Thursday, September 22, 2011

"An Idea Is Like A Virus"

During the psychological thriller movie "Inception", the character Cobb (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) says "an idea is like a virus".  It is an interesting statement. It is of course within the context of the movie, which I thought was very good, although it took my wife and I two viewings before we think we we were able to follow it. If you've not seen it, here is a brief overview, from http://www.imdb.com/:  "Dom Cobb is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, when the mind is at its most vulnerable."

But beyond the movie, the statement has broad application, in particular, to politics and the war to win people's minds - i.e., votes; political persuasion. The battle of ideas is as old as mankind; it is related to the ego and one's ability and desire to get other people to believe your point of view. To some extent, isn't the whole concept of religion and proselytizing for a specific god, a battle for a person's mind?

The idea that "an idea is like a virus" reminded me of something that my college professor for Deductive Logic said:  "All of history is a history of thought. First, someone thought something, and then something happened.". 

Just prior to watching "Inception", I started to read Michael Lewis' book "The Big Short". The book starts off with the following quote:  "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already, but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him".  - Leo Tolstoy, 1897. 

There is a relationship between Cobb's and Tolstoy's quotes. If someone has a preconceived idea of what something is (or is not), it may be very difficult to persuade him/her otherwise.  And the more ingrained the idea - the more difficult it will be to supplant that idea (or even modify it) with another.  (The key word here is "preconceived", which is bias; prejudgement: An idea is believed to be true or untrue without explicit factual evidence as proof.) 

One's passion for a given idea will induce him/her to behave a certain way - or do something in support of that idea; i.e., vote a certain way.    . . . "All of history is a history of thought".  

It's sales! At a very high level, the thing you are buying or selling can be:  a tangible physical object or service; a spiritual/religious concept that can't be proven; or something in-between. Politics is the in-between. A political ideology is something that may not be easily "provable" in a strictly scientific sense. But the implementation of laws based on a set of political beliefs has a real world impact on people in terms of economic vitality, people's behavior (in terms of economics), and quality of life; the results of which can be measured. It's just not easy, nor is it perfect, and therein lies the problem - and the opening for how political ideologies can establish traction in some one's mind

A "snake oil salesman" is somebody that sells an item that claims to have miraculous powers but the quality or legitimacy of the item is questionable. Such products are usually accompanied by outlandish performance claims and over-the-top (and usually phony) testimonials.

With that snake oil definition in mind, let's think about politics. Politics are full of snake oil salesmen. Selling the public on a specific candidate or the underlying philosophy of a particular political party involves a lot of pomp, hype, and religious fervor. It might as well be a revival meeting; and in some Tea-Party camps, it's the same thing.

Here is an important point:  In the modern media world, political campaigns throw a lot of negative information at the opposing candidate or party. Why do you think that is?  Wouldn't the truth of one's own position be enough to "sell" the people?  

The battle for control of people's minds involves manipulation of the facts. Here is example.  The following paragraphs come from an article in the web site "American Thinker":  

"Obama's expression of remoteness and arrogant disdain was so palpable that the Wall Street Journal chose to feature it on the front page of the Monday edition.  In a striking photograph taken by Kristoffer Tipplaar, Obama is pictured with his nose at a 45-degree angle standing next to George Bush, whose face, furrowed from the effects of eight years in office, is bowed deep in prayer.  In the photo, former President Bush comes across as just the sort of humble and reverent man he is; Obama appears to hold himself above the proceedings, uncomfortable among the ordinary folk gathered for the occasion and deeply contemptuous of everyone there.
When it came time to speak, Obama read woodenly and haltingly, with no sense of emotion, from the prepared text on the teleprompter.  In what the Boston Gazette called "a study in contrasts," Obama delivered an unattributed and ill-prepared reading of Psalm 46.  The audience seemed dumbfounded as to the point of his selection, and Obama offered no clue as to his intent.  It was as if the teleprompter itself had recited Psalm 46 and then shut down, smugly remote and above it all." 

You can read the entire article here:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_player_and_the_president.html 

One of the things I'd like to point out is the reference to the link "Boston Gazette". Doesn't that sound like a legitimate newspaper published in Boston?  I thought so at first. This reference seemingly gives an air of legitimacy to the author's rant on Obama's speech, does it not?

Actually, the "Boston Gazette" turns out to be just a personal blog, published by someone named Scott Boston, whose stated goal is to "examine the performative aspects of political acts such as debates, protests,  marches, and political campaigns".   Reading his entire profile, Mr Boston (if that's his real name) as of the day I read his profile (I'm writing this paragraph on 09/15/2011), actually misspelled the word especially ("espically").    (update:  On 2/1/14, I went back and checked on Scott Boston's profile. His blog still exists; but at least it appears that he fixed his misspelled word; I did not find "espically" in his profile; although after all this time, I'm not sure if I was looking in the same spot.) 

Now, I can't say I've never misspelled a word in this blog or in my other writings.  But, given the context here, isn't it odd that such a source is used as a reference in American Thinker?   If I hadn't taken the time to follow the reference and read up (and honestly, it didn't take THAT much time), I might be fooled into thinking that the Boston Gazette was a major Boston newspaper. Is it just me, or is this not disingenuous manipulation?  I have seen many variations of manipulations of this sort in American Thinker and other ultra-conservative sources.

Let's look at the overall content of the paragraphs from the American Thinker article that I pasted above. What is being said?  "Obama's expression of remoteness and arrogant disdain was so palpable . ."   This is pure opinion, it's only intention being to persuade the reader that Obama is an awful person. What does it mean, really?  Nothing! Trivial at best.  But it's typical of the many ultra-conservative sources (print, TV, web, radio) that viciously bash Obama and other liberals on a constant basis. The comments are just another example of how ad-homimen attacks are used to deceive and influence people.

Read the entire article in American Thinker and tell me (and yourself), what the purpose is of that article? I suggest, it is part of a contrived effort to put President Obama down in any way possible; (attempting to) plant the idea deeply into people's minds that Obama is incompetent and should not be re-elected. 

It also subtly injects the idea of God and religion into the argument - which is done often in general by ultra-conservatives. How can you not believe in the conservative ideologies, because they are on God's side;  but Obama is not, as they so frequently proclaim.

There is no hard evidence presented in that particular article to make the case; it is strictly opinion and innuendo, meant to appeal to the many vindictive conservatives who find solace in the simpleton approach of blaming one thing or person, always a Democrat or related to progressive policy, for the many complex problems that beset our economy.  


 . . . .. .    Now, for another example.  Here is a link to an article in the New York Post regarding President Obama's recent (as of 9/22/11) tax initiative, the so-called Buffett Rule:  
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/presidential_prevarication_32ZrcC7SQqukPJPiKVthGM

(I did not copy/paste any of the NY Post article here.)  If you read the article, you'll see a link in the early part of it that references the "Tax Policy Center".   If you click on that Tax Policy Center link, does it take you to the actual Tax Policy Center?  No, , it takes you to a collection of articles within the NY Post website on taxes.  And if you click on some of them - (as of this writing, I hadn't tried all of them),  they take you to articles on the Fox News website.  Try it yourself and see.

Isn't that curious?  Of course, hopefully you know that the NY Post, Fox News (and the Wall Street Journal), amony others, are all owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.  Interesting, eh?  I consider this to be a circle of deceit.

To go to the actual Tax Policy Center, here is the real link:  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/ 

For a good article on the analysis of tax code information, go to this link: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html 

(FYI - I have used the "9 things" article as a reference in a couple of my previous posts here.)

Another example I have is a general one. In reading many comments from conservatives, they very frequently point out that General Electric paid no taxes last year.  GE is often associated to President Obama because of green energy initiatives and that the CEO Jeff Immelt is Obama's jobs czar. There are many such companies that paid no taxes last year, but GE is the only one that is singled out.   Also - conservatives like to point to George Soros as this evil guy who is trying to take down the United States.   I mean, ,, , , come on. 

Where do these ideas come from?  Both GE and Soros are constantly brought up by Fox News and other ultra-conservative radio hosts in context of negative rants against President Obama.  I know, because I listen to these "news" sources frequently.  And the minions repeat the information like zombies under the control of some master manipulator.    . . .. "An idea is like a virus".

The point of all of this is to show how we are being manipulated by information; how a combination of certain carefully chosen "facts", enhanced by opinion and innuendo, and wrapped in a shroud of "God and Patriotism", are being used to influence the masses.  It certainly seems like we are living in the age of George Orwell's "Big Brother" to me. Or, , is it George Soros' Big Brother?    :)  

Conservatives are not the only political camp that use these techniques. But I do believe that Fox News and other ultra-conservative forces have set the standard for misinformation and manipulation. They are way better at it, and they are affecting the way people think. Because they wrap this manipulation "under God", people are trusting them without question.  We must become aware of how we are being manipulated, and why.

I plan to continue to add to this post as I explore and expand  the idea. My intent is to continue to give examples that establish the premise - that we are being manipulated by the media.   That may come in the form of edits to this primary post, and/or it may include secondary comments.  I welcome your comments on this post.

201 comments:

  1. Lou. I could fill a book with response to your excellent piece. I am struck like you, by how often seemingly mediocre leaders in particular, are able to "dumbstruck" so many people into believing what is so obviously pure nonsense, to anyone given to even the least modicum of thought and research.
    It is what goes to the need that people have, #1 for something or anything to believe in and #2 the laziness of the average humans intellect and need to know. Your comment on Religion is well founded in this dynamic.
    Take the subject of going to war. This little snippet is being posted to my 'famous quotes' section on my own site soon. I found it oh so true even in our modern era.

    "..........On the subject of the "evils of War"

    The conclusion was adequately summed up by Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials (Hitler's Reich-Marshall). This line of thinking reveals not only Nazi Germany's, but the thought process of all current and past governments, in both the US and Canada and of course in nearly all jurisdictions as well! The ever present question as to why we go to war in the first place?

    In evidence: "........... Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country....... Reichmarshall Hermann Goering..........."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I should add of course that Goebbels was truly the first master of the media and propagandizing truth to his own ends. Fox would be the primary abuser of truth in lur modern era, but not the only one. But none as effectively as good old Goebbels!

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOU......... This is from a discussion I had this week. Although it is of Canadian origin I believe it goes to the issue of how people become manipulated by the demagogues in our society.

    ".......Thank you Helen for your comment. I am a self described fiscal conservative who is socially liberal or as the definers would say a "centrist". I believe most thinking people desire to fall into this definition?

    My experience tells me that any time the pendulum of power swings too far toward extremism on either side, we all suffer. As to your comments on socialism. One must always bear in mind that we cannot function as a society, without a proper mix of socialism and capitalism. That is why our system of democracy functions upon, what economists call, a mixed economic dynamic.

