Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Schlaraffenland

Schlaraffenland is a mythical land of milk and honey and idleness. The kind of thing charismatic tyrants promise the peasantry to keep them docile and obedient.












Promises are a kind of narcotic. Democracies do their own promising but because the people are in charge of their government and have to pay for the things they enact they tend to be less lavish. This self-denial can be redirected to withhold the good life from the people who work for a living and deliver it only to those who own for a living. The wealthy few become the inhabitants of this utopia we meant for ourselves. This has been the end-result of Reagan's sunny promises, a wonderland for the lucky few and a diminished reality for the many.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 12, 2016

College Education––Public or Private...or For-Profit?

Bernie’s free tuition proposal is only “radical” and “unrealistic” if you reject the policies that worked very well from Truman through Carter and accept and want to keep all of the rich-favoring tax breaks that came about since Reagan reset our economy. It was Reagan that set us on the road to dysfunction and unfairness.

This appeared in my news feed a minute ago from the Bernie campaign. Kind of puts the whole thing in context.


















Bill Moyers explains some of the new tricks the for-profit college "industry" uses to fleece college students. This is why certain things don't lend themselves to the profit model. When you are focused on profit above all you are obligated to deliver profits when colleges should be obligated to deliver education.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Did The Lewis Powell Memo Create This Mess?

History unfolds from hinge moments. I have been wondering lately about the Lewis Powell memo and what larger things have unfolded from it. If a private memo is a small thing consider its effects if it galvanizes far greater powers and undoes important precedents.

Did the Powell memo (and the doctrine that it made) make corporate and wealthy America immune to their obligations to society, enabling them to levitate away from tax obligations and the necessary support and protection of institutions and infrastructure and the environment? Did it enable them to hoist (permanently, it appears) the justice system and the financial apparatus out of the reach of the vast majority of Americans? Did it then enable the justice system and financial system to be reorganized to prey on the wider population rather than serving it? (Granted, the law has a recurring habit of acting to protect property from people, to become an instrument of property without a primary obligation to people.)

Did the Powell memo make corporations and the belief system of wealthy Americans immune to inconvenient science? Did it make science subservient to the profit imperative? Did the Powell memo obligate all businesspeople to ignore and defy any science that might diminish their profits? Not just reverse their profits but cut into them. Did the Powell memo lead to the mindset that made the profit imperative the single obligation, the only sacred idea?

I got on this train of thought after seeing the story this morning where NASA scientists are now convinced climate change will unfold more suddenly and devastatingly than previously thought. That is moreso than we were previously led to think by the corporate deniers. I began to think how colossally stupid we’ve become in the space of a few decades. What was the off button on the American genius? I think it was the Powell memo’s assertion of money, overruling intelligent discourse. (The assertion of what I’ve called Moneythink on my blog. A dangerously corrupt and corrupting philosophy, if you can call it a philosophy.)

Business and Money and Markets and Corporations and the whole apparatus of our financial side used to obey basic norms to correct folly and regulate the “animal spirits” that cause problems. Those regulators were turned off subsequent to the assertion of corporate power and veto that followed the Powell memo.

One chief example of a useful regulator that was turned off is the insurance industry, which was bought and harnessed by large financial companies and told to make its functions serve the profit of the larger company rather than do its job, which was to place a cost on risks. The insurance business didn’t raise the costs of insuring harbor facilities or coastal properties or the longer term risks climate change represented to our agricultural infrastructure (civilizations are based upon reliable climate, and our civilization is therefore at high risk.) The insurance industry was told to keep its mouth shut and to tailor its charges for risk to suit the profit demands of the shareholders and the corporate parent, which probably was investing decades of premiums in very profitable fossil fuel investments.

If nothing else, the Powell memo gave Money a veto over Reason. It allowed the shareholder class to veto the warnings of scientists in the matter of climate change and to veto the legitimate demands and grievances of people who work for a living because they might limit the return on investment to people who own for a living. The only loyalty was to return on investment, no other obligation mattered. That was the central justification for Lewis Powell’s memo which evolved into a fiat: that concentrated money ought to assert the deciding vote on all of our public decisions, because money had a better brain than people did. This breathed legitimacy into the ludicrous Citizens United ruling that stated Money = Speech. And the similarly ludicrous Bush v Gore decision that stated that equal protection required the Court to intervene to protect the interests of George W Bush from irreparable harm by the voters who had voted against him. Money and patronage (the values the Powell memo places uppermost) were again the pollutant in that decision: how many of the justices who stepped in for Bush Jr. were appointed by Bush Sr.?

Once you make Money immune to intelligent discussion you give it control over the public conversation. Which is why we have a billionaire of low cunning dominating one of our political parties right now. Who are we non-billionaires to question his right to rule us? We have learned not to embarrass Money with difficult questions. The galvanizing moment in Ronald Reagan's presidential run came early, when he faced down the annoying challenge of some journalist, saying: "I paid for this microphone!" Except he hadn't. General Electric and a few decades of other corporate sponsors had. Reagan had been employed as their spokesmodel. He was the political incarnation of Lewis Powell's memo.

Are we all to blame? We voted for Reagan, and all his works and all his ways. We liked him. Half of us still worship him even though he presided over the theft of our prosperity via Reaganomics. He organized the redirection of wealth from the many to the few. Money isn't speech, but it can buy a lot of it. And it can buy the likable voice of an aging actor. Money isn't speech any more than Money equals thought or intelligence. By delegating more of our decisions to our money, which the Lewis Powell memo urged, we stopped thinking. And that is why we are surprised to learn the oceans will rise and there is no longer anything we can do about it. Maybe that is also why a handful of billionaires are using their tax-immune billions to build personal rocket ships.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 15, 2016

Kiss Up, Kick Down. The Money Politics of Cruz and Trump and the GOP.

