Fox News is a dangerous organization; that is, if you care about the objective truth. We are living in the world descibed in George Orwell's book "1984". Except reality is playing out a little differently than the book. Instead of the government controlling everything, things are actually reversed. Fox News is the Ministry of Truth, and large corporations are acting as a collective Big Brother.
It should be up to the reader/viewer to perform analysis of facts to glean the truth. Instead, Fox spins the news it spoon feeds its listeners by emphasising only the partial information that backs its position, much of it distorted to beging with; while de-emphasing, belittling, or simply not reporting at all, the data that would benefit any opposing view. It purposely presents information in a framework of opinion, rather than objectivity, but purports to be giving you "the news". In diabolical Newspeak fashion, it claims to be "fair and balanced", when it is neither.
This is a danger to the concept of democracy, which relies on truth - as expressed by knowing and understanding all of the objective facts, to sustain itself.
Here are several links to good articles about Fox News in general, that highlights the fact that Fox News distorts information with the express purpose of castrating government, and allowing corporations and rich individuals free reign to make large profits while paying little to no taxes and having little regard for the environment.
http://www.alternet.org/story/150251/scary%3A_people_who_watch_and_trust_fox_news_will_surprise_you?akid=6674.259232.j0iZdL&rd=1&t=12
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/fox-news-climate-change-email?INTCMP=SRCH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/fox-news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2011/03/11189/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/04/jon-stewart-teachers-walls-street-fox_n_831243.html
Glenn Beck Fact Check
We must be vigilent in pursuit of the truth. We must be open to all sides of a given story, and research as many different sources of information as possible in order to fully understand an issue. The truth is usually complex, and rarely one-sided.
Freedom is precious, and democracy is still a fragile institution. We must not allow narrow corporate interests and the political demagogues they sponsor to steal it away from us.
It Fascinates me that Fox news can continue to employ several obvious non journalist pundits of hate and racism, who spin every "news story" to favor only the right wing viewpoint (You know of whom I speak).
ReplyDeleteWhile the NPA loses it' s federal funding and is pilloried by this same new right? Simply it seems upon the basis of a set up video, produced by a dubious character called O'Keefe? And basically only because an employee executive,being entrapped in a setup "interview", espoused his personal ideological opinions of the tea party. Which amounts to free speech I believe?
It is actually laughable if it was not so darned duplicitous and dangerous. The issue of double standards in the American press regime is a disgrace at present. Lying seems to be perfectly acceptable as long as it is an attack upon common sense and decency. But if a decent person opines the truth, they become pariahs and are attacked and forced out of office by this new regime of hate from the extremist right wing brownshirt brigade! My comparison to fascist techniques is not accidental. These people mirror the relative basis of the contents of "Mein Kampf"
Greetings Lou, Thought this might add to the overall debate as to truth and reality.
ReplyDeleteMy comment today, to the Washington Post article on the new Governor of Floridas (Scott) campaign to privatize...just about everything it seems?
"..........As an outsider, that lived in the US for many years, and am now looking in as a retired Canadian. I cannot understand how the American electorate can continue to vote in these disingenuous people, (Scott, Walker, Christie et al) who wish to dismantle your entire nations essential social programs, some that have taken over 125 years to acquire! And with a stroke of their pens, hand them into the hands of corporations, that are operated by small cadres of mediocre executives, issuing socialist style edicts from behind closed boardroom doors, and that have only one agenda.... profit and accumulation at all costs!
If you think publicly administered programs are expensive to maintain now, wait until you see the ongoing bills from these "private sector" charlatans, as they escalate with each passing year, and whose bottom line is "guaranteed by law", to be the responsibility of the taxpayer in every case! NIce work if you can get it! Way to go voters.
Maybe you need to awaken to the realities of private inefficiencies as opposed to public run facilities. Don't fall for the old party line that the private sector is any more efficient than government. It is simply not true! One can hardly call the disasters perpetrated upon the people by privately run industry (Banking, Auto, Mortgage , BP etc,) over the last 30 years as a model of efficiency? How can you now permit these same people to take over essential public services such as education, policing and prisons etc?
It amounts to rewarding stupidity, excessive greed and criminal hedonism, by giving them control of your essential services? Waken up America! The big hand is dipping into your pocket for what little change you have left!
Written before your last years midterms......
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/usascene_conservativeconundrum.pdf
The proliferation of media has been a concern of mine. I especially am concerned about the “second tier” internet media that can virtually say anything without any scrutiny at all. I am wondering if you have any ideas of what to do about it.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be the liberal spin media and 40% (roughly) will follow this media. There will be the right wing spin media and 40% (roughly) will follow this media. There will be 20% of us that will be independent thinkers. These are the people that ultimately sway things one way or the other. I have faith that the 20% will make the right choices over the long term.
Lou, I am curious -- do you consider Robert Reich a moderate? How about Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker?
On Robert Reich,He is an excellent economist and should be listened to more carefully in your domestic arena.
ReplyDeletePaul Piersons brilliance shows itself in that he is the first of his American generation to understand the overall implications of Global politics. His theories on comparative politics as an essential need for the study of Global realities is the sign of a brilliant mind at work.Kudos if you decide to study him.
I am not familiar with Hacker?
John and Lou, here is an article from a brilliant mind, (Posted on my site also) It gives excellent food for thought as to the Global aspects of humanities journey and the key place that the U.S and western Democracies have played, can clearly be seen from this commentary. Enjoy
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/thepostmodernfinancialcrisis.pdf
John and Lou.
ReplyDeleteAdditional "grist for the mill" of debate. I also posted this to the other stream on wealth disparity.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/03/rich-sat-income-inequality-opinions-columnists-middle-class.html?partner=email
James
ReplyDeleteThanks for your answer on Reich and Piersons.
The Bio I read on Mr. Reich paints him more as a public policy expert than an economist. Is there a difference between these two disciplines?
Do you know of an economist or two that you respect that may have differing point of view than these two?
James,
ReplyDeleteI liked the forbes article. The guy that wrote this is not afraid to offer some solutions and I respect that. He gave a couple of good suggestions. The first one that I thought was good was to severe employment from healthcare or vice versa. You realize why this started in the US don't you? Anyway its silly to tie these two things together. Unfortunaltly, our government has done such a poor job of managing its money the public option would be extremely hard to implement.
The second one idea that deserves discussion is better education for the lower income people. All the statistics on employment indicate that the less educated suffer the most during recession. College educated people escaped this recession almost unscathed.
The problem is that our current education system, the way it is currently organized, is so bad. Bill Gates has some good ideas on this.
I thought this article might fit in well with this post.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html
John;
ReplyDeleteThe only sensible solution to healthcare reform, which is evident around the world, and which makes any sense whatsoever is 'single payer'. Pure actuarial principle. The risk is spread across the national population. Everyone pays the same. It is cheaper, more efficient and easier to control.It is not, as you profer, difficult to administer.
I must admit you have certainly swallowed the party line that only government always does a poor job of managing money. I think you need to look at the history of your own nation to see that your government has done a good job in administration. It has done a lousy job in explaining itself and most of the terrible waste in government, is as a result of your constant left/ right chopping and changing with each new administration. This comes at a terrible cost.
The problem becomes that the "healthcare" Insurance companies have to go bye bye! That is the real battle about healthcare in your country. Unfortunately that is exclusively a U.S problem.