    There is no mystery to true socially effective government. Canada has been 'socially effective' almost since it's inception as a confederation, and certainly with the domestication from England of our constitution during Trudeau's administration. Our nation is essentially the epitome of the mixed society economists refer to.

    For me the "extremism of some socialist doctrines" are clearly at work at the higher levels of our economy and our politics at times. Currently I see this as a real threat and thus gave birth to my use of the term "socialist corporatism"! I have been attacked for this unmercifully as if it is some impossible oxymoron? I don't think so!

    Socialism can be misidentified as being from the left, when in fact the great horrors of mankind's history are when simple socialism, is abused by the extremists from the right that crave power and autocratic control. Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and many historical dictators and now those currently being overthrown in Arabia, all claimed their power came from the socialist desires of their people! In essence socialism has become the bogeyman of our society, (Thanks to Mccarthyism) when in fact the real danger, is the loss of the democratic principle of social equality as outlined in nearly every political constitution and bills of rights of all the current democratic powers.

    Personally I am tired of the old argument that anyone talking about equality and rights is somehow a screaming "retard, leftie, commie". These attacks usually come from people who do not understand the first thing about democracy, socialism or capitalism. There is no need nor any real confrontation between capitalism and socialism to begin with!

    This is folly, since both are simply the essential tools of our democratic societies, that allow us to function. Unless of course we allow extreme elements to force control too far in favor of either dynamic. That is the ongoing ideological debate that rightfully is the meat of our electoral democratic system, whereby supposedly the greater majority of people will, by votes/mandate, command the need for control of these extremist elements and provide balance to our system.

    As can be seen from the current American political dynamic, great power is now in control of these extremist elements from the right, that are beginning to force autocratic and systemic change upon their social structures by disesmbling their central democratically elected congress, senate and President. Their supposed strategy being called libertarianism?

    This follows on the heels of the most disastrous right wing economic folly to befall mankind since the birth of economics as a science. Known as "trickle down" or taken from the idiocy of Ayn Rand's fictional novel "atlas shrugged", it is still the sworn ideology of the American right as regards economics. All evidence to the contrary, they still maintain that it is the better form of capitalist ethic? Even though it has impoverished their nation, almost destroyed the Global banking system, and divide their people into camps of "uber rich" and a disappearing middle class!

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the topic of "ideas being like a virus"I have a question for you and JohnC and any others to ponder: I would love to see a modern day economist or politician tackle this issue in the public view?

    Given the advent of the "idea", that one can now use logarithmic calculus, within our financial system and it's now widespread application, in the lightning speed era of this electronic age. Now almost exclusively used for monitoring and dynamically forecasting trade and economic variances, that aid the speculative graphic and enable even greater wealth creation, but only and seemingly exclusively for those poised to advantage themselves;
    The Question.......

    Wherein does one find, within this modern dynamic, that equation which monitors and adjusts trade and investment for the demands of the human or "social need?" How also does this viral system nurture the funding needs of the entrepreneurial seeds, that are essential for a modern capitalist society to survive............?

    This "idea" which has become "like a virus", the sentinel model for financial methodologies on Wall street and elsewhere, and has during it's reign, managed to create the unequal social wealth dynamic, that is now of such a magnitude, as to present the real danger Globally of the disappearance of the nucleus of any healthy capitalist society.......... that being a competitive and striving middleclass?

    This is a question that seemingly is being deliberately avoided in todays political debates? And yet nothing appears to be changing to control this virus and it's continuing damaging rule over all of our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lou,
    On the religion front; This piece goes back to a BBC debate I participated in. I can safely say I was not on the losing side of their IQ2d debate. Hope you find it stimulating.

    http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/catholic_church_a_force_for_good_in_the_world.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  6. James,
    I will try your question above.
    Once you get past the companies that lend directly to the public, I really do not think that the financial industry has any capitalist reason to consider "social need" in its business decisions. Some could argue that direct lenders need to consider "social need" to foster a customer base. However, investors, traders etc. have no such concerns. They have an incestuous relationship amongst themselves and really do not care if they damage each other -- I think they enjoy the kill.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PS: And as recent events make very clear, they suffer very little consequence if their actions go terribly wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi John....Thanks for your effort. Once again it raises the issue as to the interdependence by the sum total of all activities that make up a truly successful nation?
    That one segment, in this case, one that has such clear connection to the sovereign wealth of the treasury, feels as if it is sufficiently 'separate' as you say, to act as if it stands alone without culpability for it's potential negative effects upon it's own society, is indeed the essence of the problem, don't you think?
    That they continue to demand this special right to secrecy and unregulated activity, adds to this myth that they are somehow not an integral part of society as a whole? That somehow they are as "gods" above the fray of everyday human existence? (which is precisely how they have been acting en masse)
    The competitive aspects of capitalism, while indeed an essential factor to weed out weaker elements in the game, must nonetheless still hold an awareness of responsibility, that failure has a ripple effect throughout the fabric of the society, and this has become sublimely obvious given our current economic dynamics, has it not?
    I am afraid you have not answered the question John? Which of course is the sum of the current Global debate, in that it poses the additional query, what now?
    If these "bankers" (an insult to the reality of the true definition of the occupation) have such power, as to be able to disavow themselves of any responsibility, within our now Globally accepted standards of statutory societal protocols. Then should they not be chastised with all of the might of our legal and social systems to protect us all from the vagaries of their desire to continue their rogue activities? And if so how do we do it within our current polluted political system.
    A system which has now also seemingly separated itself from the majority of the peoples favor? Frightening problem is it not?

    ReplyDelete
  9. John and Lou....


    This is by my former nemesis Bruce Bartlett. Him and I have sparred over the years. It seems he has certainly stepped over the line lately with both his books and opinions on taxation. I put it down to finally seeing the light of practicla reality...:-) He served Bush Senior and Reagan as economic policy advisor. He is an economist and a first level thinker?

    Financial Times - Comment

    Why Obama is right to back Buffett
    There is no evidence that lower tax rates on the wealthy stimulated growth in the 2000s, one reason Bruce Bartlett says the president is right to ask the rich to pay more
    http://link.ft.com/r/YIQXNN/B5DRGD/CVWMU/5VCWOM/2O2MY6/QR/h?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here is an archival piece I wrote to Bruce on his Forbes article on VAT. Note the date of my commentary (over 2 years ago). Not much has changed..:-)


    http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/valueaddedtaxes_forbesarticle.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just a thought from your 'rapscallion' wit Will Rogers: Very appropriate for the times;

    "................We could certainly slow the aging process down
    if it had to work its way through Congress.........." :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. "An Idea is like a virus". Too bad it has taken so long for this idea to spread. I have been raling about the dangers of deregulation so long that I have grown into an old and withered and tired old man! Perhaps they are finally beginning to get the message? This from the eloquent Mr Rattner @ The Financial Times, this A.m.

    Steven Rattner: "The rage of the citizenry demands tough bank rules"

    Let’s agree that a lot of bad stuff happened along the way to the 2008 financial meltdown and that a good portion of the responsibility can justifiably be laid at the feet of the Wall Street community.

    Whether or not laws were broken, the lack of discipline and inadequate controls around many lending and risk taking practices certainly merit some version of the vigorous rethink of the regulatory apparatus that is now in process..........

    hip hip hooray! Allis not lost....maybe?..... We still have Dimon and What his name at Goldmansachs to eradicate? Among others! Hope the American people stay awake this time!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I read this on another blog. I cannot resist stealing and sharing it, as it goes to the very nub of why republicans, having had their shot and failed with their "trickle down" folly, having almost destroyed the benefits of capitalism in the process, now need to step out of the way and give real democratic capitalism it's chance!

    “.........................When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.”

    “When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as…the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world.”

    “It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity.”

    “There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.”

    William Jennings Bryan - July 9, 1876

    ReplyDelete
  14. LOU and JohnC,

    "An idea is like a virus" I'll bet you had not idea how prophetic a comment that might be becoming.......:-)? Here are some of my own "prophetic" pieces

    http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/misery_index.pdf ......................Jan 3,rd 2011
    http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/irelandeconomicwoes.pdf........Dec7th, 2010
    http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/proofisinthenumbers.pdf...........sept30th,2010

    And finally: from Sept 3rd 2009 from http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/thethirdway.pdf
    (which includes)
    ".................In conclusion, it is obvious to me and many others therefore, that the wealth of the planet cannot continue to be held captive by any one group or country, at the cost of the health and welfare of the vast majority of the Global community. If this present "out of sync" capitalist and banking model, is allowed to persist, the gap between the wealthy
    and the poor will continue to widen, with the predictable result that anarchy and terrorism and war will continue to escalate as a direct consequence. Remembering that within poverty rests desperation and ultimately anarchy and uprising, dependent upon
    the depth and extremes of that dynamic............................ "

    ReplyDelete
  15. Another idea to contemplate going viral with:
    posted to my site today. www. jamesconvey.com

    "There are not two 'Ms to governing, as many PolySci courses have taught: 'Money and Management.' There are three M's. The third one is Mercy. The third "M" constitutes the difference between a country and a corporation."

    ---Clarissa Estes---

    ReplyDelete
  16. From my commentary to the Washington post;

    "................All the eager-to-get-elected politicians are now railing against China for stealing our manufacturing jobs and keeping our unemployment rate painfully high. Totally wrong! A current study by the Federal Reserve Bank showed that only 2.7% of total consumer spending in the U.S. went to Chinese products in 2010.

    And of the scant dollars that do go to buy Chinese products, 55% of that amount goes into the pockets of American companies and American workers........ " (source Weiss financial group)

    I don't like Boehner nor any of his cohorts! But I like jingoism even less and a trade war with the Chinese would be a major disaster for the U.S. Economy! He is therefore right that this currency argument is a very dangerous signal..!
    Americans need to focus on the real problem and that is a stagnant corporate dynamic, sitting on billions of cash reserves and playing the conspiratorial game of "corporate crybaby", that regulation makes the economy uninviting for investment? Nonsense the opportunities have never been so plentiful nor so urgently in need of investment!
    Meanwhile the rest of the world faces up to their challenges and moves on leaving America in the wake of the next Euro Asian led industrial revolution! Throw these GOP do nothing tea party nutters, out of office if you want to save your country!..................