Ted Cruz is as perfect a demonstration of the corrupting power of money in politics as we are likely to see. He bragged about his personal sacrifice and opposition to Wall Street but secretly took a million dollars from Wall Street banks to gain office. This is called hypocrisy. The lie makes it worse.

VOX explains the special deal Ted Cruz secretly obtained from Goldman Sachs, his wife's employer.

People with large fortunes dominate our politics. They can afford to run for office or else they fund other people’s campaigns, people who will further their interests. We have a religion of money in this country. We are told every day by our media that the rich earned their riches, that entrepreneurs are braver and bolder and smarter than humble working people. They are often smart and usually better educated because they can afford to be, but are they bolder and braver? They are depicted as swashbucklers who dare to take risks, but they aren’t risking much. They take these risks with a large margin of safety their wealth provides, and their losses are seldom catastrophic because they can afford to hedge everything. They can escape losses entirely the way Trump did via multiple bankruptcies, leaving others holding the bag. When they win, they collect; when they lose, we all pay.

From QUARTZ, the myth of the brave risk-taker. It's brave to be born rich, apparently.

Working people who use our democracy to demand changes to improve their lives are called greedy. The hard won privileges that are taken away from them are called “entitlements”, which is an insult because, of course, only rich people are entitled to things. Working people must prove themselves worthy every hour of every day. The rich? The born rich? They take special privileges for granted but questioning those special privileges is dangerous.

From the NYTimes, the special tax evasion system that keeps the rich rich, and lets us pay their bills.

We live in a period when working people are fed with crumbs that fall from the tables of people who own for a living.

From PACIFIC STANDARD, a useful IMF debunking of Reagan's trickle down fairy tale.

Meanwhile we’re sold this fairy tale of brave independence, the lone American who doesn’t need government. This fairy tale is sold to us by monied interests who live off government contracts or are dependent on government subsidies. Who evade taxes but accept bailouts. The fairy tale is very popular, especially in the West, where public lands are used by private operators, who sometimes resent the privilege and refuse to pay. If the land were owned by mining or timber interests how much more would they pay? The libertarian argument is riddled with contradictions and magical thinking.

From PACIFIC STANDARD, a description of how dependent the libertarian Bundys are on government handouts.

USUNCUT lists five government freebies the Bundys live off of.

This is the Right Wing’s big idea: give all public land and public infrastructure to private businesses to profitize, but when they cheat or fail or harm the public or poison the environment let the government clean it up.

From REUTERS news service, a report on how Michigan's governor shifted public responsibilities to private operators, who then cut corners to earn profits and wound up poisoning a whole city.

From THE WEEK, a shorter summary of what Governor Snyder and his private enterprise cronies did to the city of Flint, Michigan.

What people forget about the “corporate model” is that it was first invented to allow individuals to avoid responsibility for their failures.

They are called “limited liability corporations.”

They privatize profits and socialize risks. When they win, they pocket the cash. When they lose, we all pay for their failure.

Being able to fail and go on to try again is not a bad idea. It’s based upon the notion that we need to share each others risks and help each other succeed. We shouldn't leave anyone behind... but increasingly we do.

Increasingly the ability to fail and try again is limited to the monied classes. It has been tailored to protect property above all. It is a right given to people with property rather than people who work. It favors those who own for a living and ignores those who work for a living.

Kiss Up. Kick Down.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 09, 2015

The GOP Math Problem

FoxNews morning hosts are disappointed with 271,000 new jobs. They were expecting more than 180,000.

Congressional Republicans show a graph that contradicts the numbers on it.

The ur-document of all the goofball Republican math is something aptly called “The Laffer Curve.” Don’t laugh.

Republican math is given more active heroic labels like “Dynamic Scoring.” DS measures what will happen after their next tax cut in the Republican Utopia. (Reuters offers this explanation.)

Like in the Republican Wonderland called Kansas where lower taxes was supposed to increase revenues and balance the Kansas budget but did the opposite.

(Forbes examines the corpse.)

TIME gives a second opinion on cause of death.

Salon explains the mathematical deficiencies of Reaganomics' faith-based math.

Doonesbury explains Kansas more humorously and clearly than anyone else.

In Kansas the people who live there are living with their mistake. How much do they regret electing the math-impaired Governor Brownback? The view from Kansas.

In Wisconsin, Brownback’s evil twin, Scott Walker, has similar problems with the numbers. The Washington Post explains.

Despite all the evidence, Republicans keep doubling down. Down is Up. Subtracting makes the number larger. The Atlantic reports.

If you have a dismal record as a CEO that makes you a stellar Republican candidate for president. Carly Fiorina is the reincarnation of W, the perfect Republican who fails upward and upward.

Is it real math or “Republican math”? Even FoxNews's favorite Fox Blonde has her doubts.

In Congress the math is also upside down. The Democrats got 1.4 million more votes nationally and still have far fewer seats in the House. Bloomberg explains, or tries to.

Since the Right and the GOP begin and ends with FoxNews, here is a graphic they used to describe the failure of Obamacare.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 21, 2015

A Killer Business Model

Headlining the business news this week is Martin Shkreli, 32 year-old former hedge fund manager and now CEO of his own pharmaceutical company, who bought the rights to a very effective drug used to treat critically ill infants and AIDS patients and promptly jacked up the price per dose by 5500%, raising it from $13.50 to $750 per pill.