The social problem is easy to fix. The 'for profit system' in any discipline, as it applies to the needs of the people, is not so easy to fix? Especially given the power and the lobby of the medical insurance industry, which works very hard to debunk the truth, by providing all manner of prevarications about single payer . All of which are non issues. The economics are very clear and that is why so many other sensible nations have implemented single payer medicare, for several generations already. The spin in the US on this issue is intolerable for outsiders covered by their own national healthcare programs to understand?
That these programs also have flaws is true but the general satisfaction is very very high amongst the people that benefit, myself included.
As to education. It is an essential matter for the good of any society, that every child be given the best education available from every corner of the planet, regardless of costs. This is also a no brainer! But again in the US, the private interests fight tooth and nail to resist these logical conclusions about both healthcare and education.
John, ".......... All the statistics on employment indicate that the less educated suffer the most during recession. College educated people escaped this recession almost unscathed.........."
ReplyDeleteI think I need you to explain this a little more clearly? In particular as it applies to college educated people 'escaping this recession unscathed' ?
For one thing this 'recession' is not yet over,not by a long shot, and last I checked there are more phd and graduate students working at fast food outlets than ever before in American history?
I have mentioned many economists that I respect in these posts. In the modern era, Dr Joseph Stiglitz.PHD, Dr Roy Mundell PHD.(Father of the Euro and single document disciplines in trade) Both nobelists. John Maynard Keynes. Von Hayek and or the Austrian school of disciplines. Milton Friedman.
ReplyDeleteThe single most effective economist regardless of the views from the extreme right about him, in the last 100 years was without doubt Keynes. Now that we are coming to the end of the "trickle down" era, it is becoming increasingly obvious that that school of thought has been discredited, and we are once again finding that Keynes theories are very much still valid and actually offer a more stable approach than any others, when married to the capitalist themes of current democratic realities. As the world moves more toward a single Global community approach, I believe Keynes logic will become the basis for a more humanitarian economic model.
This will garner me nothing but enemies within the corporatist mien.
On Robert Reich: His later in life activities today, as an economist focusing upon public policy issues, is as a result of his time working in the clinton Administration. While there he was a pure economist designing and defining economic models for the US economy. Very successfully I might add as Clintons administration achieved much in "balancing the books".
ReplyDeleteWorking as we do in our discipline always influences our social views, and economists are no different. His public policy expertise is not a part of the economics discipline per se' but is more as a result of his life's experiences after applying his economics training in real time. His opinions on public policy are therefore strongly based upon his experience as a working economist at the national government level.
John I trust that you will see that I have offered "solutions" in these last few posts. I have never stopped offering you "solutions". Perhaps it is that my commentary is too complicated for you to grasp? I cannot however offer "complex" solutions for the US economic "complexities", that would need you to have a full understanding of economics modeling? Not in the space and time permitted to me. That is a full time job!
ReplyDeleteMore solutions John,(from above) One can see the lengthy debate that this offering could entail all by itself.
ReplyDelete"....... The only sensible solution to healthcare reform, which is evident around the world, and which makes any sense whatsoever is 'single payer........"
///College educated people escaped this recession almost unscathed.........." I think I need you to explain this a little more clearly?///
ReplyDeleteMy conclusion is based on the Bureau of Labor Statics data as follows: Pre-recession unemployment rate of 3.8%, height of recession 5.1%, post recession (current) 4.3%.
///Perhaps it is that my commentary is too complicated for you to grasp?///
This is possibly true but don’t you eventually have to boil down the theory to specific actions. Your commentary on healthcare was enlightening.
///For one thing this 'recession' is not yet over, not by a long shot///
My source for this statement is the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and the fact that the GDP stopped contracting quite a while ago.
///last I checked there are more phd and graduate students working at fast food outlets than ever before in American history?///
Source?
///It has done a lousy job in explaining itself and most of the terrible waste in government, is as a result of your constant left/ right chopping and changing with each new administration.///
Fair enough – I don’t distinguish between the presidency and congress when referencing government.
One of the few comentaries from Reich that I agree with:
ReplyDeletehttp://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/03/23/pm-getting-serious-about-regulation/
@John....... Sourced this for you @ wikipedia.. There are lots more around re all the Western economies.
ReplyDelete.........Given the effects of the current economic recession in the US, some graduates have gone more than a year since graduation without finding work in their chosen field, and have had to rely on odd jobs or work in the service industry, along with living with room-mates or moving back in with their parents to keep themselves current on their substantial student loan payments. High levels of long term graduate unemployment represent a massive threat to institutions of higher education within the US, which stand to lose a significant degree of social relevancy if the job market for graduates does not improve within the near future........"
@John. ".....My source for this statement is the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and the fact that the GDP stopped contracting quite a while ago........."
ReplyDeleteThe relative health of an economy is measured not simply by using the GDP linear model? Japan GDP is a constant example of this. Debt ratios at the national level is another very important indicator. As is money supply and currency valuation factors. therefore I confidently repeat..... .....this recession is a long way from over....!
@ John an Lou......From Martin Weiss phd... A little commercial but he has a lot of credibility in financial circles.
ReplyDeleteWhite House Economists Predict
CRISIS to "DWARF" 2008!
by Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.
Dear James,
I have great confidence in mankind's ability to ultimately overcome even the most extreme of challenges. But at this juncture, America has yet to begin that arduous process. We live an unrealistic lifestyle on borrowed money and borrowed time.
That's why, we have long been warning you about a looming crisis with the power to crush the U.S. economy. Unless Washington makes a 180-degree turn, we face a catastrophe that could end our way of life as we know it.
Now, just as we predicted, America's massive debt crisis is exploding into the headlines. Our warnings — the same ones for which we were scoffed at earlier — are now being echoed by many among the political elite.
Just this last week, three Congressional leaders — Senator Mark Warner, Congressman Allen West, and Senator Joe Manchin publicly warned that we are approaching — I quote — "Financial Armageddon," ... "Fiscal Armageddon" ... and a "Fiscal Titanic."
And on Thursday, no fewer than TEN former members of the White House Council of Economic Advisers — including President Obama's former top economic adviser Christina Romer — added their voices to those warning of a looming economic catastrophe.
In an editorial published by Politico, the bipartisan group warned that unless the White House and Congress slash the federal deficit, bond investors are likely to turn on the United States, triggering an economic crisis that could — again, I quote — "DWARF 2008."
Consider that for a moment: In 2008, Wall Street came within a whisker of a financial meltdown. Financial monoliths like Citigroup and Bank of America nearly went bust. And Lehman — one of the giants of Wall Street — simply ceased to exist.
Now, these top economists and Congressmen are saying, in effect, "That was NOTHING. Just wait until you see what happens NEXT!"
American Apocalypse
The "Fiscal Armageddon" that could "dwarf 2008" will be intensely personal. Millions of Americans will face the specter of lost incomes ... lost savings ... lost buying power ... lost homes ... lost liberty.
I detail the three massive crises — all converging in this time frame — that are capable of changing history: What you must do to protect your family and your finances before it's too late.
I reveal the infuriating reason why you could find yourself paying more than $11 for a gallon of gasoline and over $10 for a gallon of milk. And I show you how to protect your family's financial security with investments designed to nearly quintuple your money as this crisis unfolds.
I document why you could soon see interest rates exploding into double digits ...............cont;
Good luck and God bless!
Martin
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/03/23/pm-getting-serious-about-regulation/
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that there are many many such examples of analysts issuing well founded warnings!
And where these warnings have been attacked and countered by mass media, mostly from the right these days. One only needs to look at the current state of debate about Global warming, to see that sensible risk management is not always accepted when it should be. Again powerful forces are at play and inevitably it seems, they are supported by the corporate dynamic protecting more their bottom lines, as opposed to the security and safety of society in general.