    ReplyDelete
  17. In addition......A Trade war would so hurt American workers (those that still do work) that it would add to the unemployment rolls! Increasing tariffs against Canada for instance, would directly affect 8 million American pay cheques! I don't think these politicians have any idea as to what they are doing! They do need to create an environment that produces jobs, but another war of any kind, is the wrong solution again!
    Once again the "victim syndrome" becomes rife in American politics?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Another historical "I told you so" from last year:

    http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2010/11/commentary-on-fox-news-featured-journalist-dana-milbanks-piece.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. I copied the following text from a group discussion in Facebook, written by Bruce Clark. I think it's well worth reading.

    "Wedging Out Democracy:

    I'm trying to imagine what difference it would make in the political nature of our country if each and every citizen fully and conceptually understood the two words, "democracy" and "republic." I'm talking about understanding these two concepts to such a degree that one could actually and factually recognize one..., or not.

    For instance, since Richard Nixon's, "Southern Strategy" it has been the... practice of the Republican to garner the support of "special interest groups" by targeting what has come to be called, "wedge issues." While what constitutes a wedge issue has provided a full listing, a concise definition has not been given much importance.

    The name "wedge issues" arises because it is considered a tool for cutting out sections of an opposing political party's base for reasons of deeply-held beliefs. Yes, it is that. But there is more that needs to be defined here.

    To fully understand what a wedge issue is all about it is first necessary to understand,

    ideology:

    1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
    2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

    Personal ideology comes about by people trying to be "good." This easily goes back to everyone's own childhood. We have all learned from an early age that we are supposed to be good. Only problem is that, "good" has been poorly defined all along the way. And if, "Sit down and be quiet!" was really what it took to be good, then we'd all still be sitting there quietly, wouldn't we?

    So then life moves us along until we can somehow better identify our personal angels and demons. The real problem with all this is that leads from such a confused mental state to begin with! How do we be good? So when something satisifies us as something, "good" it becomes a fixed idea, or, "Idée Fixe." Google it up.

    Fixed ideas, along with vested financial interests are the very antipathy of any democracy. Thomas Jefferson is not casual reading; it takes a certain level of literacy. But even a quick read of his concept of a democracy will prove this out.

    Abortion, gun control, white supremacy, Christian dominance, American exceptionism, and no doubt several others have all been worked as political wedge issues.

    What should be included in the definition of, "wedge issue" is that it fixates an individual's vision of what is and isn't and what should be, to the exclusion of other important issues. In other words, it puts the blinders on American voters.

    This is not democracy at work; in fact it's a serious subversion of Jefersonian democracy. In order to make a democracy work the focus must be on educating the populace in order to see real issues of long-term group survival and the governance thereof. Wedge issues are what gets used to do the exact opposite.

    SO one must question the values of a political party which seeks to dominate by engaging in wedge issues. Does this party really interested in practicing and upholding our democracy?"

    ReplyDelete
  20. Greetings LOU and JohnC:

    The "wedge issue" goes back to my earlier comments and essays as to the example of the pendulum, that is present to delineate the swinging 'to and fro' of the ideological and economic realities of a democratic society.
    Wedge issues, as you point out, are used frequently. And with almost uncanny predictability, at the beginning and ending of each generational curve. As power shifts, these wedge issues arise with increasing frequency, and seemingly become of more vital importance, and although a constant annoyance to the greater majority, that are frustratingly uninterested in them, they appear somehow prominent, above any matter of what really should be the practical political reality. This is a repeating phenomenon!

    The question is, are they really vital issues, or simply methods of political chicanery, designed over history, with the ultimate purpose of regaining lost power? Notice that I do not apply any favoritism for this activity to either ideological side of the arc of that "swinging pendulum", or as being something exclusive to one ideology or the other. Particularly in your American 2 party dynamic, this chicanery is used by both sides to varying degrees. Perhaps just this once it has become a serious miscalculation?

    It is normally a part of the beauty or the beast, of any democratic system, that as each generation matures, it becomes susceptible to the influence of these wedge issues again and again! Perhaps 'PoliSci' students have some awareness, but the general populace is virtually ignorant of the repetitive nature of this game! Which of course suits the punditry that play it so well!

    My opinion is that the losing team, simply need to muster their strength and by analyzing their failures, regroup to fight and win another day. In the meantime the wedge issues serve as their diversionary tactic, to keep the ruling power on edge and constantly guessing which way to jump to maintain their edge! The art of War perhaps? Thus the do nothing congress ploy!

    As issues they are of course well named, as they serve (drive a wedge)to divide the community against itself! They are more apparent when some substantial cause has united a majority force and led to the defeat of a sitting government. (As has just occurred with the defeat of the Bush led administration and the election of Obama and the then resulting turnaround midterms?)

    It is clear that in order to defuse this 'majority opinion' and to redirect energies away from the central theme, it must be attacked at the edges. Thus the use of "wedge issues" by the defeated party during the subsequent period, become more common and probably the single most exasperating experience of any democratic society. I believe that is what caused the arising of the extremist "Tea party" movement and the hiccup midterm results.......... continued

    ReplyDelete
  21. continued........

    The vitriolic temper however, of this dynamic at present, given your nations current travails, is at a fever pitch and has become a more dangerous reality, than anyone could have forecast. The "inequality factor" which I pointed out to John some time ago, as being the single most important and growing issue for your nation, has changed the normal "to an fro" of political gamesmanship, evident throughout your history!
    Into a now very serious and dangerous debate, as to the civil stability of the peoples communities, and their rights. Against what appears to be a servile state dynamic led by an Un American UBER rich, and a political body bought and paid for by this same Un American body? Maybe so. In civil rebellion image is sometimes more the issue than reality! The French revolution famously threw "the baby out with the bathwater" in it's ferocious anger against their masters. Punditry again overstepped it's bounds by painting an excessive picture of hedonism that enraged the masses!

    History shows it arising time and again in the human dynamic, where majority rule has held sway. Several words that have become common in our "lingua politica", owe their existence to this attraction to use wedge issues as a proven methodology for upsetting or overturning an accepted status quo. "Gerrymandering" being the one most familiar of these. We are at present seeing some of this particular "wedge" being used to redesign the voter landscape, to give favor to one group over another. New definitions for proof of identity, voting rights of non resident citizens etc etc. Add to this another wedge issue, in the form of the systematic attack on the public sector, which by it's very design turns citizen against citizen!

    All of these constant state issues, that add to the tenor of the peoples fear and mistrust of their elected officials at the state level, is further exacerbated by the image of a "stalemated" federal authority, that seems powerless to help the people, in this worst of all perfect storms of personal horrors! Unemployment and loss of stability.

    Certainly historically and under a different reality, America would weather this storm. Wounds would be bound up and the nation would move forward with singular purpose. It remains to be seen if this time period we are in, will see the same coming together? As people spill out onto the streets and civil commotion becomes more and more prevalent however, it is possible that the use of these wedge issues may well have backfired, and will do a lasting injury to the fabric of commonality and goodwill that once ruled your society and your nation?

    best regards james

    ReplyDelete
  22. The 147 Companies That Control Everything - Forbes
    Source: forbes.com The 147 Companies That Control Everything - Forbes
    www.forbes.com

    Three systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide and analyzed all 43,060 transnational corporations and share ownerships linking them. They built a model of who owns what and what their revenues are and mapped the [...]

    ReplyDelete
  23. Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
    @www.newscientist.com
    19 October 2011 by Andy Coghlan and Debora MacKenzie
    Magazine issue 2835. Subscribe and save

    AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

    The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

    The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

    "Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

    Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

    The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

    The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

    When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

    John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

    Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."...... continued

    ReplyDelete
  24. continued:
    "It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

    Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.

    Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Bar-Yam says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.

    One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara.

    Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."

    So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests.

    "Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest."......continued

    ReplyDelete
  25. The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies
    1. Barclays plc
    2. Capital Group Companies Inc
    3. FMR Corporation
    4. AXA
    5. State Street Corporation
    6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
    7. Legal & General Group plc
    8. Vanguard Group Inc
    9. UBS AG
    10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
    11. Wellington Management Co LLP
    12. Deutsche Bank AG
    13. Franklin Resources Inc
    14. Credit Suisse Group
    15. Walton Enterprises LLC
    16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
    17. Natixis
    18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
    19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
    20. Legg Mason Inc
    21. Morgan Stanley
    22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
    23. Northern Trust Corporation
    24. Société Générale
    25. Bank of America Corporation
    26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
    27. Invesco plc
    28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
    30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
    31. Aviva plc
    32. Schroders plc
    33. Dodge & Cox
    34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
    35. Sun Life Financial Inc
    36. Standard Life plc
    37. CNCE
    38. Nomura Holdings Inc
    39. The Depository Trust Company
    40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
    41. ING Groep NV
    42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
    43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
    44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
    45. Vereniging Aegon
    46. BNP Paribas
    47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
    48. Resona Holdings Inc
    49. Capital Group International Inc
    50. China Petrochemical Group Company

    * Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used

    ReplyDelete
  26. Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
    19 October 2011 by Andy Coghlan and Debora MacKenzie
    Magazine issue 2835.
    Sourced from the NEW SCIENTIST @ www.newscientist.com
    AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

    The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

    The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

    "Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

    Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

    The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

    The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

    When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

    John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

    Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates." continued above

    ReplyDelete
  27. JohnC And Lou, I am afraid I posted the above items upside down. I am sure you can figure them out.....:-) cheers james

    ReplyDelete
  28. there are some posting problems? the whole first section is missing?

    Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
    19 October 2011 by Andy Coghlan and Debora MacKenzie

    Sourced from the NEW SCIENTIST @ www.newscientist.com
    AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

    The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

    The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

    "Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

    Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

    The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

    The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

    When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

    John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

    Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."

    ReplyDelete
  29. The capitalist network that runs the world
    19 October 2011 by Andy Coghlan and Debora MacKenzie
    Sourced from the NEW SCIENTIST @ www.newscientist.com

    AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

    The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.

    The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

    "Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."

    Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.

    The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

    The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

    When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

    John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.

    Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Everyone everywhere should read this:

    " How mathematical modeling seduced Wall Street"

    25 October 2011 by Emanuel Derman. First Phd in quantum physics to work for Goldman sachs.

    available at www.newscience.com

    ReplyDelete
  31. John C and Lou> Here is my commentary to the above writer. Hope you enjoy it.

    My attempts early in my career as an analyst, ( I am 64 yrs old) to apply some form of what I considered ‘practical altruism’, to my approach to economics and business, often caused me to be passed over, in favor of those more aggressively willing to forego ‘caution’, in their drive for personal recognition and financial success, as opposed to a more practical balanced approach to risk analysis. My belief being at the time and still is, that it is impossible to divine any truly accurate logarithmic model for “human nature” or the human equation if you like?