Find something people will do anything to get and demand everything they have. That, my friend, is a killer business model. That is what American business has gotten especially good at in the past 30 years, since we learned to jettison all that Compassionate Society crap and finally ditch the New Deal. (Thank you Reaganomics!)

No more of this Jonas Salk giving the patent to the polio vaccine to humanity for free. Jonas Salk was an irresponsible fool––at least that’s the belief of American free market capitalists. Since money is the only measure of truth, they are absolutely right.

Pain and fear of death are wonderful motivators and American business schools keep churning out geniuses who know how to make sure every last fear-driven dime is carefully migrated out of the pockets of the sick and dying and into the pockets of smarter people who deserve it more and will spend it on $200,000 cars and party drugs.

Why do they deserve it more? Because they are Achievers. Because they are willing to go that extra mile. They are willing to do things most human beings would never do because it would make them feel like monsters. These businesspeople are able to turn off the small useless part of the brain that contains kindness, human decency, fellow-feeling, compassion and remorse. Being able to not think about other people makes them the most evolved, the most advanced, the most perfectly lethal form of the human species to date. They are unfeeling moneymaking machines and worth every penny they extort from people in pain.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 09, 2015

The Founding Principles of Kiss Up, Kick Down.

I came across an interesting article from the Economic Policy Institute. Look at the graph. 1. Reaganomics killed the middle class 2. Productivity rose by a greater percentage when workers were paid better.

The business end of the Reaganomics tool sees need and vulnerability as a business plan and profit opportunity, an opportunity to exploit people. The Washington Post describes ways hospitals exploit the uninsured by jacking up their costs.

That was the hospital/healthcare business, here’s how they exploit need in the judicial/penal business. John Oliver explains. (Funny and true as hell.)

The poster child for pure Reaganomics is the state of Kansas, where Governor Brownback hoped to prove lower taxes would increase revenue like Papa Reagan promised. I’ll let Doonesbury explain how well that works out...

And SLATE reports that if the Kansas courts rule against him, Brownback “has a way of shutting that whole thing down.”

If Reagan was the messiah, who wrote the gospels? (Ayn Rand. Here are some interesting conclusions we're meant to draw from Atlas Shrugged.)

A purer libertarian and Republican world functions on a mixture of wishful thinking and “I don’t have to if I don’t want to.” This one's from The Onion, which is nearly as hilarious as Ayn Rand herself.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 16, 2015

Wealthiness is next to Godliness

Jesus became a serious pure-market capitalist in the 1930s. Before then most Americans believed the Bible nonsense Jesus allegedly said about the wealthy man and the eye of the needle and about how we should feed and clothe the poor in His name. Boy did Jesus fool us! An excellent piece in today's NYTimes explains the history.

For a while not many people believed the truth about Jesus in a three-piece suit and expensive shoes. Eisenhower, who was a Republican, kept FDR’s New Deal in place and went right on taxing top earners more than working stiffs. American prosperity was broad and stable. Working people lived in nice safe neighborhoods with decent schools.

That changed with Reagan. Reagan had allies among the TV prophets who earned millions off of faithful viewers living in mobile home parks. The Reagan revolution, with Jesus’ almighty help, put working people back in difficulties, flattened working incomes, forcing families to have two earners to get by. Taxes on top earners went way down. Government help dried up for most of us but ballooned for special industries preferred by Republicans and Jesus, like weapons manufacturing and predatory lending. Who said you couldn’t worship both God and Mammon? (Hint: it was Jesus. And he was apparently wrong.) Christianity Today has an interesting piece explaining the so-called Prosperity Gospel. (Do you see any mention of Jesus weeping?)

This right wing alliance of wealth and Christianity is downright unholy. Its home is in the Republican Party. They’re the same ones who funded the Citizens United lawsuit making secret million dollar political donations sacred. (They’re also the ones funding the fight against affordable healthcare, because––as Jesus said––sickness and fear of death are best managed as a business model, a source of profits.) The Theocracy Watch website tracks this creepy phenomenon.

An interesting example: Joel Osteen, who lives in a $10.5 million property in Houston, which is a step up from the $3 million property he still owns. Jesus must really really really love him and not like the rest of us much. There's his house, on a map of the star's homes in Houston.

John Hagee is another one of these Elmer Gantrys. Less handsome, but mesmerizing. Intelligent responsible people used to laugh at charlatans like this. The powerful have learned these preachers are a good way to keep a leash on the working masses. American Prospect tells Hagee's story of Jesus-Went-To-Business-School.

There are a lot of busy churchy people out there who’ve carefully revised the Revised Standard Version of the Bible to explain why wealth and money and getting ahead of your neighbor is a true sign of God’s blessing. All of us would rather be Saved and own an expensive car than be Saved and live hand to mouth. People are very good at rationalizing themselves out of being kind to the poor. It’s much more rewarding and pleasant to ignore them. It’s nice to be rich without feeling any obligation to anyone else. The easiest way to do this is to believe the poor are wicked. Even though Jesus said the opposite.

There's no shame in vulgar wealth anymore. It's holy. It's a sign that Jesus loves you. Nobody hides it anymore. Why should they? Their tax rate is so low. Wall Street pros make more in a day than most people earn in a year. Which might explain why the bonuses given out in 2014 — $28.5 billion worth — were twice the combined earnings of all full-time minimum-wage workers in the US.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Systematic Looting of the American Dream

Who owns the shining new residential towers going up in New York and other major cities? Don't answer; you wouldn't know them. The dream home used to be a widely shared American Dream, but this is no longer the case. (Because of Citizens United our political system is now owned the same way by secretive billionaires, many of them foreign, using piles of hoarded cash to buy residency and public policy.)