When I was a boy this was not the case, even in extremely conservative dominions.
@John and Lou,
ReplyDeleteI remember being 'schooled' by an old mentor as to the reasons for your founding fathers insistence of structuring your administrative branches of government as they did, and also the insistence on a "free" press and on the separation of church and state. It was enlightening.
Today I believe these courageous principles have been betrayed, in that the separations of the various sectors of the American power structure, have been allowed to "bleed" into each other, and are too closely aligned with your "corpus politica". Control appears not to be in the hands of the people, but in many varied special interest groups.
So much so, that decisions are almost impossible to make, as the leaders face such complex issues, as church and corporate and press ideologies at their supporter bases. This "hamstrings" the process of honest debate and common sense solutions, and creates a government ruled from the extreme edges of society, both left and right.
Obviously stalemates, and ultimately civil commotion must result. The vitriolic atmosphere within the US at present at the political level is evidence of this frightening dynamics rise.
The only solution I see and as I have proferred before, is for a 100% voter turnout with the emphasis on taking back public control of your nation! The declawing of special interest groups including corporations and the churches, regardless of their religiousity.( And for heavens sake a shorter electoral period. We just had a call for a national election in Canada. The vote is on May 2nd....41Days for campaigning!)
A reemphasis on the individual as the key figure in your nation and as was intended by your founders........ equality of rights for all citizens and equal access to opportunity for all.
A thought to ponder "..........Until ones general focus and striving effort to succeed, is also upon the health and welfare of our chosen leaders, our neighbors, our community, and the entirety of all of the peoples of the world, then nothing of real worth can come from any striving whatsoever........
John and Lou,
ReplyDeleteI thought you might find my posting to Politico.com, on their article about the Blowback against the divisive proposals at the state levels by republican governors, of interest.
..........There would be a lot less "blowback" if the cuts were affecting everyone equally across the board. Starting at the top down instead of the reverse! Certainly no emphasis has been applied in this article to this fact, nor to the lack of mea culpa from the "upper crust" and their continuing ability, seemingly to avoid any accountability whatsoever for the problems, nor at their taxation level?
Certainly Warren Buffett understands the wealth disparity in this equation. His words;
".............I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves lives of others on the battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities, with sums reaching into the billions! In Short, fates distribution of long straws is wildly capricious!..............."
Or; " Of course there is a war between the rich and poor in society and unfortunately we the rich are winning it!"
Additionally the bi-partisan deficit commission report should be required reading for every american voter!
Source "The Deficit commission report"
"..........Since the last time our budget was balanced in 2001, the federal debt has increased dramatically, rising from 33 percent of GDP to 62 percent of GDP in 2010. 'The escalation was driven in large part by two wars and a slew of fiscally irresponsible policies', along with a deep economic downturn. We have arrived at the moment of truth, and neither political party is without blame.........."
Why is it so difficult for these republican gubernatorial politicians to follow the suggestions of the deficit commission? Beginning with tax reform and a redistribution of wealth..... It is apparently a no brainer? Unless of course you have to face a slightly psychotic tea party member, or someone whose income is in the upper bracket of earners? .... Republican and Democratic governors alike must face the realities. It does no good to simply attack one portion of society. Especially if that portion is already in the lower bracket of earners, as in teachers and cops and firemen etc.
Of course there will be "Blowback"!! Until all are held responsible and apportioned accordingly, it will and should, always be so!
I've been busy on some personal matters this week, so I will spend more time reading all (or at least most of) the links that you guys have been posting, as well as read all of your insightful comments.
ReplyDeleteIn the mean time, just wanted to post a couple of replies.
James - your question about Hacker. He is the co-auther of "Winner Take All Politics", a link for which I have on this original thread. He is a Professor of Political Science at Yale.
Here is a link to an interesting article regarding the psychology aspects of political messages.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/29/21561/?akid=6755.259232.Ad4IX8&rd=1&t=8
Here is another excellent article, which I believe also ask the hard questions and helps expose the negative effects of the Fox News punditry machine, and their ongoing drive to degrade truth and honor in journalism.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/are-there-no-standards-for-punditry/2011/03/28/AF9o4iuB_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
This was my comment/post to the above mentioned article in the WAPO
ReplyDeleteWinston Churchill
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
This is still a valid comment on the state of democracy for many modern day elitists. The problem appears to be that even Churchill understood that the average voter, if kept in a darkened place, was basically unable to grasp, what should be the reality of truth and consequence for ones actions. The American voter accordingly, has been deliberately "dumbed down" systematically, over a 30 year period, by a deliberate conspiratorial dynamic, emanating originally from the corporatists and the extreme right. Using these policies of power, and the manipulation of the individuals right to a free society, they have been successfully eliminated by this grasping power hungry "upper class" or "The new Romans" if you like?
America is fast becoming a nation where servitude is the new norm, and the elite simply argue back and forth amongst themselves how best to rule the masses! The ruling parties after all having seemingly morphed into a small group of like minded power mongers, that care little for the sanctity of the American Republic or the rights of the individual.
Speaking of media diversions, I hope that we can have an intelligent discussion about Nuclear Power. I can hear all the anti-corporate people lining up to distort the dangers of Nuclear and to derail it. Of course there are dangers but are we incapable of designing around them?
ReplyDeleteThe nuclear power debate is essentially not a debate about economics. The economic viability of nuclear energy is beyond dispute, although it will require initial and significant infrastructure funding and political will (a la Public funding as well as perhaps a private participation) as I have mentioned before. The main issue still appears to be our human scientific inability, to dispose efficiently of the waste by products as well as the potential health hazards. Currently exposure to radiation remains a factor, as it has a lasting life for some 1,000 years I believe?
ReplyDeleteGiven the latest example of how disasters can influence debate, BP and now the Japan issue, Haiti, Katrina etc, it is clear that enforceable and lasting regulation of all industry is the real challenge! Not just the quantifiable dangers of the source of pollution and endangerment, but the real and less easy to control, dangers of "human nature" and it's seemingly never ending will to "cut corners" simply to aid and abet the bottom line thinkers, as with the current mentality of the corporate sector?
Then again that has become the real challenge today, in almost every sector of economic endeavor, with many economists opting for a new economic format, as opposed to the existing anglo saxon capitalist model, of accumulation and growth at all costs?
Until we can be assured as a society, that the "greed element" can be completely and safely controlled by regulation, or its risk has been removed entirely from the essential matters affecting the human species, we can not consider Nuclear power, or any power source for that matter, as a "viable option" for humanity.
John.... I should add, that it is obvious, based upon results and recent history, our current capitalist society is not yet mature enough, to be trusted onto the playground, even if all the scientific knowledge did indeed already exist! That is my position on the debate in any event........:-)
ReplyDeleteYour turn.......?
I would welcome a debate on the economics of nuclear power, the importance it will play in the future energy mix, the public participation in funding, the safe design and operation of plants, the efficient disposal of waste, the effective regulation of the industry or anything else you can think of. What I do not accept is a failure to discuss the topic on the basis of fear, misinformation, that we can supply our necessary energy needs without nuclear or a general distrust of corporations or the capitalist system. I presume that this again puts us at an impasse.
ReplyDeleteI would encourage you to do more research on the scientific inability to dispose of the waste by products. This is the argument that anti-corporates (with the help of the media) have developed in the long absence of a major nuclear incident (until Japan). I think you have may have bought into this argument without sufficient research. Look into reprocessing and how the French handle their waste.