    I still am of this belief and today I am somewhat more popular as a result of my writings over the years, in opposition to the “blitzkrieg” that became the trickle down, unfettered free market dynamic, fully supported by the belief that you and your associates quantum physics, could somehow divine an equation that could forecast and therefore eliminate, mankind’s frailties and basically reduce risk to a simple and fully quantifiable factor!

    This grew over time (30 years), to become the ‘facts of life’ in commerce and risk analysis and I must say, that while a ‘mea culpa’ from you and your associates may appear to you as a pointless exercise, I am in agreement with Mr Allred and those others that might prefer some additional public expression, that your complex approach to economic modeling “failed’ and in essence resulted in the current Global mess we are in!

    In order to perhaps also satiate the continuing ideological debate and furor that still rages, as to which system or economic format might serve mankind better for the future? It is people of your calibre and training that need to act and become more vociferous, to help defuse the ideological divide, between those that would continue this failed modeling, as it favors their minority position of power and wealth, and those of us that desire a return to a more practical definition of liquidity and sensible valuations in all sectors.
    Together with a dissembling of one of the most heinous results of your discipline, that of the ardent speculator, who made fortunes using your logarithmic calculus, and who are still today in control of this substantial weapon against the leveling of sovereign debt risk and the future of millions of peoples pensions and asset values! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa should be your cry and it should be heard in every corner of the business and political community

    ReplyDelete
  32. James, thank you for your excellent input. I'm still reading some of it. :) I'll get back to you shortly.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I came across this article which I find to be very good (obviously). :) The Ideological Fantasies of Inequality Deniers.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/the_ideological_fantasies_of_i.html


    I also found many of the comments under the artcle to be clever and insightful. Here is one I particularly like. There is obvious context to it that will be appaent when you read the entire article and the ensuing comments - to which this particluar one is in response to:

    "@bob01721 - "What someone else makes is none of my business."

    When corporate lobbyists help craft legislation that enriches their companies at the expense of the average constituent, it's none of your business?

    When investment bankers on Wall Street inflate financial bubbles until they pop, with far reaching and devastating economic consequences, it's none of your business?

    When those same bankers receive bailouts from Washington with YOUR tax dollars, it's none of your business?

    When corporations pollute the environment in their quest for greater profit margins, it's none of your business?

    The point is not - as many of the commenters on here seem to think - "They have more money than me, they have too much money." Honestly, I don't give a damn if the average CEO makes 400 times as much as his average employee (although I would point out: I don't think it's because he works 400 times as hard.) The point is this: the economic elite of this country have vast reserves of capital and wield proportional political influence. They use this influence to undermine democracy and further enrich themselves, with complete disregard for the rest of humanity and the environment which we all occupy. If you think this doesn't concern you, then you are poorly mistaken.

    As for "class warfare," I think I certain Representative from Wisconsin explained it best:

    "In societies marked by class structure, an elite class made up of rich and powerful patrons supplies the needs of a large client underclass that toils, but cannot own. The unfairness of closed societies is the kindling for class warfare, where the interests of “capital” and “labor” are perpetually in conflict. What one class wins, the other loses."

    If you don't recognize the perpetual conflict of capital and labor, then you need to brush up on American history, my friend. (Don't use a high school textbook). "

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hello All,
    This is a very technical paper on income inequality. I have glanced the tables and read the conclusion and introduction but the other parts are too technical for me.

    The point I want to make is that there is very technical data to the inequality issue which most pundits (on either side) don't read or analyze. I would put much more weight on an opinion from someone that has read this or similar reports rather than those that rely on empirical data or less scientific data.



    http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-16.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  35. John C To add to your confusion visit the GINI coefficient material on line.

    Along with this "gini coefficient" and your census based material above, most economists and analysts and quants and mathematicians are fully versed in the available sources for empirical and reliable data. I agree with you however that most pundits are simply parroting ideological tripe..... but one must also realize that if one begins to actually raise the level of debate, to only include those that understand quantum physics, it would be a very dull debate indeed...:-)
    For instance if I were to tell you that most quants and mathematicians believe that the math modeling used for most of these 'reliable' sources may actually be impure.............??????
    Einstein on mathematics 101.
    " As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are NOT certain, and as far as they ARE certain, they do not refer to reality."
    I guess it all comes down to who can make the best argument? after all ?? :-) regards James

    ReplyDelete
  36. LOU.... someday we must discuss what I call the "unintended conspiracy". I touch on it somewhat in my essay on "the bilderberg group" and of course my "conspiracy of the corporations" as well.
    The perpetual conflict of capital and labor is well aired in Karl Marx's theories. It is also well discussed throughout Keynes, Hyek and Friedman (Milton) and most notable economic nobelists define their opinion on that troubled relationship in their papers and theories.

    My belief:

    "Men of like means and access to opportunity, whether it be from achieving their own success, or from inherited or other form, will inevitably come to understand, through caution and fear, the need for them to nurture a society that protects their advantage! This is at it's base, a purely human trait and for them a natural expression of their wish to maintain economic stability? It is in no way necessarily true, that it is an intended conspiracy against decency or moral altruism. However, some within this group may well form self serving cadres, that do conspire, in an attempt to influence social standards to their exclusive favor.
    Although generally to those outside it may also appear that all may be involved in an intentional conspiracy, to eliminate the "unworthy's" access to an opportunity to participate in the natural competition of social entrepreneurial drive." This dynamic will be more prevalent in societies where the inequality gap has expanded to an unacceptable level. Current trends point toward this as being the main conflict once again between the 'haves and the have nots' . History repeating?"

    ReplyDelete
  37. Additionally most wealthy and successful people seem to struggle under the false impression that the "universal we " are somehow trying to stop them from continuing to succeed? Their cries of chagrin ring out constantly about the lazy good for nothings, trying to steal from them etc? Nothing is further from the truth!

    They are as with all humans unfortunately, subject to well placed propaganda. The political ideologues advantage themselves accordingly!

    Obviously common sense tells one, that for any society to prosper, there will always be a gap between the well to do and the middle class and even the poor? This is not a fixed reality in a healthy functioning democracy however. Each of these segments of society are indeed a real fact throughout human existence.
    What seems to be lost in the debate for the wealthy it seems, is that when the gap becomes an obvious and identifiable inequality of proportion, that it is as damaging a reality for them, as much as it is for the middle class or the poor. In fact the poor feel the swings of fortune a lot less than the middle class, (after all how far down is down when you are already poor?) which represents the majority in most societies.
    Given democracies supposed abilities, this would be adjusted at the ballot box and then through sensible economic policies, that offer a leveling feature, so that all may continue to prosper and have access to opportunity?
    This however is not the case currently, as the power and influence over the electoral process, in most democracies through time, has increased exponentially, to what we now see as an almost complete control by wealth, of the ideological reality within our democracies. Even to the degree in the U.S that it has infiltrated their supreme court and all of "juris prudence" for that matter.
    In the fearful need to protect their advantaged lifestyles, the upper segment of wealth, with some notable exceptions, have unfortunately become entranced by ideologues, into believing that they are truly under threat and with this inane need for power, by a supposed supportive political dynamic, they are abetting the actual dissembling of the middle class of their own societies. Without whom the entire system becomes in jeopardy! And their wealth and assets will decline dramatically as economies trundle to a halt! It is by any definition a suicidal thesis!

    Salus Populis Suprema est Lex; "The welfare of the people is the ultimate law"

    ReplyDelete
  38. Election day 2011........ My comment to the WAPO today
    I can only hope that last night's results, are the beginning of the American people's awakening, to what must be done to preserve their right to control their government. And to recapture it from the "special interests" that would reinstate an ignoble servile dynamic for the middle class of the entire nation, if they are permitted to continue their coup d'etat unopposed.

    That the really important battles were won in such a resounding way, especially in Ohio, bespeaks of what hopefully lies ahead for the general in NOV.
    If Obama and Tan Man and Mc Connell, do not now understand the need to listen to the people, and end this partisan idiocy that is throttling the US economy and destroying a generations access to opportunity and real progress, then neither of them deserve to be where they are! Change may really be possible if they have been listening?

    On the straw man argument as to Unions spending monies to influence elections in favor of Democrats. Union 'monies' come from the membership (the people) that supports the issues posed to them and recommended by their elected leadership. Their members nonetheless are still free to vote as they will in any election.

    I would like if someone from the GOP would detail for me that the same thing is true for the GOP and it's many levels of hidden corporate contributors?

    Unions for the most part, represent their members within the framework of a democratic system of vote in or vote out! Multi national Corporations today however are more akin to "socialist pods" of mediocre men, making decisions behind closed doors, with no pressing need to even be in the country. And which decisions effect the entirety of the nation, with no accountability whatsoever. GOP candidates receive pledges, now mostly secret thanks to the supreme court, just as long as they do what they are told and only in the interests of that aforementioned little socialist pod!

    I'll take a union over that dynamic any time!

    ReplyDelete
  39. The GOP as a result of the 2010 elections, are for over a year now, being led around by the nose by a bunch of evangelic, right wing, no taxes ever, extremist libertarians, who are more focused on abortion, Gay marriage, In God We trust, union busting, anti muslim, anti immigration racism and of course corporate welfare and general mayhem!

    This other than the real problems of the majority of the American people! I believe more majority results similar to OHIO are just around the corner. The GOP is in serious trouble. They are reaping the whirlwind of their disingenuous "say no to anything" policies of the past 3 years. Time to pay for their sins and transgressions, that destroyed what was supposed to be the American century!

    ReplyDelete
  40. The only man in my opinion that might be able to reestablish some decent conservative values in the GOP, is John Huntsman. He of course is not even given the time of day by these cretins that have kidnapped the Old party and turned it into an extremists playground!

    ReplyDelete
  41. 11/11/11 LEST WE FORGET!
    A memorial day tribute Canadian style.

    http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2011/11/standing-strong-and-true-for-tomorrow.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. I have come across the following document called

    The Corporate Governance of Political Expenditures: 2011 Benchmark Report on S&P 500 Companies.

    This is a very detailed study of the political expenditures done by major corporations. It can be used to hone the rhetoric that paints all corporations with one big brush with regard to corporate political spending. It discusses in detail the reactions of various corporations to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.

