What We Elected Not Who

I have such high regard for Michael Hudson that I will accept on faith what he says to be closer to the truth and reality than most other sources I go to for information I need to figure out money.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/michael-hudson-my-take-on-obamas-big-win.html

I believe that what he says here sadly has a great amount of probable truth to it.  I am more inclined to believe it because it is exactly what I have been thinking before I read it. On one hand we tend to believe things that confirm the beliefs we hold.  Hardly scientific.  On the other, great scientific discoveries tend to independently appear concurrently in time.  Once discovered, other researchers may rapidly confirm or deny their validity by performing the same analysis. 

The problem is that this is a social science not a hard science.  The social science of money.  Money is a conceptual thing.  A thing that in terms of those that organize it and study it exists in a range from hard money to various degrees of "near money".

Until a unit of money (a dollar) is uniquely serialized in a closed universe of all serialized dollars subject to our control for the common good then there will be no absolute way of identifying exactly what money is and consequently we will never be able to understand not control what it does (or should do) for the common good.  Our money system is now a big marshmallow concept that we can't come to grips with but because of its nature can be controlled by few to the detriment of many.

There is only one issue:  Money.  Both parties for the rich and privileged.  A third party can only fight them when it controls money.  Control of money starts with serializing every single unit.  Then we can know what it does.  When and where it goes and to whom for what it is spent in the macro as well as the micro analysis.

The 1% Republicans paid big bucks to get absolute fools and nut jobs and their repugnant, ignorant ideas elected.  Of course they failed to get them elected.  An excellent way to drive the vote to the party that will give them exactly what they want and have those that elected Obama be happy with the results. 

Was the election a win for those that gave so much to the Republican Party?  All the news analysis is from the standpoint of wasting so much money on an election loss.

Ironic that the media posts the final score as a loss to the real winners?  Even more ironic that the press reports the truth of a number score that does not lie because one party got a bigger number than the other?  Honest in the facts based on numbers but wrong in the analysis of the outcome.  It was not a win for the common good but for special interest?  Is this situation by design?

How clever it is that the few got the many to skin themselves and are happy with the result.  The 1% can say they got no blood on their hands in the process.

The most elegant way to skin a cat is to induce it to jump out of its own skin.

Daily Kos is ecstatic  with the outcome:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/07/1158128/-We-Just-Re-Elected-a-Liberal-President-that-Ran-as-a-Liberal

That is like a rabbit running around without its skin, happy in the sun.....until the cold reality of winter sets in.  Then what they were so over-joyed to be rid of will turn in to the reality of what they voluntarily jumped out of when they find themselves in the frying pan.

Those that are to dine on a feast of fried rabbit never got their hands bloody and are not to blame for a rabbit jumping out of its skin and serving itself up to them.

Dumb rabbit.........but it went happily.  How much more can anything wish for but to go out happily serving others?

The last laugh is to be had by those that induced the rabbit to become the meal by the rabbit's own design of demise.  To mix metaphors, it cooked its own goose and did so happily.