James,
ReplyDeleteI was listening to one of my favorite podcasts “Planet Money” today on the drive back from my inlaws. There was a discussion on what is a “Public Good” as in Goods and Services. Their definition was that it was nonrival and non-excludable. They were discussing whether or not NPR was a “Public Good” and secondly whether or not it was necessary to fund it. It was a very interesting discussion. Is this the way you define a "Public Good"?
"Public Good"?...........A very confusing question? Not having heard the debate on the radio, it is a little difficult for me to understand the context of your query or "their " definition?
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI am a little perturbed by your seeming insistence that I personally am somehow causing an impasse? I already agreed that Nuclear energy is an economically viable option. Hardly an impasse.
What I do not believe, and I await your evidence to the contrary, if you can produce it, is that we have the assurances we need as a species, that human safety comes first, in the expansion of our increasing demands upon the planets resources to meet humanities needs!
At least not from the current commercial structures, presently employed for the purpose, within the Anglo saxon capitalist model. You appear to be willing to accept the assurances from this obviously flawed industrial component. I am not however, and certainly not as regards Nuclear, and I have offered an opinion often in this stream and elsewhere, that we need a new economic format to meet these changing needs (security being one of them) of our Global community going forward.
Can you offer any substantive counter to any of my commentaries, by providing evidence and assurances that can be relied upon, as to the maturity of the existing corporate and commercial dynamic? Which incidentally has been proven wanting in almost every case where human communal security is concerned. B.P, Katrina, Coal mining, Japan, Haiti,L.A Quake,IndonesianTsunami etc etc etc. The list of flawed commercial safety regimens is endless!
The safety of the planet is now the issue, not simply road or air or mining or oceanic, but the security of the entirety of the human race as the Globe shrinks and the Global community grows. Nuclear energy can power this dynamic yes!....but how can you honestly expect me to trust the current corporate "accumulate at all costs" model to not cut corners for the great God Profit and perhaps kill us all in a blinding storm of radiation?
As a humorous and valid side comment..... I am tickled that you an American, given the recent anti French emotions and strained relationship between the US and France, would now promote the French as the shining light that we should walk toward, when it comes to Nuclear waste disposal.....:-) I have to pinch myself!
ReplyDeleteThis after trashing their military, their national healthcare plan, their public education, etc, etc ...... It is truly humorous to picture a bunch of US corporate executives now appearing in front of a "joint session" promoting the benefits of using French scientific expertise, to back the launch of an American National nuclear plant expansion plan! Can you really imagine that happening?.......:-)
Additionally John the French have been at it since 1974. It is also a public utility company (Exclusively Government controlled) It may well become the model for EUROZone expansion, as the German and English plants are aging fast. My major concern, as I have expressed to you, is the economic mish mash that is accepted by the US consumer, as normal for industry and that "they" the corporatists, will never allow a public utility of this magnitude to exist in the US. Tell me I am wrong!
ReplyDeleteJohn and Lou....... At Chernobyl, a warning for Japan
ReplyDeleteBy Will Englund
CHERNOBYL, Ukraine — Forbidding under a cold, gray sky, the dead atomic power plant here is a living enterprise.
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/at-chernobyl-a-warning-for-japan/2011/03/31/AFLGWeXC_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend
Since you live in California John. I would be interested in knowing what you and your family would do, in the event of a similar tragedy as occurred in Japan, were to occur in California?...... given the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility is sitting almost directly on the San Andreas fault line?....... I would also take a good look at the diversity of corporations that currently control the American Nuclear industrial dynamic? As well as their safety records.
ReplyDeleteThis is all aside from the fact that I may agree with you and others that Nuclear is economically a viable source of energy production! And as we (Glowing in the dark) deposit our dividend checks?....:-)
James,
ReplyDelete"kill us all in a blinding storm of radiation" really? how amusing?
I think you are proving my point how discussion against Nuclear are made on the basis of fear and irritional statements.
I am also quite impressed how you can turn virtually any post into a discussion on the evils of the current corporate system.
The tragedy of Japan is not being told because of the unhealty focus on the nuclear story. If this sort of thing were to happen in California it would also be a tragedy.
For the record the San Andreas fault is 45 miles from Diablo Canyon nuclear facility.
These websites will put into perspective why you cannot compare Chernobyl with what is happening in Japan or what happened in three mile island.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/
James,
ReplyDeleteThis is the definition of "Public Good" that Planet Money was using in their discussion of NPR.
I am curious how this fits into your socialist corporatism theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Let us be clear that the definitions of market forces, from an economic standpoint, usually require for lack of a better term, the application of a scaled "points" value to any specifics, and to then accordingly develop logarithmic equations to arrive at mathematical linear models. Using of course basic economic principles of marketplace supply and demand.
ReplyDeleteIn your simple wikipedia example:
For instance if one were to replace the term "Air" as in "air is free to breathe" ...... with the term "clean air". Then one can see the clear need to quantify the costs of providing "clean air to everyone for free"? It is a misnomer to assume that the public good is such a simple equation as that used in the debate on the NPR.
As far as I can see, and without any knowledge based analysis on my part, the value of this (NPR) as a service, may or may not have been defined as providing some quantifiable "value" (possibly unbiased and educational opinion) to the American community at large? This is essentially an opinion based social issue. Although given enough data one could I suppose establish a set of specific undeniable valuations for any such service?
The "public good" issue is a much more significant debate when one analyzes todays corporate sector. My (and many others I may add) position is that certain, clearly defined excesses of corporate activity, are having a detrimental effect upon the greater good of Global society as a whole.
The activities of growth and expansion for example, while advantageous to a point, within a clearly open and competitive domestic environ, become less beneficial and are actually a serious challenge to the authority of the peoples rights, as they cross domestic and natural boundaries, that are not easily accessible to the whole.
Employment dynamics alone, are a clear indication that this unfettered growth damages both the originating economy, as well as the new market. Unreasonable Mergers and acquisitions are a clear example of this unreasonable and feverish growth.
In one of my papers I used the Kraft/ Cadbury merger as an example of this out of control and unnecessary corporatism. The summation was "do we really need a bigger chocolatier?" The legal cost alone for this merger was over 400 million USD. The job losses were significant, (27-35%) for both the US and the British communities. Is this really not a dangerous dynamic for mankind? How badly did we as a species need a more dominant chocolatier?..........:-)
This same question could become an integral part of a new and more appropriate analysis of accumulation theory, as well as a redefining of our "for profit only" based capitalist system. One does not need to be somehow "ideologically flawed" to consider these facts, that the Public good should become the overriding element in all our economic calculations. It does not make me a "leftie libtard", or some raging communist Marxist thug, to believe in an economy that can once again serve society as opposed to enslaving it!
I believe this makes me a solid conservative, that believes in the ideals of preserving the rights of the individual and their mandated control of their economy through sensible legislators. Legislators unfettered by human greed and corruptive multi national corporate practices.
Forgot to mention John, that even with the merger of Kraft/ Cadbury, we still don't know how they get the caramel into the "Caramilk" bar?
ReplyDeleteWhat was the point of it all?....:-)
James,
ReplyDeleteHave you thought of rebranding your socialist corporatism theories into something like "rules for compasionate corporations"? Maybe include some examples. Just a thought... ;)
And Kraft/Cadbury would not qualify until they release the "Caramilk" secret?