    It is a very long and detailed document but should be consulted when considering your views toward corporate political influence.


    http://www.irrcinstitute.org/pdf/Political_Spending_Report_Nov_10_2011.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  43. John C,

    I hope you are not suggesting that I "paint" all corporations with one big brush? My own analysis and sources are available to you at any time and as a matter of fact I posted several pieces, and the sources as to the influence of corporations on Global political events, in this blog?. It refers to the institute from Zurich that did the study as well. A more Globally credible scientific group is not known to me?
    This also refers to the Forbes article which uses the Zurich reports and analysis as well as the content i provided from www.newscience.com reference quants etc? Go to my site for updates from time to time. www.jamesconvey.com

    This study you have provided is not unfamiliar to me and in fact I have garnered much information from it and followed it to it's origins as respects their discipline for analytical accuracy. There are some flaws but in my business these are understandable and forgivable. Mostly they are in the area of conclusionary assumptions, which can leave open debate as to opinion on the data used for the analysis. I can assure you I spend my time up to my ears in studies just as a matter of course on my everyday work....... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  44. JohnC.

    at the risk of being repetitious, I draw your attention ot the above piec to LOU and in particular the following segment:

    ".............. Obviously common sense tells one, that for any society to prosper, there will always be a gap between the well to do and the middle class and even the poor? This is not a fixed reality in a healthy functioning democracy however. Each of these segments of society are indeed a real fact throughout human existence.
    What seems to be lost in the debate for the wealthy it, is that when the gap becomes an obvious and identifiable inequality of proportion, that it is as damaging a reality for them, as much as it is for the middle class or the poor.
    In fact the poor feel the swings of fortune a lot less than the middle class, (after all how far down is down when you are already poor?) which represents the majority in most societies.
    Given democracies supposed abilities, this would be adjusted at the ballot box and then through sensible economic policies, that offer a leveling feature, so that all may continue to prosper and have access to opportunity?
    This however is not the case currently, as the power and influence over the electoral process, in most democracies through time, has increased exponentially, to what we now see as an almost complete control by wealth, of the ideological reality within our democracies. Even to the degree in the U.S that it has infiltrated their supreme court and all of "juris prudence" for that matter..........."

    ReplyDelete
  45. JohnC:

    I forgot to mention that one of the most significant factors from this current data in the report, are the changes to the norms since the "economic crash" 2008-2010. More transparency etc. I believe this is an attempt to avoid scrutiny as much as possible from regulatory authority. it also could be interpreted in several different ways, which goes to my point about "conclusionary assumptions"
    After all we are dealing with a group that depends heavily upon grants and therefore need to maintain a 'diplomatic temper' in their assumptions and findings...........:-)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Breaking News...Financial Times.

    Federal Reserve launches new round of stress tests
    The Federal Reserve will force the biggest US banks to model a severe eurozone recession and a US unemployment rate of 13 per cent as part of stress tests launched on Tuesday, which will culminate in public disclosure of banks’ stressed capital levels.

    The second annual “comprehensive capital analysis and review” is designed to ensure that US banks are adequately capitalised to weather a worsening economic storm at home and abroad, including a peak decline of 6.9 per cent in eurozone gross domestic product.

    Banks that do poorly on the exercise – which also judges their capital planning – will be prevented from paying out increased dividends or share buy-backs. The Fed said even for healthy banks proposed dividends of more than 30 per cent of net income would “receive particularly close scrutiny”.

    2
    Banks accused of ‘dishonesty’ on reform

    Bankers’ efforts to water down tougher new regulations by claiming they will harm economic growth are “intellectually dishonest and potentially damaging” and could inspire an even more robust crackdown, a leading UK regulator has warned

    ReplyDelete
  47. John C and Lou: Here is the link to my latest posting which pertains to the very subject matter of ideas acting like viruses....:-) Enjoy

    http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2011/11/quantum-physics-and-wall-street-what-caused-the-mess.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. JohnC...... at the risk of poking a little fun at you............:-) And perhaps I am just fishing for a compliment here, or even a little admission of a "change of heart" on your part???

    yours from above. "....I would put much more weight on an opinion from someone that has read this or similar reports rather than those that rely on empirical data or less scientific data. .........."

    Given that I am steeped in the career discipline that requires me to constantly search out and analyze such reports as those you have suggested. Does this mean my point of view now has more credibility in your eyes?......:-) happy U.S. thanksgiving to both you and LOU!

    ReplyDelete
  49. James,

    I'm not sure why you would want a compliment from me but of course you have a great amount of creditability in my eyes -- for what it is worth :-)

    I think that the difference between you and I on the subjects that we discuss is that you have spent a great deal more time analyzing objective data and have formed conclusions long ago based on this. I am just starting the journey.

    Please feel free to post the URL of objective, non-biased, non-partisan reports that you have used to support your conclusions as you get the chance. I think you know by now I have little use for rhetoric, the labor activist slant or public policy pundits.

    Regards the report that I posted I am starting to draw the conclusion that major corporations (the top 100) are addressing (or being forced to address) transparency in the matter of political influence. It is the smaller big corporations, the private equity and the hedge fund crowd that I would like to see more data on.

    PS: Are you familiar with the Lost Canadian activist Don Chapman? I met him recently. He seems like an interesting guy.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi John........ I am not familiar with the lost Canadians movement. I am an immigrant myself, and am aware that some people have been somewhat disenfranchised for various reasons, most of them resulting from some old stupid legal mumbo jumbo. I understand that there are changes in the works legislatively to fix the problem. Which occurred when our constitution was repatriated from England back in the early 80's.

    e.g; I have a lady friend from England originally (1965)who has been married twice and has children born in Canada. She herself has never "fixed" her status, as a lot of British immigrants assumed they are safe? (Empire rights etc) She now knows that if she were to travel outside, she may well be refused re entry. Not likely, but certainly legally! It is however, up to her to do the paperwork necessary to secure her landed status and her eventual citizenship. Once I believe, it was automatic after 5 years that Brits became citizens. I did myself under the old rules. I Became a citizen 1971. I did have to do the paperwork.
    I don't know Mr Chapman, or his cause per se" and perhaps it is something that he and his supporters will be able to rectify. This is not a major issue I think, as Canada is not exactly over crowded with productive population. The Im act is probably well defined for the future but some old frailties may have caused others such as Chapman to have fallen through the cracks, as they say. My experience of this nation is that legal inequities, however small, are usually repaired eventually since we have a multi cultural approach to immigration and fairness is a truly Canadian trait.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I've been reading all of your comments. John, the article you linked to about Political Expenditures has been confusing for me to understand. I admit I haven't read the whole thing in detail, but there seemed to be some disclaimer type statements in there that dilutes the overall message - which is vague to me to begin with. I'll try to get back to it. None the less, thank you for posting it. I'm glad to see that such an effort exists in the first place.

    I came across what I think (of course) to be an excellent article by Robert Reich on "Social Darwinism". I recommend it to you both.

    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/7423-focus-the-rebirth-of-social-darwinism

    And of course, I hope to you see your opinions about it.

    I'm still contemplating my next article. I had an idea a while back on what it was going to be, but as usual, on-going current events tend to redirect my attention and shift my thinking. :) As of now, I'm just enjoying reading both of your comments.

    James, I liked your comments regarding "quants". We should all be very skeptical of Wall Street's belief that it can define a formula to, in effect, predict the future. The absurdity of such arrogance unfortunately tends to play out with by negatively effecting a majority of the population.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Lou: Glad to see you are amongst the living...:-)

    Robert Reich is eminently respectable and as a commentator on the Corpus Politica of the United states, is well versed in it's intricacies and in particular the progress that has been achieved in your nations short history.

    I find little to disagree with in this essay and can only say that his opinion of the modern model of the GOP, mirrors my own almost exactly. I appreciated his historical references, as they add to my knowledge base, something I was unaware of before reading it!

    I certainly echo his fearful sentiments, in many of my own essays and opinions and have expressed my sad concern, over the apparent loss of the true conservative in current American political theatre. This modern GOP would make Wm F Buckley shudder I think?

    What Reich's essay does not touch upon sufficiently and something which I have tried to make more obvious to my own circle. Is the deleterious effect upon the Global dynamic, this wild west American libertarian brand of political inanity has wrought. Since the ending of the cold war and at it's core, it has been able to rewrite, the once accepted as standard, Global laws of economic stability and risk management, virtually unchallenged. After all who was there to stand in the way of the new American elitist empire at the wars end?

    It's power was globally almost absolute! So much so that pure capitalism as a democratic tool, has effectively been replaced since with a new controlling corporate dynamic. An exclusive club, really only available to the very few! (See my references to the "147 corporations that control Global capitalism" earlier in this blog.)

    A club that busies itself now more and more obviously, with the work of eliminating even the ideological risk, from it's never ending search for profits and growth. All to the detriment of the humanities and a decreasing of human and civil rights, across the spectrum of American society, as well as having a similarly adverse effect upon the greater populations of the Globe.

    I have touched before upon what I call this " conspiracy of the illogical" and it continues to expand, as a fact of life in the American story. The degrading of the American middle class. The devaluing of their assets and life's expectations, is nothing more than the reengineering of the American worker, into a competitive erg unit, that will become eventually equal in every way, to new ideas of the human resource on a Global basis. A resource that can be idealized on a balance sheet in some fixed valuation model, that has little or no variance across national or state boundaries! Idealistic cost control dynamics.

    This is what awaits American citizens if they capitulate and support these disingenuous men who seek to initiate this evil upon their own people. All in the name of profits and control! Samples of their treachery are already apparent in several jurisdictions in your nation. Elected representatives acting without any apparent forewarning to do so, forcing changes to workers rights outside of any mandate they were given to rule.

    I do hope that I am wrong and that the American people will awaken to the threat before it is too late! My interest is of course selfish, because I do know that, as goes the United states, so goes my own country eventually! The democratic essential, is that the protection of the human equation should be the only reason for the existence of government. Without it we are at the mercy of capricious forces. .

    The welfare of the people is the ultimate law! (Salus Populi Suprema Est Lex)............................"Cicero

    ReplyDelete
  53. Lou,
    Thanks for your post of the Robert Reich article. At least this post is short and concise enough that I cannot use the disclaimer that I have not read it in detail while offering my comments.

    The essay fits very well with your “an idea is like a virus” post. Mr. Reich takes a few culled quotations from the 1880’s and a juxtaposes them with a few culled quotes from the current presidential candidates and presents the idea that Social Darwinism will result if they are elected. I presume that he (and possibly you?) hope this idea will spread like a virus. The article is high on rhetoric, has a nice “sound bite” catch phrase (Social Darwinism) but is very light on fact.

    In general I feel that Reich continues to devolve further and further into the depths of liberalism (I have nothing against liberalism). His comments are great for those with preconceived liberal ideas but I don’t think he speaks to the moderate side of politics. I have read his ideas on creating new WPA and CCC programs and paying for it by taxing the wealthy are way out liberal. They are not even considered by the most left on the political spectrum.