Increasingly the American Dream of homeownership is reserved for billionaires. They have extremely expensive pieds a terre in places all over the world, where they may only live a few days a year thereby evading the usual obligations to pay for local infrastructure and public services. What do you want to bet their real estate fees and taxes, if any, are paid by their companies and deducted from their income taxes, again, if any. The top 1% have learned to levitate above ordinary concerns and obligations of citizenship. What they want, they buy. What they don't want to do, they buy out of.

And what has happened to middle class homeownership? The opposite. Going, going, gone. Homeownership has become a privilege of the few who own for a living and those who work for a living are increasingly excluded.

The daily sermon fed to us for years by the banking industry and by the Republican Party was that homeownership was next to godliness. It was a measure of how responsible and hardworking you were. Now they seem to be saying that working class homeowners are to blame for the recent financial collapse. Not true, in fact. Middle class homeowners are the playthings of the 1%. The investment schemes that benefit people who own for a living are devised to skim fees and penalties and ownership from people who work for a living.

With incomes down we see more working people looking for ways to make ends meet. Reverse mortgages are advertised as a simple way to balance the family budget. By looting the family’s wealth. What choice do some families have? Looting of this kind happens when there is an exploitable advantage. Incomes have lowered for most Americans since 1980, a gift of Reaganomics. That has made most Americans exploitable.

Where have we seen this systematic looting of value before? We used to read about mobsters who took over small companies and looted their value at the point of a gun. It was a crime back then.

But more recently we’ve seen this same model used by the great heroic Venture Capitalist. The gun isn’t necessary because the middle and working class household is already being made insecure and exploitable by the decline of working incomes.

The Venture Capitalist looks for decent companies who pay their employees decently and maybe have a fully funded retirement plan for them––companies that have been untouched by Reaganomics. What does this Venture Capitalist do? He charms the company’s owner, offers him a nice check, and then he buys the company. Before the check clears he sucks all the money out of the pension fund and uses it to pay the former owner. Then he lays off employees and pockets those savings. Then he has a balance sheet that shows all of this “profit” which he uses to sell the company at an inflated price.

I realize the Nazi analogy is completely forbidden today. But the Nazi miracle was financed in a similar way, by confiscation from Jews and liberals. Someday we may be able to see the criminality of what is going on, or at least its unfairness and dishonesty. But right now it is legal. And it is also sanctified by the sacred memory of Ronald Reagan who set this middle class decline in motion.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 19, 2013

The Foolishness of Austerity Economics

Paul Krugman has been writing about the stupidity of austerity economics. Here's his column from this morning.

Also, there's a new book by David Graeber that fills out the long history of debt, explaining the usefulness of debt on a societal level, shared public debt. The national debt so hated by Republicans and FoxNews fulminators was created by a founding father named Alexander Hamilton. You can see his picture on the ten dollar bill in your pocket. How did we get to where we are now? The recent past is more dramatic and foolish and catastrophic than the longer more rational, more prosperous period between FDR and Reagan. We may be emerging from the catastrophe, but there are powerful people who hold our economy hostage: call them the Austerity Economists. The debt haters who also (no coincidence) created the most damaging debts we're dealing with now.

In the mid nineties, after Clinton had raised some taxes on high earners, fostering a period of sustained growth, there was also an effort made to balance the federal budget, to pay our debts down. Good timing, really. It's good to do this when the economy is up and revenue streams are steady. Keynes said this. But there was a worry among large investors: what would happen when the safest investment of all, the US Treasury note, became less plentiful, became rarer because the government was borrowing less? There was serious concern. Nothing bad happened.

Then Bush Jr. was appointed president, and the prudent Democratic money policies were thrown out. Taxes were cut and spending exploded. Unnecessary wars were declared and pursued profligately. War was paid for outside the budget. More taxes were cut. New security bureaucracies were created. A huge unpaid benefit was given to seniors. Regulations were relaxed on speculators. Huge pools of cash were sloshing around in the pockets of corporations and hedge funds, which was wagered recklessly. We experienced an investment class bubble. It wasn't a housing bubble really, it was driven by rich people with too much money chasing too few plausible investments during a period when average households were feeling stretched and losing buying power.

Then the economy collapsed. The last catastrophic gift from the Bush years. Obama was elected. Responsible people came back to the helm. Why has the economic recovery been so sluggish? Financial sector collapses take longer to recover from. The financial sector itself recovers––look at the profits of the large banks and hedge funds––but the damage to the wider economy, collateral damage done by their crimes to innocent people and households takes a long time to repair. Millions of people will never recover. Their incomes will never recover. Their future will be significantly diminished because of the foolish greedy things done by cowboys in the financial sector, and the millions of households harmed will never be able to earn and spend like they could before, like they might have if President Gore had been able to continue the more responsible policies of the Clinton administration. (The man was elected, after all.)

The most frustrating thing is the foolish Bush policies still have a lot of influence. His advisors took well-paid and highly influential positions in the large financial institutions that Bush failed to regulate, where they continue to influence financial thinking and coerce policy. Bush people still have hands on the financial tiller because our economy is largely controlled by large private entities. Even the public institutions are influenced by large financial players.

The most damaging and weirdly contradictory policy Bush's Boys have pushed, and they've pushed it hard, is Austerity.

Imagine a person is admitted to the ER with massive bleeding. The Austerity policy would dictate the doctors not waste blood donors' blood on this person. BushThink says it's better to give this blood supply to people who already have enough blood, who aren't in danger. If those healthy people don't need it now, it's best to store it in case they'd like to have it in the future. Austerity policy preaches restricting help. Hungry children are helped best by withholding food. It is a do-nothing policy.

