Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Maybe voters are frustrated that no matter who they elect, nothing in the economic machinery of soaring inequality, debt and servitude changes.

Here's the mainstream summary of the midterm election results: Angry Voters Usher in Beginning of the End to the Trump Era.

And what are voters angry about?

 It's a fairly lengthy shopping list:

"Many voters told pollsters and interviewers that they felt hoodwinked by Mr. Trump, believing that he was going to bring down prices and not start new wars. They expected him to close the border, but bristled at what they saw as heavy-handed arrests of people living in the country for years. They rebelled against the tariffs that increased costs for consumers."

OK, fair enough. Those are all legitimate issues. But I submit voters are also angry about a reality larger than any of those issues: no matter which party they vote for, nothing changes. Scrape off the culture wars hot-button topics designed to inflame the loyalists and generate conveniently distracting rage and indignation, and we find that nothing actually changes in what matters to the hard-working bottom 90% who are being stripmined by the accelerating decline in the purchasing power of their earnings.

Look carefully at these three charts and point out the reversal of the primary trends delivered by either political party. You can't, because the policies and Imperial Project continue on the same trajectory regardless of which party or administration is in power.

Here is a chart of TCMDO, total debt. We can call it "living on money borrowed from the future."  Note that way back in 1980, before the "borrow our way to prosperity" fantasy became the unofficial policy of the status quo, the ratio of GDP to total debt was 1.67: $3 trillion in GDP, $5 trillion in total debt.

Now the ratio is 3.7: $30.7 in GDP and $115 trillion in debt. So how is "borrowing our way to prosperity" working? This is a parody of a functional, sustainable economy.  Both parties have relied on soaring debt to win the popularity contest of who promises more "free money" to the elites who fund their campaigns and the electorate.

Never mind it's not actually "free": we've perfected kicking the can down the road.

Next up: soaring wealth-income inequality: we now live in a highly stratified society of haves and have-Nots, in which the Haves have little or no contact with the Have-Nots other than Amazon deliveries and wait staff.

So show us where one party or the other reversed this geometric rise in inequality. You can't. Relying on inflating credit-asset bubbles for a politically useful illusion of "growth" has an unavoidable side-effect: credit-asset bubbles enrich the top 10% who already own assets and have the income to enjoy the ride, with the gains concentrated in the top 1%.

Wages' share of the economy has been in a stairstep decline for 50 years as capital has been favored by both parties and the Federal Reserve, the central bank. Both parties have maintained an illusion of 'growth" that rewards the least productive at the expense of the most productive.

Both parties have been equally pleased to oversee the gaming of statistics to support this illusion of "growth" and "low inflation" that funnels the gains to the top 0.1% who fund political campaigns. The political toadies in the Supreme Court and Federal Reserve have dutifully rigged the status quo to remain unchanged, so the revolving door of elections maintain the illusion of "choice" and "democracy."

Our two-party system is like being offered two "competing" brands of toilet paper, both owned by the same corporation. Consider the Imperial Project of Endless Wars (TM). the players in the war room change, but the game of Wars of Choice continues on regardless of who's at the table.

The same can be said of our Wall Street Casino Economy, filled with gamblers desperate to win big enough to escape penury, usury, student-debt servitude and Tax Donkey indenturement. The corrupt game doesn't change when one party wins or loses; nothing changes in the casino except a slight modification of who gets VIP status.

The only potential for real change is a third party that introduces the possibility of closing down the war room and the casino and cashiering all the toadies maintaining a status quo adept at illusion and artifice.

Maybe voters are frustrated that no matter who they elect, nothing in the economic machinery of soaring inequality, debt and servitude changes. Shopping for political change is like shopping for healthcare insurance: we have no real choice. Maintaining the illusion of choice benefits both parties at the expense of the citizenry.