James,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed your March 26 on economists. I am familiar with them except for the Euro guy. Interesting comentary on keynes. I'll give you my "non-economist" comment back on Keynes when I get a moment. I'll bet you can't wait ...;)
John, If you are contemplating "Keynes" you should also know of what has become a general understanding of many previously committed "trickle down theorists" and supporters of what was once referred to as Reaganomics,......... as to the errors of their ways. Here is the text of an article by one such respected professional and certainly a qualified commentator.... Hope you find it stimulating...
ReplyDelete“Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.”
--Karl Marx
If Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial capital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments. Their predictions are far superior to the “risk models” for which the Nobel Prize has been given and are closer to the money than the predictions of Federal Reserve chairmen, US Treasury secretaries, and Nobel economists, such as Paul Krugman, who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis.
In this first decade of the 21st century there has been no increase in the real incomes of working Americans. There has been a sharp decline in their wealth. In the 21st century Americans have suffered two major stock market crashes and the destruction of their real estate wealth.
Some studies have concluded that the real incomes of Americans, except for the financial oligarchy of the super rich, are less today than in the 1980s and even the 1970s. I have not examined these studies of family income to determine whether they are biased by the rise in divorce and percentage of single parent households. However, for the last decade it is clear that real take-home pay has declined.
The main cause of this decline is the offshoring of US high value-added jobs. Both manufacturing jobs and professional services, such as software engineering and information technology work, have been relocated in countries with large and cheap labor forces.
The wipeout of middle class jobs was disguised by the growth in consumer debt. As Americans’ incomes ceased to grow, consumer debt expanded to take the place of income growth and to keep consumer demand rising. Unlike rises in consumer incomes due to productivity growth, there is a limit to debt expansion. When that limit is reached, the economy ceases to grow..........continued
Continued...........The immiseration of working people has not resulted from worsening crises of over-production of goods and services, but from financial capital’s power to force the relocation of production for domestic markets to foreign shores. Wall Street’s pressures, including pressures from takeovers, forced American manufacturing firms to “increase shareholders’ earnings.” This was done by substituting cheap foreign labor for American labor.
ReplyDeleteCorporations offshored or outsourced abroad their manufacturing output, thus divorcing American incomes from the production of the goods that they consume. The next step in the process took advantage of the high speed Internet to move professional service jobs, such as engineering, abroad. The third step was to replace the remains of the domestic work force with foreigners brought in at one-third the salary on H-1B, L-1, and other work visas.
This process by which financial capital destroyed the job prospects of Americans was covered up by “free market” economists, who received grants from offshoring firms in exchange for propaganda that Americans would benefit from a “New Economy” based on financial services, and by shills in the education business, who justified work visas for foreigners on the basis of the lie that America produces a shortage of engineers and scientists.
In Marx’s day, religion was the opiate of the masses. Today the media is. Let’s look at media reporting that facilitates the financial oligarchy’s ability to delude the people
The financial oligarchy is hyping a recovery while American unemployment and home foreclosures are rising. The hype owes its credibility to the high positions from which it comes, to the problems in payroll jobs reporting that overstate employment, and to disposal into the memory hole of any American unemployed for more than one year.....continued
On October 2 statistician John Williams of shadowstats.com reported that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has announced a preliminary estimate of its annual benchmark revision of 2009 employment. The BLS has found that employment in 2009 has been overstated by about one million jobs. John Williams believes the overstatement is two million jobs. He reports that “the birth-death model currently adds [an illusory] net gain of about 900,00 jobs per year to payroll employment reporting.”
ReplyDeleteThe non-farm payroll number is always the headline report. However, Williams believes that the household survey of unemployment is statistically sounder than the payroll survey. The BLS has never been able to reconcile the difference in the numbers in the two employment surveys. Last Friday, the headline payroll number of lost jobs was 263,000 for the month of September. However the household survey number was 785,000 lost jobs in the month of September.
The headline unemployment rate of 9.8% is a bare bones measure that greatly understates unemployment. Government reporting agencies know this and report another unemployment number, known as U-6. This measure of US unemployment stands at 17% in September 2009.
When the long-term discouraged workers are added back into the total unemployed, the unemployment rate in September 2009 stands at 21.4%.
The unemployment of American citizens could actually be even higher. When Microsoft or some other firm replaces several thousand US workers with foreigners on H-1B visas, Microsoft does not report a decline in payroll employment. Nevertheless, several thousand Americans are now without jobs. Multiply this by the number of US firms that are relying on “body shops” to replace their US work force with cheap foreign labor year after year, and the result is hundreds of thousands of unreported unemployed Americans.
Obviously, with more than one-fifth of the American work force unemployed and the remainder buried in mortgage and credit card debt, economic recovery is not in the picture.
What is happening is that the hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP money given to the large banks and the trillions of dollars that have been added to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet have been funneled into the stock market, producing another bubble, and into the acquisition of smaller banks by banks “too large to fail.” The result is more financial concentration.
The expansion in debt that underlies this bubble has further eroded the US dollar’s credibility as reserve currency. When the dollar starts to go, panicked policy-makers will raise interest rates in order to protect the US Treasury’s borrowing capability. When the interest rates rise, what little remains of the US economy will tank.
If the government cannot borrow, it will print money to pay its bills. Hyperinflation will hit the American population. Massive unemployment and massive inflation will inflict upon the American people misery that not even Marx and Lenin could envisage.
Meanwhile America’s economists continue to pretend that they are dealing with a normal postwar recession that merely requires an expansion of money and credit to restore economic growth.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
John, If you are considering Keynes perhaps you might investigate those trickle downers or supporters of Reaganomics that have since seen and willingly admit to the folly of that line of economic thinking.
ReplyDelete(I don't know what happened to my lead in which included the first part of the article by Roberts.... Here is the missing beginning of the article:)
Marx and Lenin Reconsidered
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
“Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.”
--Karl Marx
If Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial capital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments. Their predictions are far superior to the “risk models” for which the Nobel Prize has been given and are closer to the money than the predictions of Federal Reserve chairmen, US Treasury secretaries, and Nobel economists, such as Paul Krugman, who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis.
In this first decade of the 21st century there has been no increase in the real incomes of working Americans. There has been a sharp decline in their wealth. In the 21st century Americans have suffered two major stock market crashes and the destruction of their real estate wealth.
Some studies have concluded that the real incomes of Americans, except for the financial oligarchy of the super rich, are less today than in the 1980s and even the 1970s. I have not examined these studies of family income to determine whether they are biased by the rise in divorce and percentage of single parent households. However, for the last decade it is clear that real take-home pay has declined.
The main cause of this decline is the offshoring of US high value-added jobs. Both manufacturing jobs and professional services, such as software engineering and information technology work, have been relocated in countries with large and cheap labor forces.
The wipeout of middle class jobs was disguised by the growth in consumer debt. As Americans’ incomes ceased to grow, consumer debt expanded to take the place of income growth and to keep consumer demand rising. Unlike rises in consumer incomes due to productivity growth, there is a limit to debt expansion. When that limit is reached, the economy ceases to grow..........continued
John, (and Lou)
ReplyDeleteThis is the opening section of the above noted article by Roberts. I don't know what happened to my originating post? In any event trust you can piece the 3 together, to help you in your search for the economic reality......... at least as I see it.
Marx and Lenin Reconsidered
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
“Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.”
--Karl Marx
If Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial capital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments. Their predictions are far superior to the “risk models” for which the Nobel Prize has been given and are closer to the money than the predictions of Federal Reserve chairmen, US Treasury secretaries, and Nobel economists, such as Paul Krugman, who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis.
