show about the Economy.”  It’s not as earthshaking as the first, but it also explains a few key events going on.  (Free mp3 download.)

I’ve also been listening to the Planet Money podcast, which has been focusing on explaining the ins and outs of the current financial crisis.  What I like about this show is that they assume that their listeners are intelligent and informed enough to understand detailed explanations about the economy, but they don’t presume that you understand economic jargon.  So, for example, when a guest today talked about monetary and fiscal policy, they made him back up, and got him to say, “Okay, monetary policy:  that’s how you set interest rates, which the fed does by controlling the supply of money.  Fiscal policy:  how much you tax and how much you spend,” before going on to explain how all that related to the problems at hand.  If you want to understand, on daily basis, things like why European governments and markets are responding differently than US markets, this is a great show to listen to.