    A WPA and CCC program would be extremely expensive and we need to do the math. I have nothing against exploring a more fair taxation system where the wealthy may pay more. Is there enough money in a “tax the wealthy” approach to pay for the programs? I doubt it. Is there any available and reliable data to show that additional tax revenue generated from these programs will pick up the remainder of the cost over time. I don’t think so. Will the economic activity generated be sustained? Unknown

    So while Mr. Reich is a good orator, an accomplished academic and can write a book or two but his ideas remain political pabulum in my eyes

    ReplyDelete
  54. James,

    You have again cited the University of Zurich study in this post. I am still searching for a link to it. I don’t think it is available to the public. It’s probably in some economic journal that I am not aware of. While goggling as you suggested the following came up on the search:

    Nine Circles of Hell: A university of Zurich study “proves” that a small group of companies – mainly banks – wields large global power over the global economy

    Daily mail & Infowars (Alex Jones): Does one ‘super-corporation’ run the global economy

    Futurict: Revealed – The Capitalist network that runs the world

    Nordic Truth: Are the Conspiracy Theorists right? Study shows …..

    Talk about an idea becoming a virus!!!!!

    The thing that bother me about the third party articles about this study is that they do not mention that 3 (and possibly 4) of the top 8 companies are mutual fund companies. These are companies that custodian and manage individual and institutional money such as pension funds, charity foundations etc. I really need to see the study to determine how they determine that companies that custodian money like this control the global company.

    ReplyDelete
  55. JohnC........ I have attempted on every occasion to answer your questions and provide logical explanations of mine and other analysts conclusions.

    Perhaps it would help John if you could accept other than mine, empirical evidence easily available through general study, by anyone truly interested in finding the answers! Evidence easily available to you, that surrounds the totality of the many issues that we have been discussing?

    I am not the only one posting material across the broad spectrum of economics and other scientific journals? It appears that you are more interested in debunking any hint at all, that my posts, opinions and articles and sources are somehow unreliable?
    There are so many sources that I have covered over the long time I have been posting to this site and yet you always only highlight those that may be in some "doubt" because they are 3rd party????
    I appreciate a level of skepticism from any source, but you seem to be taking yours to an extreme level?

    My question of you is, can you seriously debunk or offer alternative theories for mine or other analytical professionals conclusions? The items you found in your Zurich search you simply scoff at without providing a reason why?
    Also why would I arrive constantly at a conclusion on an issue, that you appear to choose to disagree with, almost as a point of pride? You do this offering only your "opinion", with no substantive reasoning that counters the mass of evidence that has been provided to you? .cont:

    ReplyDelete
  56. cont;...I never submit anything without 'appropriate' references and I form my opinion, based upon this and a compilation of evidence, as well as personal experience born from 40 odd years of exposure to the issues and the discipline of analysis.

    As far as your scoffing at the Zurich report, I think if you go back and read the submission that I posted earlier. You will note that i did not make any assumptive progressions to a conclusion about the report. I simply posted it for your information. I draw your attention to the last paragraph, which for me as an analyst is the topical conclusion:

    "......John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.
    Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates......."

    What is it about this John that you find so extreme? Is this not a logical and scientific conclusion as to the potential effects of the dynamic as it was studied?
    Also do you not agree that where there is a potential for a disaster, ideological opinion must be set aside for the protection of the system... That being the democratic engines of trade and commerce or capitalism.? Surely you must agree that the system has become dysfunctional over the period, and that the very fact that 50 years ago the top companies were employee intensive manufacturing entities, which have virtually disappeared from the scene? To be replaced by small interlocked financial entities, ruled by an even smaller cadre of (pardon me for quoting our old friend "Jack" again) mediocre men?.cont;

    ReplyDelete
  57. In summation your skepticism may allow for you to ignore the facts as they are. Nonetheless they are the facts, and the only possible conclusion for any thinking economist or analyst must be, that the trickle down economic theories of the just past American/ anglo saxon model of modern capitalism, has basically malfunctioned and morphed into a dangerous dynamic that cannot be allowed to continue!
    This dynamic which was unleashed at the end of the "cold war"and permitted the then new global economic masters, to impose this faulty discipline upon the trading world! That for me and so many of my peers and superiors in my industry, is a solid scientific conclusion based upon real evidence and not upon an ideological mien!

    John can you argue your point of view with any equally substantial mountain of evidence, that so many across the globe are simply spreading an idea like some insidious virus? To what purpose?
    I believe that if you are honest, you must agree that the small group of ideologues that wish to continue this "get rich quick" financial system, certainly do not have the best ideals of democracy or capitalism near or dear to their hearts!

    This is why I am adamant in my opposition to their cause. I am aging and do not have the platform perhaps to make much of a difference, but I will not retire from my efforts to tell the truth! I am hopeful that you will question these Ideologues that you may now support, with the same emphasis and need for real evidence for their arguments as you do my efforts. I assure you they will not stand up to real scrutiny if the people bring the needed attention! It is the future of your own nation that is at stake!

    ReplyDelete
  58. JohnC........... Perhaps just like Robert Reich I can quote an intelligence from that same century, that may have some validity for you...I hope?

    Intransigence defined: A brief as to why people can be transfixed by an ideology.... right or left....!

    "The most difficult subjects can be explained to even the most slow-witted man, if he has not formed any fixed idea of them already, but the simplest most obvious thing cannot even be made clear to the most intelligent man, if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him". - Leo Tolstoy, 1897.

    ReplyDelete
  59. James,
    I really don't know where you are coming from. In my post I offered no opinion regards your various theories. I offered no point of view. I merely pointed out that I have not read the Zurich study, you cannot point me to it and the article on it was picked up by several crackpot websites to foster their point of view. It speaks directly to Lou's post "An idea is like a virus".

    How you come to the conclusion that I am challenging your ideas and theories is baffling to me. And what is more baffling is that you seem to know my point of view on things that I have not even formed an opinion on.

    PS: I think my questions about the mutual fund companies on top of the list is a legitimate one and deserves an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  60. JohnC as previously posted..... " But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs)......

    I believe your unkind comment about Robert Reich also played somewhat into my frustration and also at times you make remarks or comments that appear to defend positions that are not supported by any research?
    Again it would be nice if you could provide a little more evidence for your positions other than to simply scoff at others.
    Reich may not be the current flavor, but he deserves credit for an exceptional career without parallel on the GOP side of the equation! I also find your reference to the "depths of liberalism" frightening frankly. As it conjured up for me a hint of the very right wing extremism I despise. What exactly are the "depths of Liberalism" You must admit it does have somewhat of an extremist tone as if you are referring to some dreaded disease?
    Reich is hardly an extremist from the left. I find his most of his views, not all, eminently sensible, given the current economic state of your nation! Certainly more reasonable than Ryan et al?
    Your remarks about the "tax the wealthy" viability are nothing more than the GOP party line. The tax system that was in place prior to Bush2 and the wars did "factually" result in budget surpluses. The wealthy were still well off then and will continue to be, if you simply returned to that equation? You say you doubt this but offer no reason? The evidence for it is beyond dispute! Once again your ideological loyalties are showing, regardless of any factual proof? You just simply believe it? As a practical matter I find this very irritating.
    I do apologize if my response seemed over the top but going around in circles, and repeating previous posts obviously skipped or unread, on the same issues, is not my idea of conclusionary debating.

    ReplyDelete
  61. JohnC.... another segment of the report you obviously "overlooked" or chose to ignore from my previous postings........ I have highlighted a piece that should help you better understand my concerns, as to your opinions and conclusions that appear consistently in your comments, that someone is perhaps arriving at conclusions, that are ideologically slanted one way or the other?

    ".............It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.

    Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns,.N.B. "......... that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, "which is not always true..........."
    Most company shares are held by N.B. "...... fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis........."

    Crucially however, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Bar-Yam says the analysis suggests one possible solution:.N.B."..... firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk..."

    This is why your remarks on the issue of financial fund managers were for me disingenuous. As analysts we do take these things into consideration, believe it or not!

    ReplyDelete
  62. JohnC:

    "Discouraging the risk of such connectivity through taxation"... is of course the very reason this current insane GOP will never even consider this report as pertinent to their agendas? Perhaps you can explain to me why they would fight any regulation designed to protect capitalism from itself, and based upon this type of common sense and in depth logical analysis?"

    ReplyDelete
  63. Lou.

    I just now noticed this question from the previous entry? " Linear modeling" is a fancy way of saying, come to a logical conclusion given the accepted parameters of the issue being modeled. I;e Equationary physics, Economics, Financial table modeling, human resource statistical data etc etc
    Sources used by the scientific communities are many and varied.. Dependent upon your specific discipline. They are always based upon mathematical premises. The "Gini coefficient" is one example common to all modeling. The "Study of cycles" is another. Quantum math/Physics offer varied models today not available 30 years ago say. Basically any cyclical data or proven repetitive historical event data of any kind, is prevalent in the analytical sciences. The sun rises the sun sets etc etc etc. Forecastable certainties vs possible and quantifiable risk. = X
    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Financial times: These guys @ G&S remain convinced that quantam physics trumps everything..... Interesting to watch them try to circumvent Sharia Law..... How does this fit politically in the U.S ?

    "Goldman runs into sukuk hurdle"

    Goldman Sachs is facing obstacles to the launch of its first Islamic bond, with some experts warning its structure might breach sharia law.

    The bank announced in October that it would offer a $2bn sukuk, securities designed to comply with Islamic law forbidding usury, via a Cayman Islands-registered vehicle listed on the Irish Stock Exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  65. James

    <>

    The answer to this, as I have stated many times before to you, is because we have a flawed democracy. The GOP and Democrats vote in ways that allow them to collect campaign finance. They have no interest in doing what is best for the people of the USA.

    <<>>

    I think the Ryan/Reich analogy is very appropriate. Both men are on the extremes of their respective ideologies

    James, you continue to describe me as a right wing extremist. You are wrong. My opinion is that extreme views on either side of the political spectrum are of no use. I prefer a moderate independent approach.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Here is some positive reports about the economy. I get encouraged when story's like these start positive and bury the bad news at the end. For the last few years it has been quite the opposite.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ECONOMY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    ReplyDelete
  67. John C ,
    I strongly disagree with your analysis. The difference between Ryan and Reich is clearly that Reich has the professional credibility and experience to opine on economics and government, while Ryan is simply an inexperienced neophyte and an ideologue?
    To my knowledge I have never presented any opinion that called you a right wing extremist? Your ideological positions however, do present to me an image of someone that is very much more tolerant of the posits from the extreme right side of the equation, more so than any moderate or center left ideal?
    To describe Reich as extreme is not only inaccurate, it is clearly a very narrow judgement and does him a disservice? I can disagree with him, as I do at times, but clearly his opinion is preferable to the lunacy of Ryan's apparent inane demeanor toward economics? There is no comparison!