The rationale is that households restrain spending when revenue stops. A responsible thing for a household to do. But an economy is not a household. Alexander Hamilton created the national debt to help the economy grow. The debt was an engine for infrastructure investment. It turned the U.S. from a backward nation into the largest economy in the world. Deficit spending bought the western half of the country. It laid the railroads (Republican president) and built the interstates (Republican president.) Why have Republicans turned from prudent and productive growth policies to unproductive and stingy ones? Possibly because their large donors no longer feel invested in this country––they're not as invested because they bank in Switzerland and the Caymans and Bahamas and they don't pay the same percentage of taxes the rest of us do. Massive deficit spending for WWII hoisted us out of the last Great Depression, something FDR's more cautious deficit spending failed to do during the 30s.

Another medical analogy: imagine a patient comes into the ER. His heart has stopped. Austerity policies would say Do Nothing. Wait. Pray. The more Keynesian doctors would use a defibrillator to jolt the heart back to life. Austerity doctors would say that's a waste of electricity. We had an economy in 2008 and 2009 that needed a jolt. TARP gave that jolt but subsequent stimulus was blocked and watered down by Austerity believers, do-nothing purists. These foolish ideologues, BushThinkers, also steered most of the stimulus into the pockets of the perpetrators of the collapse rather than into the households that would have spent the money. The bankers who got it banked it. They sat on it. They didn't see enough opportunities for profitable investment so the money didn't enter the consumer economy where it would have created opportunities for productive investment.

We have a political reality that gives veto power to the big banks through their proxies in the Republican Party. So we do nothing. There is a tacit veto preventing help from getting to the households that most need it, who would quickly spend it and stimulate the economy, who would spend that money at stores down the street. What's happened instead is the Big Money people, the BushThinkers, have taken the American economy and buried it in their backyard, waiting for their private opportunity to exploit it profitably, but an economy dies when it's buried. The BushThinkers think there are only two ways to invest money: in their offshore accounts or on split second wagers on the movement of the markets. This oscillation between ancient economics and casino economics isn't good for us.

The other rationalization for the Republican Do Nothing Austerity Policy (and you've heard it recited over and over again by the hedge funders' Republican proxies in Congress) is that to deficit spend now would swell the national debt and place a burden on our children. Which sounds rational to households without any money... but it isn't. It's not what we do as a community. Republican policies begin and end with the individual and damn the community.

Scrooge has become the dominant philosopher of the moment. "Let them die then, and decrease the surplus population."

Don't deliver money where it's needed; deliver more where there is too much already.

Don't deliver help where it's needed; help the people whose houses are full of underpaid help already.

Don't feed the hungry; feed the well fed, feed the overfed.

Don't supply medical care to the unhealthy; insure the healthy, treat the healthy.

America needs to get its head around the basic and necessary logic of the public sector. The thinking that sends policemen and firemen and paramedics and soldiers and rescue personnel toward danger instead of away from it.

Our national wealth should help in an emergency rather than hiding under the bed.

The Republican mindset that is blocking our national recovery says "don't help" and "think only of yourself". This thinking is what is keeping us down right now. It is defunding every effort to lift us out of the ditch using community effort and community investment.

To say, as the Republicans say, and talk radio and FoxNews repeat endlessly, that using government spending to stimulate the economy would place an unbearable debt on our children, really is saying that the best way to protect our children's inheritance is to give our national wealth to the wealthy so they can put it safely in the Cayman Islands where it can lie safely idle the way the wealthy lie safely idle. They're saying that the best thing to do with our nation's wealth is to put it back in the hands of the people who wagered it foolishly prior to 2008.

What the Republicans are saying is "Austerity is a good thing for the poor." And we're all more poor than we were in the Clinton years.

Austerity, though, is like starving your children to protect their inheritance.

Whose inheritance is it? Are these Austerity economists really telling us to give that inheritance to them? Are America's grandparents deciding to spend their grandchildren's inheritance on themselves? Is there a feeling among seniors that the younger generations screwed things up and can't be trusted with spending money? The victims are not the perpetrators here.

Whose bad choices created this lousy economy? Do we really blame the very households the bad economy destroyed? Was it really the bad decisions of the wealthy bundlers and resellers of mortgages? Was it the predatory lenders? Was it the hedge funds who diverted investment away from productive categories into bizarre financial wagers? Was it the wealthy exporters of jobs, whose export of jobs is still subsidized by Bush era policies we haven't been able to end?

Was it the older generation of Reagan worshippers who decided the economy could be left unregulated? The same generation who voted themselves ample retirement but have decided to remove that prospect for their children and grandchildren? The same generation who now have free healthcare but seem happy to withhold healthcare from their children and grandchildren? We can understand their reasoning a little if we realize that once people retire they cease to be workers and become reliant on investments; their loyalties change. You could say they become different people, at once powerless and powerful. They exist in the pocket of their investment groups. They might not even be aware of the shift in their mindset. They're conflicted because they need government but they're owned by the bankers who manage their investments for them, and lobby Washington for them.

Meanwhile, because of the Republican veto of any sustained stimulus, the economy sits and waits. The generations who are still working, whose jobs are insecure, whose incomes have been flat since Reagan flattened workers' incomes, wait, and put off plans, and curb their spending, and worry. And the generation that has graduated and found its careers stalled since 2008, waits too. This last group may never recover because the generations who benefited from the long, sustained, secure and broad prosperity created by the policies of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ, have spent their waning years supervising the dismantling of those policies and the degrading of the American economy. They decided to follow the wealthy speculators who sold the American economy and banked their gains offshore.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Inequality Is Bad For Us

In scientific tests animals reject inequality. So do children. Why do adults keep silent on it?