In this first decade of the 21st century there has been no increase in the real incomes of working Americans. There has been a sharp decline in their wealth. In the 21st century Americans have suffered two major stock market crashes and the destruction of their real estate wealth.
Some studies have concluded that the real incomes of Americans, except for the financial oligarchy of the super rich, are less today than in the 1980s and even the 1970s. I have not examined these studies of family income to determine whether they are biased by the rise in divorce and percentage of single parent households. However, for the last decade it is clear that real take-home pay has declined.
The main cause of this decline is the offshoring of US high value-added jobs. Both manufacturing jobs and professional services, such as software engineering and information technology work, have been relocated in countries with large and cheap labor forces.
The wipeout of middle class jobs was disguised by the growth in consumer debt. As Americans’ incomes ceased to grow, consumer debt expanded to take the place of income growth and to keep consumer demand rising. Unlike rises in consumer incomes due to productivity growth, there is a limit to debt expansion. When that limit is reached, the economy ceases to grow.... continued:
I also trust that you can now see how easily it is for a conservative realist such as myself and associates like Roberts, to become "pariahs" and subject to the negative and unfortunately uneducated forces from the right.
ReplyDeleteWhen one attempts to enlighten them to the economic realities, one is seen to be suddenly, and is attacked as a "libtard", or "commie bastard" or socialist etc, etc, etc. All the while one is simply trying to bring a sense of practical reality to the debate.
I can assure you it is most disheartening! Given that this cadre of economically uneducated people, are now seemingly in control of the economic destiny of your country, and by association, my own!
Lou, several of my posts have been deleted?.....James
ReplyDeleteI am again repeating 'part one' of the Roberts article
ReplyDeleteMarx and Lenin Reconsidered
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
“Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.”
--Karl Marx
If Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial capital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments. Their predictions are far superior to the “risk models” for which the Nobel Prize has been given and are closer to the money than the predictions of Federal Reserve chairmen, US Treasury secretaries, and Nobel economists, such as Paul Krugman, who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis.
In this first decade of the 21st century there has been no increase in the real incomes of working Americans. There has been a sharp decline in their wealth. In the 21st century Americans have suffered two major stock market crashes and the destruction of their real estate wealth.
Some studies have concluded that the real incomes of Americans, except for the financial oligarchy of the super rich, are less today than in the 1980s and even the 1970s. I have not examined these studies of family income to determine whether they are biased by the rise in divorce and percentage of single parent households. However, for the last decade it is clear that real take-home pay has declined.
The main cause of this decline is the offshoring of US high value-added jobs. Both manufacturing jobs and professional services, such as software engineering and information technology work, have been relocated in countries with large and cheap labor forces.
The wipeout of middle class jobs was disguised by the growth in consumer debt. As Americans’ incomes ceased to grow, consumer debt expanded to take the place of income growth and to keep consumer demand rising. Unlike rises in consumer incomes due to productivity growth, there is a limit to debt expansion. When that limit is reached, the economy ceases to grow....continued
John,
ReplyDeleteAs of today the Canadian dollar closed at 1.045 cents, against it's US counterpart............????
Canadian dollar story is all about oil You have it we don't
ReplyDeleteJohn,............And coal,and silver and gold and titanium and zinc and iron ore and uranium and etc etc etc . Basically what you lack Canada has in abundance... Untapped raw materials and a whole new world of demand for what we have to offer..... Economics 101 supply and demand.
ReplyDeleteOur stable "well regulated" financial sector has a little to do with it as well!
And by the way you have lots of domestic oil sources. Just not as easy or economical for the multinational "so called American" oil companies, to get to it. Buying it cheap from Arabian nations with disenfranchised populations, living in tents and working for peanuts and that were once easily controlled was a better dynamic for them. Not so much any more it seems?
ReplyDeleteWe buy a lot of oil from Canada and Mexico. Living in tents?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
I am well aware that Canada is your largest trading partner. Not just oil...... Has been for a very long time..... Check the record.
ReplyDeleteI was referring to the populations of the oil wealthy sheikdoms when I referred to their people "living in tents" and in poverty. Since the 2nd world war, the West and in particular the U.S, have been propping up these corrupt autocratic states with barrels of American citizens tax dollars. This money never made it into the pockets of anyone else, certainly not the peoples needs, except that small % and their secret infrastructures secret police etc, that supported this hedonist dynamic. just another brilliant plan gone bad !
@ lou.... I just revisited Carters "firepit" site and was quite amazed and stunned by his admission that he is in fact a card carrying Tea party member and instant friend of Michelle Bachman? He also claims to have been a strong member and participant as far back as sept 2009? That concerns me greatly, as I posted to his site with the full understanding that it was an "all voices heard" site. That is where you and I first communicated and you will recall the vitriol even then. I believe I was attacked mercilessly! As were you on occasion If I remember?
ReplyDeleteI have no issue with his political choices as that is his democratic right, but I certainly was surprised that the site has become a "teaparty" anti government ranters paradise. Also that I was so misled by him at the outset.....One never knows I guess.
James, I never doubted for a minute that Tim was/is a member of the Tea Party. While I don't frequent his site often, I do try to drop a comment in every now and then, just to attempt to add a voice of reason to that crazyness. :)
ReplyDeleteOn another matter, I'm glad to see that Glenn Beck is actually off the air now. I will give Fox News a little credit for having a semblance of decency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2011/04/06/AFNEgnqC_story.html
James, (and anyone else), for a reason unknown to me, it seems that some comments that are posted are randomly sent into the "spam" bucket. I have to go in to management mode, see that there are comments marked as spam, and then mark them as "not spam", so that they get posted. I just did that with four of your posts.
ReplyDeleteI guess I will have to periodically look in the spam folder and make sure the comments get posted.
John and Lou, Her is my latest offering to my own site. This is a preview
ReplyDeleteApril 12th, 50 years ago, saw the launch of the first human into space. The soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin's adventure, as " first man into space", while in and of itself a truly significant event and certainly it deserves to be remembered by all mankind, as a human progression beyond anyones ambitions or imaginings at the time, my own included! Except perhaps the very few scientists that initiated the great achievement.
Why Americans should especially remember this flight by Gagarin with awe and gratitude, is for what the shock of the realization at being scientifically "outdone", eventually meant to their own nation. It led to one of the greatest ' rallying cries ' from any modern leader to his nation, by then president John F. Kennedy. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country! " He went on to stipulate with youthful emphasis and for some, an obvious naivete', that the United States would in that decade, place a man on the moon and bring him back again! People around the world and at home, were stunned by his youthful exuberance. Shocked out of their lethargic bemoaning at the despair of it all, by his ambitious belief in his nations great abilities and it's promise.
The year was 1960 and America was not in a good place as the history tells. Vietnam and the economy and the cold war, were a burden upon the country, and there was a blackness that pervaded peoples souls across the nation, as they were reliving the horrors and doubts of the self same civil rights arguments, somewhat akin to the aged environment from which arose their great civil war! Nothing seemed to be brightly upon the horizon, to save them from these seemingly interminable domestic conflicts? The rest as they say is history!...continued
cont;.............It would seem that the power of this awakening, and it's eventual consequences led the United states to become, in the following 30 years, the undisputed and greatly admired leader of the free world. Unfortunately, in the following 20 years, also to be seen as the undisputed wastrel of the opportunity, to lead the Global community into a newer and more progressive society? As a result of a revival of individual and political complacency, the horned demons of hedonism, elitism and greed, were allowed to replace that fragile spirit of achievement, honor and humanity, first grasped by President Kennedy and forced upon a starved and needy world, as the necessary and real missing "human quotient", which was the potion required in order for all to aspire to individual greatness, and for the greater good of the society of man. We all knew it was the truth! Some simply decided to ignore it?