    I also wonder if you read my response to your posting on my site back on Nov 27th? I recall responding to your inquiry on my site as to the Zurich report? Perhaps this together with the above reposting of pertinent details from the report, might better persuade you of it's validity? Please let me know if you did not get that response to your questions as it means I may have a problem with my site? The response follows after this...... cont

    ReplyDelete
  68. Nice to see you on my site John. In response to your post, yes I have accessed the Zurich report and study. You can access it as well if you wish, and the links and cross links are included in the article. 'Orbis 2007' would be a good place to start.
    Your comment as to Vanguard is enlightening, as I am an admirer of Jack Bogle, the founder and basically the inventor of indexed funds, back in the 70's (before the insanity broke out). I believe you will find that Jack holds much of the same views as I do, as regards our modern capitalist model. It was from Jack that I got the comment about "mediocre men running corporations", as well as the fact that the market, as it is now operated, is "fixed"! I am sure you can research this further by simply investigating Jacks opinions which are easily available on line. I concur with just about anything Jack Bogle has to say about the markets! He of course has an American viewpoint and the Global regimen is not his bailiwick... understandable of course given his advanced age and life experiences.

    Your comment as to another "thesis at work here" is a little confusing? Also you noted the lack of manufacturing giants. This tells us a lot about the constructs of our capitalist society does it not? One could conclude that only the money managers and merchants are in control of the Global economy. Almost biblical in it's fashion: "Money lenders in the temple of the Lord"..:-)????

    I don't believe I or the authors are positing any conspiracy theory? We do agree however that such interconnectedness is inherently dangerous.

    This is the core of my article about the theme, as to how the wealthy react to evidence of inequality and how it has destroyed societies since the beginning of time. The commonality of thought, of the rich and powerful becomes a basis for, what I call a "conspiracy of Illogic". Unintentional overreaction due to fear and complacency about social responsibility. Massive Mergers and acquisitions that make no sense, also derive their support from this fear and illogical capitalism.
    Your thoughts as to historical growth of the market are accurate as to the period, but note that was also the time of great innovation in the computer sciences and of course led to the tech bubble. Once again growth went out of control and speculation and crazy investment strategies were rampant. As well we saw the early beginnings of the real estate debacle, with the discovery of what became known as the "Keating affair". NO ONE paid attention!
    People lost their wealth again as a result! I believe you need to do a little more research on that period and it's end time, to see how much wealth was made and subsequently lost as a result? This is an example of the same illness in the "unfettered by regulation" free market, that both Bogle and myself and any economist with a conscience constantly raled against!
    By the way My sons pension fund has lost over 27% of it's value since the crash. It is currently limping along at 1-1.5% growth. This is a (RBC) Royal Bank of Canada administered fund. He is in the airline industry.
    John there is no doubt that some during these periods, made money and advanced their wealth. But in one ever decreasing dynamic the peoples purse and the wealth of the nation has become lessened and transferred increasingly into the hands of too small a group. The opinions and politics of this group therefore become more suspect and the society must be very wary of these dangers.
    Most people (99% and OWS) "feel the heat" but as yet they lack the knowledge to define the problem. Once they begin to understand more clearly, then an escalation of anarchy, riot and civil commotion might well be even more common.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Re the positive note. It is clear that the US economy is no longer in free fall. However one can certainly opine that it could have been even better, if not for the intransigent extreme right wing ideology, of a do nothing, (except attack the sitting president), Congress? This will have to change for growth to be enhanced and to return to an upwardly mobile and more positive populace.
    This does not of course suit the raison d'etre of the current GOP ?

    ReplyDelete
  70. What can I say James, you continue to be vary wrong about my opinions. You need to realize that not everyone that questions your opinions or, heaven forbid, has a different opinion that you is an extreme right wing fanatic.

    There is nothing wrong with your website and I read you response. The problem is that the links and cross links you mention do not lead to the report. Goggling Orbis 2007 leads to the crackpot websites I mentioned above. There must be a reason that it is so difficult to access this report?

    Finally, I was glad to see the attached article about the SEC filing lawsuits against executives on Fannie Mae. My hope is that if the SEC is successful that these people end up in jail and not with some hand slap settlement.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/16/4128531/sec-suits-target-6-former-fannie.html

    ReplyDelete
  71. James,

    Maybe the attached will help you see what I believe in with regards to our failed democracy. I have been supporting the No Labels organization since its inception.

    http://nolabels.org/work

    ReplyDelete
  72. Well John....... perhaps it is because you never seem to offer any quantitative response to the content of my postings. I would note that just to tell me you read my postings, does not give me a response as to your positions on those postings? I am not expecting you to agree with me, but it would be polite if you at least responded in some manner that pertains to the issues raised and matches my efforts to post truth to this forum? I want your ideas! As an example What did you mean when you said you "suspect another thesis is at work here?" I noted that and received no response to my comment?

    This latest is a good example? I spent hours reconstructing snippets and information to attend to your doubts in my last posting,and posed questions to you, to garner your opinion, and in response you give me 3 paragraphs with little meaning and devoid of content as to those issues?

    In all of our debating I have yet to see your original thoughts on an issue outlined? You offer only a vagueness about the real issues and certainly you have to admit, you do defend more on behalf of the GOP side of the equation, than anywhere else? At least your responses, when they do come, are more usually accompanied with some right wing essay or references to 'crackpots' or 'liberals' and seemingly designed simply to attempt to debunk any logical truthful opinion?

    Your often repeated generic comment as a counter seems always to be "I don't think so" or some such similar remark, but you offer no substance to back up why, "you don't think so"? It gets infuriating when one is faced with this type of intransigence, in front of real evidence to the contrary and is the familiar stance of those from the right, that take a similar position on matters proven by science to be of real import?

    Healthy skepticism is not a crime but to not offer a substantive reason for your intransigence on issues, is deflating to those of us that seek real truth and some practical reality. We do the work while you stay stuck in your skepticism unwilling to believe anything that is counter to your preconceptions it seems?

    ReplyDelete
  73. JohnC
    As for the "No labels" organization. It is a worthy cause, but as you know I have no skin in the game, not being a voter. Other than my hope that you will perhaps share my commentaries and points of reference, with other members, I cannot see how I can have an input that would be considered credible otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  74. James,
    You are wrong again. I am not intransigent and do not have preconceptions.

    By the way I did finally find the Zurich paper. Here is the link.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025995

    It is very technical and there are lot of discriminatory statements that seem to dilute the message. It is particularly weak in defining control and differentiating it from ownership, which gets to my original question on the mutual fund companies on the list. There is no doubt that they have a lot of ownership in companies but what kind of control do they exert on them.

    Overall it seems to address the interconnectedness well. I think we also have good evidence of this from the recent meltdown and the concerns being expressed about the European debt crisis.

    I would like to point out the second sentence of the Abstract as follows:

    "So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally."

    The researchers do not seem to be aware of the "mountain of evidence" that you refer to in your 12/14/2011 8:09 post.


    I will try to search thru my previous posts and dig out my math on why the “tax the wealthy” solution is not viable. Using the tax system prior to Bush 2 as “factual” evidence (your 12/14/2011 9:16pm post) that “tax the wealthy’ will cure our problems is a left wing party line. It is also false because it does not consider that (1) we were in a bubble economy in the late 1990’s, (2) unemployment was below 5%, (3) the Bush tax cuts were also given to the middle class so a “tax the wealthy” approach should not include this revenue, (4) 9/11 had not happened, (5) Iraq had not happened, (6) Afghanistan had not happened, (7) Medicare Part D had not happened and (7) baby boomers are 10 years older.

    We all wish for the roaring 1990’s and no 9/11 and no wars. Reality is that all of these thing happened and solutions will have to recognize this.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I found my math on taxing the wealthy. This data is from 2009. See the link below. In 2009 people in the 33% and 35% tax bracket paid $356,296,800,000 in income taxes. These are generally tax returns having an AGI around $200,000 to $250,000.

    A 5% surcharge on this amount would generate an additional revenue of $17,814,800,000 annually. A 10% surcharge would double this to $35,629,600,000 annually.

    Hardly enough to pay for a WPA and CCC program.

    Keep in mind that our deficits are currently running over $1,000,000,000,000.

    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

    ReplyDelete
  76. "My mountain of evidence" refers to the "entire" evidence that Trickle down economics has failed. The most glaring being the condition the entire Global economy is in! Do you dispute that?
    This Zurich report has had several very well informed people, support the efforts and science behind the reports findings, and I provided their comments. I also pointed out the conclusions arrived were done without manufacturing any false impressions? Why you say I do is beyond me?.

    You again missed the most important issue from the report. The actual mathematical calculus used to amass the evidence? Which has nothing to do with "small national samplings?" I don't know where that arises as any origin of the scientific sampling of multinational companies used in the study, which was definitely Global in it's scope?
    Nevertheless this is only a tiny part of the overwhelming evidence of which I have written about for several years now. Once again you are choosing a general phrase from me and apply it to only one item of that "mountain of evidence" that I speak of.
    You remind me of the climate denier that points out the blizzards in Eastern U.S as evidence that all the science on Global warming is clearly incorrect ! But call increasing flooding and Tsunamis and hurricanes in as simply acts of God?

    ReplyDelete
  77. My postings dec 14th as to the relevant issue "Tax the wealthy" said nothing that was in any way controversial or making any claim that was untrue?.... quote:

    "...Your remarks about the "tax the wealthy" viability are nothing more than the GOP party line. The tax system that was in place prior to Bush2 and the wars did "factually" result in budget surpluses. The wealthy were still well off then and will continue to be, if you simply returned to that equation?......."

    What is wrong about this comment? I did not anywhere say it would eliminate the deficits of today? (It would certainly help) Equally I cannot just accept your math, without a proper access to the factual data source? I don't have the current CBO statistical data nor forecasts for the next period, to do any accurate comparison, and would not ever make any such claim without doing a proper analysis?

    Once again I believe you made an assumption about my opinion similar to my "conclusions" about the Zurich report? Nowhere did I represent that their analysis was empirical. I did however suggest that more analysis needed to be and should be done and quote;

    "....I don't believe I or the authors are positing any conspiracy theory? We do agree however that such interconnectedness is inherently dangerous......" and. "....... Crucially however, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy......."

    Again John what is wrong with this statement? Also where did I offer any support for any WPA or CCC programs? These are your bogeymen not mine........?