Maybe because the beneficiaries of inequality punish criticism. In grade school, teachers reward fairness. In the real world the controllers of income and markets reject fairness because they can get away with it, and they suppress dissent (as shown in this National Journal piece). They get away with it because they hold power. They hold us hostage because they have the money.

Joseph Stiglitz, one of our great Nobel Prize winning economists, says inequality is holding back our economic recovery. (Here's his piece in the NYTimes.)

Paul Krugman, our other Nobel economist, also liberal, doesn't disagree exactly but he doesn't see how Stiglitz's argument works out.

This is how liberal economists are different than conservative ones: they are skeptics. They demand you show them the math, which is not true of the economists who gave us the economic collapse.

Just ask Glenn Hubbard. (This Rolling Stone article does a good job dissecting his conflicts of interest.) He was one of the midwives of the economic crisis. He built the car that drove us over the cliff. He was a Bush economist while he was also earning money rationalizing what the large financial institutions were doing that caused the crisis. (Watch the documentary Inside Job if you want to see Hubbard talk himself into a corner.)

Closed systems that self-justify tend to make the same mistakes over and over again, and they do this because no matter what mistakes they make the people who run them find ways to keep their money and their power.

Krugman has a neat seven minute tutorial on inequality that's worth watching.

Inequality is not natural, it is not common sense, it is not good for us. It is, however, good for the people who keep telling us it's natural, sensible and good. Ask yourself this, what kind of a businessman works to impoverish his customers? That is what Reaganomics has done over the past three decades. The engine of any strong economy turns out to be workers who earn a good living. See Krugman's video above.

But now even conservative economic journals like the Economist are beginning to see the damage inequality does. For one thing it insulates the rich from negative consequences and healthy skepticism. It also is just bad economics on a fundamental level, never mind what economic yes-men say to their wealthy clients.

Inequality, I'm speaking of vast inequality like we have today, isn't fair, isn't inevitable, isn't natural, isn't sensible, and isn't a good thing. It's holding us back. It's even holding back the rich who think it benefits them. What would happen if our politicians understood this?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 08, 2012

Reagan Economic Advisor Debunks the Biggest Tax Myth

Former Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett only needs a minute to debunk the prevailing notion that keeping taxes lower on rich people creates growth and jobs.

Low taxes on the rich do NOT result in growth and jobs. That's a myth.

Well, actually it's a lie. An expensive lie paid for by the rich who had their taxes lowered by G W Bush, which contributed to the economic crisis. A lie perpetuated by the Romney campaign, possibly because Romney and Ryan are extremely rich and prefer to have their tax rate lower than ordinary working people.

Higher taxes on the rich do NOT result in economic decline or recession or loss of jobs or growth. Quite the opposite. Reagan raised taxes in 1982 and the economy did better. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the economy boomed. It was the longest peacetime boom in American history.

So saying low taxes on rich people is a good idea is a myth. A lie. A big lie. A dangerous lie.

Think about it. This isn't the opinion of some socialist elitist European professor. It's the evidence based argument of Ronald Reagan's economic adviser, Bruce Bartlett.

Why aren't the pundits and the newspeople on TV listening to him or considering the mass of evidence? Maybe because they are rich and prefer to have their taxes lowered.

Share this information with your Republican or independent brother-in-law. It may persuade him. Or it may cause his head to explode, which would make him ineligible to vote in this election.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Why Income Inequality is Bad for Business

There's a very good, straightforward and powerful explanation of the importance of economic fairness in today's StarTribune, written by David Morris.

Income inequality as it exists in the U.S. today, an extreme inequality which the Republican Party is sworn to continue and increase, is bad economics, very bad for business, bad for the future of private enterprise, bad for our health, bad for our children and grandchildren, downright stupid when you measure its effects on education, and (today being Sunday, maybe we should consider this) it turns Christianity on its head. Why do these "super-Christian" and supposedly pro-business Republicans support policies which undermine everything they stand for? My explanation? It's a shell game, a trick, a sham, a con game. To use a phrase popular in the South "They'd climb a tree to tell a lie." They don't give a damn about the things they trumpet in speeches and commercials. Their loyalty is to money in their own pockets and power in their own hands.

One of the chief lies they tell is this: Democrats who favor greater income equality want everyone to earn the same. This is untrue. What we want is a return to the system which functioned well during the longest prosperity in American history, the period between the New Deal and the inauguration of Reagan, a period when workers' earnings rose as a companies profits rose. Since Reagan it's all been taken apart. Since 1980, the American Dream has been narrowed to the upper classes, to people who own stock for a living rather than working for a paycheck. They forget, and would like Americans to forget, that prosperous working people are the engine of a strong economy. Republicans treat them like the enemy.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Good Economics vs. Bad Economics-You Choose

It's time to choose sides. Despite what you hear on the money programs and from the Wall Street cheerleaders, there are very good economists who think austerity economics is a bad idea. Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, our most recent Nobel economists, are on the Democratic side of this argument, the side of the 99%. Others are stepping up too.

"On November 13th 2011, economists from the University of Massachusetts Amherst drafted an open statement to the Occupy Wall Street movement pledging their support. Since then, more than 250 economists from around the world have added their names. Read more at econ4.org "

To be fair, there are two sides to this argument. Having watched the documentary Inside Job, I know that some economists know exactly who butters their bread and it isn't working people. It's the people who now have all the money who butter their bread. Some economists are happy to tailor their ideas to suit their benefactors.