ReplyDeleteAnd so we have seemingly arrived at that moment again, where their nation is being torn by factions of extremism, by endless wars and turmoil, that at times appear overwhelming in their complexities. Disingenuous characters seemingly hold sway over the national debate, and divisive ideological temper is once again upon their land. That the current circumstance, although new to many, has become eerily familiar to this writer, is perhaps due to my having lived through that period aforementioned and having firmly believed all the while, in the signal of hope, that as went America so went democracy!.
Meanwhile the trends toward a dissembling of the American middle and working class continues unabated! While the gap between rich and poor both domestically and globally, widens in a frightening reality that none, save a few echoing outsiders in the political arena, seem willing to address? The Global and American financial and corporate systems are still in a mess, as is the domestic American housing debacle. While ongoing arguments abound, as to the reversal of tired old fractious Laws and what amounts to the same old differences in ideological beliefs, Guns, Gays, Healthcare, abortion etc etc, which had been seemingly settled in past debates and by past administrations.
This new arising of extremism, particularly from the right, is doing untold damage to the entirety of not only the American economy, but threatens to destabilize the Global economy as well! Never in the history of mankind or of western democracy, has there been more of a need for a "Kennedyesque moment" in this nation. A nation that must for once understand that it is it's responsibility to lead. If it be their choice not to lead, then please follow, or do the decent thing and get out of the way of progress! Hand the baton to someone else. Perhaps China or India or...? From the outsiders viewpoint it would appear that the American penchant for disagreeable debate, personal attacks and subliminal racism, have survived over their entire history, and are now like some evil force, ever stronger and continue to stifle their ability to prosper, as both a great nation and as a Global leader......
James,
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I really know about Keynes are his theories on government stimulus and deficits during a recession. However, I think that Keynes also advocated a surplus and a “rainy day fund” during good economic times. If this is the case than his theories have been bastardized because the current operation of the US government is to runs a deficit during good economic times and a bigger deficit during recessions.
I am not quite sure why corporations should be upset with the bastardized version of Keynesian economics. Corporations seem to benefit from large deficits and debt creation. I say this because initially the stimulus and deficit spending are distributed to the average joe. The average joe spends the money to buy things made by corporations. The corporations take this money, create a few jobs make more stuff for the average joe and keep the rest. The cycle repeats. Who’s pockets do you think that the $14 trillion and growing is in?
It seems to me that the cycle can only be stopped in one of two ways – stop deficit spending except in times of severe economic trouble or tax the hell out of corporations and use that money instead of deficit spending to continue the cycle. I advocate the former because the latter does not make sense.
I realize that this theory is simplistic and probably has holes in it. I look forward to your critique.
My critique is simply that to apply your thesis in actuality to the existing complex problems, being experienced by the US economy, would indeed represent an extreme oversimplification! Again your view is narrowed toward the US economy, as somehow being a stand alone issue?
ReplyDeleteThe United states in it's entirety, seems to be basically ignoring the realities of Global economics and international trade. That is a sweeping statement I know, but unless the US grapples with the deficit, in a realistic and composite manner, by a leveling of the burden across their entire system, then the current dynamic will continue. That is, an unhealthy and increasing Corporate wealth, together with an increasingly wealthy elite, which will lead to a terrible devastation of the core supports of your entire society. The pillars of a healthy society being well known, are increasingly under attack in your nation at present. Most economic observers see this as overreaction, and as occurring without any noticeable or substantial effect on the deficit conditions present in your economy.
To continue to apply the burden for the future health of the overall economy, upon the already diminishing wealth of the middle class, is a paramount example of "head in the sand economics". Certainly the U.S worker will need to change, to also face the realities of a competitive Global dynamic, but they should not be sacrificing alone, and doing so to the exclusive benefit of a wealthy domestic minority!
The economic pressures of the growth markets (China India Brazil Mexico etc etc) will make it impractical if not impossible for the US to continue to disregard its excesses of the past. That this new dynamic however, should only be a lesson learned by the middle class and the poor, is for sure frowned upon already, by almost every sensible economist and analyst. As well as the IMF and many nations that see the prevalent need, and who still have a great dependence upon a healthy US economy!
It is a complex commercial world, speedily becoming interdependent and competitive. The US must at all levels adjust and let go of this insistence upon an economy that is singularly independent of the realities of this new world! It is essential that the current ideological nonsense be viewed as it is. A truly destructive format which does not deal with the reality of an economically "out of balance" society........
John C.........As an aside and re your comment on Keynes.... It is not possible to name a single economist who's theories have not been "bastardized" as you put it, at some point in time?
ReplyDeleteTherein lies the conundrum about our society and it's lazy willingness to accept others interpretations of great works or words of wisdom. Our media in the modern era, being the main culprit....:-)
Lou and John C......... here is a link to a current piece from the financial times to give you an idea as to how outside financial gurus are viewing the American economic scene. enjoy....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/169d6ec6-653e-11e0-b150-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1JQSx3c00
James, I'd like to ask your help on a matter I'm currently investigating. I am in a debate on a friend of mine's FB page with someone (who I don't actually know) who is very conservative and seems to believe in supply-side economics. He sent me this link, which I am currently digesting.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
If I could beg your indulgence, I ask you to read through (at least some of) it, and let me know how you would respond. I believe the premise in the article is wrong, but I need data to back up my position. I am researching on my own of course, but I would appreciate your assistance on this matter, if you have some time.
Thanks. :)
Lou.... I attempted the link and there are several options for this link. Could you be a little more specific as to the content of the actual article he is referring to? Also it might help if you can ascertain his bio/c.v.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the 'supply side' supporters, are quite simply spouting ideological talking points, with little real knowledge of economics. In my experience these people are nothing more than closed minded individuals. They are certainly not sensible nor realistic conservatives.
Alternatively you could refer him directly to my commentaries and include me in the debate if you wish? Certainly if he is referring to the "Glorious" Reagan era, he can easily be debunked by the actual historical results and the abject failure of those economic policies. Several of my posts refer to individuals that served during that era and who have vociferously rejected the policies of Reaganomics. Bruce Bartlett PHD econ, Paul Craig Roberts PHD econ, even Greenspan said he was wrong in his assumptions about the market under the conditions of trickle down, deregulated supply side economic policy )
LOU...Alternatively refer your friend to my last 2 postings here.... The financial times article should cause him some hesitation. It is written by a truly great capitalist and renowned conservative. As you know I respect him immensely (Martin Wolf of the Financial times).
ReplyDeleteLOU and JOHN C...
ReplyDeleteHere is another fresh off the press article that also deals with the image of America as an immature player in the modern world of economic realities. Again written by an individual known for his conservative viewpoints. I would also stress John and Lou that these people, including myself, are all capitalists by definition and senior people in their own business environments......... Under the present penchant for ideological labeling from the far right in American politics, they and myself, would all be referred to as "libtards or socialists?"....:-)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c334162-660c-11e0-9d40-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1JRW251ua
James, thanks for the links. I'm still wading my way through the first article from Martin Wolf. I'm afraid it's going to take me at least three read-throughs to understand it well. :)
ReplyDeleteI think that I should try to keep the focus of any "proof" of the problems with supply-side economics to specific argements made in the document from the Joint Economic Committe, called "The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform". The specific URL for that is here:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
That should take you directly to the article. If not, then perhaps there is a problem with your internet access? Not sure.