Then there are the mouthpieces for the 1%, who earn a lot of money just by being mouthpieces. For instance, there's Ann Coulter, who said recently that she thinks the horrible dirty worthless people of the Occupy movement should be gunned down by the police. It worked on the Vietnam protesters, she says.

Larry Summers, who led Obama's economic team, doesn't come off very well in Inside Job, but he is on the right side of the argument now, favoring aggressive stimulus and tax cuts to working people––instead of more billions thrown at the rich, at corporations and banks. He's no fool.

Concentrated wealth got us here. It made our economy topheavy and fragile. It sucked the life out of the consumer economy by making working people less prosperous and less able to make ends meet.

Our economy will only revive when working people feel prosperous again, confident that their jobs are secure, that their health and their families are secure, that their children have a future. We need to shift from the Reagan economics of concentrated wealth. Those economic policies promoted and exploited broad insecurity and vulnerability rather than broad prosperity and strength.

Today, more than 2 million Brits took to the streets to protest their government's austerity policy. What is Austerity? It's the rich elite's answer to global recession. "We have money so we get to buy. Everybody else is poor, so they should live that way."

AUSTERITY IS HOW THE RICH AND POWERFUL TEACH WORKING PEOPLE TO BE POOR.

That is where austerity measures bite. They bite the poor, the working people, the middle class who are getting poorer every year. Austerity bites the victims of the global collapse which was caused by the very rich.

In this country it's the Republican economic policy. They want most Americans to be a lot poorer, a lot less secure. When Americans are afraid they work harder and longer for less. That's the long term Republican goal. In the short term the Republicans simply want Americans to suffer, figuring an unhappy populace will vote for Republicans next year. They are happy for Americans to fail in order for Obama to fail.

Do you want to see what effect Republican policies have? Look at the map of the British austerity measures put in place by their Conservative government.

Austerity doesn't work during a recession. It hasn't before. It won't now. Imagine an airline pilot in a stalling aircraft. Does he see the emergency as an opportunity to save fuel? No. He pushes the pedal down and accelerates out of the dive.

Here are some sound commentaries from economists on the intelligent side of this argument, setting out the dire consequences of these ugly conservative policies. From EconMatters.com

From CNN

Here's Robert Reich's useful and persuasive debunking of the Republican austerity policies.

Sadly, cable television is dominated by a Republican network and talk radio is all Republican all the time. And a lot of Americans are easy to fool.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

The Long Con

This excellent article in Rolling Stone sorts out the myth from the history giving a very good picture of what amounts to a Long Con. A fraud that's required decades of planning and patience on the part of the Republican Party, and patient investment by its rich friends. A bit like Madoff's ponzi scheme, except for the rich friends who are walking away with trillions, much of it in taxpayer dollars.

I miss Eisenhower. I wish a lot more Republicans missed Eisenhower too. By modern Republican standards Eisenhower was a Marxist and Reagan himself was a Socialist on the Swedish model. This economy we are experiencing is the economy the Republicans want. It's the one they planned for.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

The 1% Is Fine, Thanks For Asking

The New York Times headline reads "Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation’s Income, Study Finds". The story will spoil your lunch.

The Washington Post reports the same results under a different headline: "Nation’s wealthiest 1 percent triple their incomes, according to CBO report." The Times didn't want to upset the mandarin class too much. Double sounds less unfair than triple.

Either way the upper upper upper class is eating our lunch. And breakfast and dinner. Maybe the message is that once you are so very rich it doesn't matter whether your income tripled or doubled. Who can keep track? Poor them, with all that income to sort out. What a headache; let's give them some more tax breaks to help them deal with it.

Another thing that's making lives more unequal is that so much more of the government's "help" is dished out to people who don't need it but just heard it was available. Imagine if rich people demanded equal access to food stamps. Rich farmers and big farmers get more relief than poor and small farmers. Big companies get more help than the small businesses who stand in as the poster children of the Chamber of Commerce (which has been screwing them for decades.)

The financial rescue was supposed to help all of us, but notice who butted to the front of the line. The too-big-to-fail banks and financial companies and major corporations (many of whom, like GE, have bigger financial services sides than their old manufacturing sides) hogged it all. They are hoarding trillions, refusing to share it, pay it out, invest it or use it to hire people or order inventory.

They are using it instead to give enormous bonuses to their tip top people. Goldman Sachs reported a $393 million loss this past quarter, but that's a fraction of the $10 billion bonuses it will pay to its executives for delivering that loss. Go figure.

Never mind, it doesn't compute. Heads they win, tails they win. The 1% always win, the 99% always lose. At least since Reagan changed the rules.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 24, 2011

A Narrowing Sense of Loyalty

David Carr has a pertinent column today. Maybe it explains why the news media has been dismissive of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It also raises, again, a key element in the current crisis. It's a matter of loyalty.

When a business ceases to be concerned with what it delivers to its customers and only interested in delivering cash to its owners, we have a problem. When this is the model everyone is copying our society is in trouble. When our news is crafted in a way that supports this model we have a hard time resisting it, but that is the picture we get from most of our reporting class––most uniformly on FoxNews and on radio. That, in the words of the recent Bush White House, is "our new reality."

Pay cuts for workers are seen as a revenue source by those further up the food chain. It's unattractive, antisocial, predatory, but it's described admiringly in the business press. American business used to have three key loyalties: to customers, employees and owners. (I've written about this before.) But there's been a dramatic shift in the past forty years; the first two have been degraded to feed the last loyalty. We are loyal to our companies but our companies have ceased to be loyal to us.