I believe that the best course for the U.S. economy, given the reality of the situation, is a combination of budget cuts and tax hikes. Perhaps that is stating the obvious; however, the real trick of course is to figure out where to cut and where to spend.
So I think I'm going to focus on one aspect at the moment:
Figuring out how to respond, with more than just rhetoric - but with actual numbers, to disprove the following statement from the J.E.C. report I referenced above: "Conclusion:
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."
Assuming I / we can establish a reasonable logical argument to that premise, then the next step should be to look at how debt should be targetted to improve productivity rather than increase consumption.
LOU, I cannot teach you 44 years of economics. You will need to do a lot of research and read as much data as I am required to do under my personal discipline as an analyst, each and every day in order to be able to counteract the ideological talking points and to debunk old theories and studies.
ReplyDeleteGo to the most recent post on the "Progressive economics" site and in particular (from a Canadian perspective, Jim Stanford phd econ), yesterdays report, published by postmedia news (Non partisan) on the ineffective use of corporate tax cuts as a spur to increase investment. While the study was for Canadian purposes, it certainly has it's mathematical parallels to any American dynamic.
As I have said before, in my "meandering rhetorical manner", the idea that tax cuts stimulate growth, is an old fashioned and in fact abusive treatment of the real modern facts! The republican party has held onto this nonsense for too many years, and of course will not permit modern Global statistical reviews and factual mathematics to get in the way of their ideological inanities!
Yes a "well balanced tax regimen" across the entirety of a social strata does stimulate growth, but only because it nurtures both the job creator as well as the consumer dynamic. The Ryan plan dissembles the middleclass's wealth (Consumers) and protects and actually decreases the tax burden upon the social sector that needs it the least, corporations and wealthy individuals! This as I have been insisting, for almost 15 years, is insanity! Tax relief for corporations does not stimulate the economy no spur investment in America! Being competitive at all levels of the Global commercial dynamic is what will stimulate America!
I hope this helps your debate elsewhere..
LOU:
ReplyDeleteBio Jim Stanford: To me he represents the new fresh blood in Global economic thinking... regards James
..............Jim Stanford is one of Canada’s best-known economists. He works for the Canadian Auto Workers union, Canada’s largest private sector trade union, and writes a regular economics column for the Globe and Mail. He speaks regularly to the media on current economic issues, and to audiences of unions, community activists, and others concerned with building a more democratic, critical approach to economics. He received his Master’s degree in Economics from Cambridge University, U.K., and his Ph.D. from the New School for Social Research in New York City. He was the founding chairperson of the Progressive Economics Forum, Canada’s network of progressive economists. His previous book, Paper Boom (James Lorimer & Co., 1999), was well-reviewed as an accessible critique of the wasteful practices of the financial industry........"
Of course your "conservative" friend will likely dismiss Jim Stanford as a liberal retard and nothing more than a commie Canadian wannabe.....:-)
ReplyDeleteI wish you well... James
I wonder LOU if you can find a modern economist without ideological leanings in the US, to offer an opinion on the assumptions that are rife throughout and that were made that led to the arrticle/report from the Joint economics committee JEC during the Reagan era?
ReplyDeleteFor example: direct quote
"........ A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance......."
You can surely research this easily and find the lie in this assumption.
That at least "300 billion" dollars has been stolen through this medium of tax shelters and avoidance this decade alone! My query to you and to the point of your debate, is what segment of the American community had the wealth and ability during this time, as well as access to these off shore havens?
The JEC report for the Reagan era is a well known and easily debunked report. History, as with the above example, has shown the lack of integrity in it's overall flawed analysis.
I am sure you can find many other flaws within it, to argue the case for an intelligent, balanced and "equitable" tax regimen. One that does not require the complete dissembling of the majorities personal security apparatus, and which will throw everyone into a speculative economic dynamic that can only favor the already wealthy and secure!
Add on LOU. .....If you go to the "firepit" I believe the dec 13th posting, you can see there, much more specific questions that I posed on taxation including the numbers at the time. That stream may help you in combination with the foregoing....
ReplyDeleteOf course I got no "answer", other than the same old cut cut cut nonsense, as if Tim had recently been somehow spiritually inspired by God, to be an expert on what is needed to cure the American economic condition. A spiritual awakening as with the entire teabag movement it seems?....:-)
great article from todays WAPO:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-elites-have-a-duty-to-the-rest-of-us/2011/04/16/AF5KN8vD_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend
My posting to the above WAPO article blog stream....
ReplyDeleteThe defining debate has to eventually be about what constitutes a "corporation". Certainly small startups and entrepreneurial activity must be stimulated to ensure a healthy economy. That does not mean however, that massive multi national and "behemoth" industrial corporations deserve the same definition?
In essence the singular limited definition of "corporate" as it is now, creates exactly what must be avoided, to maintain a level and equitable tax regime! The very obvious arrival upon the capitalist scene over the last 50 years, of the "too big to fail" gargantuan parasites, are evidence of this need, for a more composite approach to corporate tax stimulation dynamics. A new economic format needs to be defined that eradicates this excessive "accumulate at all costs" entity from our capitalist system. In short tax should always stimulate corporately, from the bottom up and not the reverse as we have it now!
JOHN and LOU,
ReplyDeleteHere is my latest piece from my website www.jamesconvey.com hope you enjoy and that it will further stimulate your thoughts... James
http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2011/04/america-should-remember-gagarin-with-awe.html
Even though this blog piece on Fox News is old, a new book on the topic of Fox News was just published, and it seems to verify everything I have said and thought, as well as what many other opened minded people have been saying about Fox news. I will likely use this new book as a reference in future blog pieces, but for now I think this link to an article about the book needs to be put here. Enjoy. :)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alternet.org/media/154269/Fox_News_Shamelessly_Smears_Group_That_Exposed_Network%27s_Sordid_History/
This thread about Fox News will not get old. I will keep it going when I come up with new information, as in this case now, as of 4/12/2012:
ReplyDelete"In no time at all, it seems that Fox has outed its mole -- the employee who Gawker hired only two days ago to give readers the inside scoop on life at Fox News HQ. Noting that he was triggered to go against his employer by the infamous "Obama's Hip Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs" post on Fox Nation, the mole, whose name we now know is Joe Muto, noted in his first post for Gawker:
The post neatly summed up everything that had been troubling me about my employer: Non sequitur, ad hominem attacks on the president; gleeful race baiting; a willful disregard for facts; and so on....
That was it for me. It wasn't that the one incident was so bad, in and of itself. But it was so galvanizing, and on top of so many other little incidents, that I guess it just finally pushed me over the edge.
http://gawker.com/5900710/announcing-our-newest-hire-a-current-fox-news-channel-employee?tag=foxmole
Muto, who was an associate producer on Bill O'Reilly's show, was able to get a few posts in during his short period of anonymity, including this video of Mitt Romney seeming to do a "gay voice" impression. But his life as a mole was cut short when, just one day after his initial Gawker post, Fox tracked Muto down, revealed his name, and fired him, threatening legal action. "Joe Muto is fired effective April 12," said a spokesperson for Fox late yesterday. "Once the network determined that Mr. Muto was the main culprit in less than 24 hours, he was suspended late today while we pursued concurrent avenues. We are continuing to explore legal recourse against Mr. Muto and possibly others."
It appears that Muto plans to keep blogging about his now-former employer, now under his own byline. And he might even make some sweet dough from the gig. But alas, we may never know what Muto may have been able to dig up while still on the inside."