All obligations to employees and customers are set on the debit side and seen as negative to the only true value, profit, and profit feeds the bonus machine. So employees and customers are, in a very fundamental sense, seen as the enemy in many or possibly most executive suites and also by the economists and accountants who equip business plans with their rationale. Look at our present economy: 99% of Americans are in financial difficulties and afraid, but very eager to work for whatever they can get. This is a very pleasant picture for the lucky few.

Look at the Austerity model being pushed by Republicans today. Is it telling us that we never deserved the broad prosperity of the recent past? Was the postwar boom an illusion or an aberration or a problem that it took the executive class forty years to eliminate?

Does prosperity belong only at the top of the pyramid? We get to build that pyramid and admire it from a distance, but in the economy built by Reagan and Milton Friedman and Grover Norquist and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the pyramid is purely for the glorification and enjoyment of the small class whose names are engraved at the top. And this circles back to something I wrote in 2002 and posted to this blog's first entry in 2004. Who are we working for? What are we creating with our labor? What is this vast efficient machinery meant to do? Who is it meant to serve?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 17, 2011

What Has Reaganomics Done For You?

Today's must-read is from Mother Jones.

Look at the graphs and read the data and ask yourself: "What has Reaganomics done for me?"

Better still: "What has Reaganomics done TO me? To my neighbors? To my neighborhood? To my kids' schools? To our family budget?"

To all of us...

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, October 14, 2011

The 99% Are Being Heard

Most of the mainstream media still don't "get" what the Wall Street protests are about. This CBC interviewer tries rubbishing the protesters in the usual way, and Pulitzer Prize reporter Chris Hedges politely explains where the interviewer is wrong and then calmly folds the man up and puts him back in his sanitary wrapper.

There must be a circulating rule book titled "How to Dismiss, Insult and Marginalize Anyone Who Opposes the Total Power of Hedge Fund Billionaires", which instructs network talking heads how to be rude to people outside the money elite. Most TV hosts are contemptuous of this movement, and contemptuous in the same way, using the same words, the same references to the 60s and hippies and drugs and guitars and bongos. There has to be an approved script. Maybe Frank Luntz provided it.

(You might not know this, but most TV talking heads live in small furnished apartments inside the pockets of the expensive suits you see billionaires wearing when they creep from marble office to forty foot limousine. So talking heads are always alert to the moods of their billionaire hosts. Sadly, they have a tin ear for the lives and concerns of the real people living on the other side of the TV screen.)

Good news. According to this story in Business Insider, the Occupy Wall Street movement, sometimes called "The 99%", are twice as popular as the "Tea Party" movement (which is paid for and fully owned by the Koch Brothers and other billionaires).

The movement is spreading and gaining allies. It has a way to go yet. Take a look at the popular protests that took place in Paris in 1968. They were huge. They involved everyone, every class, every walk of life. Their mistake was resorting to violence––if they hadn't they would likely have succeeded.

The trick of true influence is a mixture of assertiveness and patience. The 99% have a real message. They are us. They are teachers, electricians, firemen, students, nurses, engineers, small businesspeople, retirees, people from working and middle class neighborhoods.

The majority of Americans agree that concentrated wealth has harmed the economy, made it less stable, less sustainable. We aren't pushing for confiscation of capital, we are talking about putting capital to work the way we used to. Putting Americans to work, and paying for that work in a way that strengthens the entire economy not just the top 1%.

Call it liberal if you like. But wouldn't a true conservative want to restore and keep the institutions and rules that have worked well for us? The system that grew out of the New Deal worked very well between 1945 and 1980, the most prosperous period in American history. The Republican revolution dismantled that system, and we've seen what happened. Look who's prospered and who hasn't.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Standard & Poors or Dumb & Dumber?

Should the name be Standard & Poors or Dumb & Dumber? Here's a very good analysis in The Nation.

And another by Joe Nocera in the New York Times.

The Times is also reporting that the S.E.C. has downgraded S&P back for their own failings. Why didn't the S.E.C. downgrade the credit raters credibility earlier?

Remember, S&P and Moody's and Fitch were the ones who rated Enron AAA and did the same for the fraudulent toxic securities Wall Street dumped on customers prior to the 2008 collapse. The credit rating agencies caused the collapse by selling their ratings rather than making corporations earn them. And who had to clean up the mess? Taxpayers. It's S&P's mistakes that have ballooned our national debt. As I said the other day, blaming Obama for this is like blaming the surgeon for the cancer you wanted removed.

The real causes get lost in the noise as mommy and daddy argue. The problems we have aren't obscure or hard to understand, just hard to hear anyone talk about on television, unless you count Jon Stewart who may be the best explainer around. Maybe it's because he's allowed to use obscenities. We need them to describe what is going on.

Then there's the dull, boring but pithy and usually dead-on correct Brookings Institution.

But these causes are just political. The real cause of America's thirty year decline has been Reaganomics. Ronald Reagan (who was officially declared a god several years ago) established the rule that people who work should be paid less and pay more in taxes, and that people who own and don't work at all or work very little should reap the big rewards and pay taxes at a lower rate.

This dynamic took a robust economy and made it fragile, nervous, unstable and underfed. What feeds an economy? Incomes from honest work. Who has thrived most in Reagan's economy? The predators, the parasites, the "creative destroyers", the manipulators, the people who shuffle money rather than making products or delivering services. Reaganomics has hollowed out the America we grew up in, moving the wealth and the productivity offshore to low-wage havens and their private islands. Maybe Americans are finally waking up to this. I hope so.

Labels: , , , , , ,