    ReplyDelete
  78. In summation John........To address your ongoing point about the money managers within the Zurich report and your insistence that they should be treated somehow different, within the analysis of the report.. I would refer you back to your own comments in september on this very matter. I point out for you that this is your conclusion, not mine?

    "........... Once you get past the companies that lend directly to the public, I really do not think that the financial industry has any capitalist reason to consider "social need" in its business decisions. Some could argue that direct lenders need to consider "social need" to foster a customer base. However, investors, traders etc. have no such concerns. They have an incestuous relationship amongst themselves and really do not care if they damage each other -- I think they enjoy the kill........." PS: And as recent events make very clear, they suffer very little consequence if their actions go terribly wrong.............."

    (Tell me John who does suffer the consequences? )

    I wonder how you can square these comments with your others questioning the listings in the Zurich report? Obviously in this case you clearly outline the lack of social responsibility of all that fall into the financial category. I agreed and pointed out with attempt at humor, the biblical reference... "...... the presence of the money lenders in the temples of the Lord...." Again my concern is simply that the facts of the interconnectedness be made available to the public. Non judgemental except to highlight the potential and ongoing dangers! I also highlighted the lack of employee intensive manufacturing giants, having disappeared from the same listings thye once dominated?

    ReplyDelete
  79. James

    Please reread the abstract of the Zurich report. The second sentence is a statement by the authors that in their research prior to doing their study that they were not aware of any appropriate methodology to assess control globally. This report was specifically done to rectify this and put some global context into the study of these matters. I'm just saying that you have this "mountain of evidence" and have developed Global control theories on it, but the authors are saying that up until their study (Oct. of this year) they knew of no methodology to assess control globally. I am congratulating you.

    I will not dispute your theories on trickle down. But I do dispute that trickle down is a factor in the European debt crisis. I can explain my reasons when I have more time.

    Additionally, for me to make any judgement on the condition of the ENTIRE Global economy and how it relates to the ENTIRE Global Economy you will need to be a little more specific. By the context it seems that you imply that the condition of the entire Global Economy is in poor shape? Are you talking about current Global economic activity or your inequality theories?

    ReplyDelete
  80. James,
    To continue to belabor the point, I think the mutual fund matter really relates to the relationship between ownership and control. The Zurich report admits and some of the quotes you posted indicate this is still an open matter. In other words when a Goldman Sach's has an ownership interest I pretty sure (my opinion) that they exert control. When Vanguard buys shares of a company based on the covenants of their fund prospectus I'm not so sure.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Really John don't be silly? The Global economy is in a mess! Banks are failing stress tests all over the place, nations are going bankrupt. Youth unemployment is skyrocketing. Central banks are having to guarantee nations bonds! People are filling the streets! Leave Europe for another day please as I have a closer understanding of that issue.
    But believe me the same thing that is prevalent in the U.S is the same issue prevalent in Europe! There is no difference. The financial fraternity played silly bugger with bank to bank trades on securities, not worth the paper they were written upon. Credit was pushed to create a consumer dynamic based upon wealth and production of wealth that did not exist!

    The economic facts are there. That people everywhere took advantage of easy credit in Europe or elsewhere, is the result of poor regulation and lack of government oversight of the financial sector! That is the danger of Trickle down economics! The historical reasons for this I have discussed in many essays and I grow tired of repeating them for you.

    Again I don't need to reread the Zurich report. I already personally commented, as did other exceptionally qualified people, on the apparent weaknesses of the analysis? I have now pointed that out to you both in my original posting and about 3 times since!

    "THAT MORE ANALYSIS NEEDS TO BE DONE"as to the potential dangers of interconnectedness! In order to avoid the inherent risks. Perhaps via a tax on M&A's or social penalties for job transfer etc. You obviously did not read these commentaries....... again?

    Also don't focus so much on the word "control". The issue is more one of the natural tendency to protect ones advantage. As I say in my article "murder suicide pact by the1%" from my site, as well as the overwhelming evidence of the expanding Global and regional inequality gaps discussed and proven by more scholarly people than I. I trust you are not disputing the 'mountains' of scientific evidence there.

    The natural tendency (human nature)is for a "control" dynamic to arise out of so few people of like minds desiring to protect their advantage. Unfair competition, monopolization, M&A call it what you will, it is a dangerous dynamic which needs to be better understood and restrained at all costs! That is what has happened and is happening and is the main danger to capitalism and our Global economy and is the direct cause for the "unequal" or "unfair" accumulation of great wealth, to so few and the impoverishment of so many, through labor transference and technological advancement. It is what Jack Bogle raled against and many noted economic scholars that expressed their concerns to several administrations about "voodoo" economics and the loss of a proper definition for asset values and liquidity in the market. These warnings went unheard over my own lifetime and career! Trickle down was such a hot game to play and nobody could seemingly stop these unfettered free marketeers, like pirates waving their copies of "Atlas shrugged" like sabres every time any on questioned policy, even Greenspan was guilty of this childishness!
    Today the entire peoples of the communities that slaved since the 50's and led the worlds leading nations out of the devastation of War, have been economically decimated by an unproven economic model/game originating in the U.S, as the leading power of the day, from Wall street. And no one could stop them. Greed is so powerful and hidden behind the greed was economic conquest, hedonism and Global political power!

    ReplyDelete
  82. John C. Here is a comment from a posting to another blog on the recent Euro crisis.

    "........THE REALTRUTH What was so obvious to many of us that actually worked on the EU protocols. Every one knew that the ideological 'twists' posited by Thatcher with U.S backing, and a few other lesser known stars of that then current political climate, trumped common sense economics and effectively shelved the next steps, that were planned to be taken and debated.
    Toward a centralized fiscal dynamic, to protect the essential value of the new currency (Euro). Having personally experienced this time in my own career, I am much more positive about this current situation and do believe that it is merely a transition to what should and would if not for outside interests interfering, already have been in 1992!
    That Cameron and the British elitist crowd have repeated the errors of Thatcher is not surprising. The difference now is that they no longer have the economic power, nor does the U.S, to dictate the outcome of Global economic dynamics. The Chinese and those states in Europe awaiting entry into a free trade regime for all of Europe, will no longer allow Americanized Anglo Saxon economics to dictate the rules.

    It may well result in a War of sorts, but it is surely one that the UK will lose and fearing becoming marginalized by the rest of the world, the backing of the U.S for British interests, can no longer be counted upon! Cameron has effectively isolated his nation in an example of a little boy throwing a tantrum and screaming "gimme" or else. No one is listening this time Mr Cameron! Least of all the rest of the UK that is not in that zone known as "The city!"

    Cameron made a serious mistep and the rest of the UE nations will hold him accountable for his arrogance. His was a grievous error and may well see your so called "Great" britain become nothing more than a nation of shopkeepers once again! The financial world is changing! Global interests are more inclined to support the EU, than a dying British aristocracy with a singular idea that London is still the centre of the financial universe! It's not , and England is no longer of any real importance in a future Global economy that depends upon productivity, social responsibility and real growth!

    Don't forget that the Eurozone, even without England, still represents over 300 million souls. That is a market almost as large as the U.S. Do you think Asia, China or India, and or Brazil or Russia give a rats ss about England or their financial district "CITY". Add to that those other nations on the continent with trade relations into the zone, and your "England" for the future means nothing!

    Better to be part of a good new idea than some old ideal of some divinely guaranteed 'superiority'! I have nothing against the UK but the idiocy of your elitist conservative extremists, such as the bonehead on your little 'You tube' snippet, is what is wrong with the entire country, and it's never ending superior attitude! The British Empire is dead, get over it! WW! and WW2 are over. It is a new century!............."

    ReplyDelete
  83. Lou and JohnC..........We live in a society that has seen sensible laws and regulation deboned to enrich a small segment of the community and which then engenders poverty and hardship for the rest. Capricious forces have kidnapped the Great American Democracy and stifled the American dream for the majority of it's citizenry.

    "........... The very purpose of law and regulation is to tame the beast that is unpredictable human nature. Throw off the rules and the animals survival instinct will always confuse logic........"

    James M. Convey

    ReplyDelete
  84. John C... I don't know if you have already read this or not.... It goes to my points about inintended transgressions and the "conspiracy of the illogical"

    http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2011/12/murdersuicide-pact-by-the-1.html#comments

    ReplyDelete
  85. Lou an JohnC:

    Merry Christmas and best wishes for a less turbulent new year.....

    james

    ReplyDelete
  86. Lou and James,

    Attached is a link to a study titled

    Rising Inequality: Transitory or Permanent? New Evidence from a U.S. Panel of Household Income 1987-2006

    a subject near and dear to both of you. I have not read the study. As I have stated before I don't consider wealth and income inequality fixable in the near term and prefer to study other more pressing matters.

    Here is the abstract:

    We use a new and large panel dataset of household income to shed light on the perma-
    nent versus transitory nature of rising inequality in individual male labor earnings and
    in total household income, both before and after taxes, in the United States over the
    period 1987-2006. Due to the quality and the signi cant size of our dataset, we are able
    to conduct our analysis using rich and precisely estimated error-components models of
    income dynamics. Our main speci cation nds evidence for a quadratic heterogeneous
    income pro les component and a random walk component in permanent earnings, and
    for a moving-average component in autoregressive transitory earnings. We nd that the increase in inequality over our sample period was entirely permanent for male earnings,
    and predominantly permanent for household income. We also show that the tax system,
    though reducing inequality, nonetheless did not materially affect its increasing trend.
    Furthermore, we compare our model-based ndings against those of simpler, non-model
    based inequality decomposition methods. We show that the results for the trends in
    the evolution of the permanent and transitory variances are remarkably similar across
    methods, whereas the results for the shares of those variances in cross-sectional inequal-
    ity differ widely. Further investigation into the sources of these differences suggests that
    simpler methods produce erroneous decompositions because they cannot exibly cap-
    ture the relative degree of persistence of the transitory component of income.

    Here is the link:

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2011/201160/201160pap.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  87. Thanks John...... This is the first thing that jumps out at me from your post:

    "........... that the increase in inequality over our sample period was entirely permanent for male earnings, and predominantly permanent for household income. We also show that the tax system, though reducing inequality at times, nonetheless did not materially affect its 'increasing trend'........"

    Now I need to find out what their sample period was and what comparative analysis to previous sample periods was made if any? It would appear however, that they agree with my often stated concerns as to this ever increasing inequality equation....

    .......and note that they also point out that it is so, regardless of the tax dynamic! I think this item simply supports that the problem that is "so near and dear to mine and Lou's hearts" is indeed a bigger problem and worthy of additional and more intense study.

    Certainly more of an issue, as I have said many times, than issues of national credit and deficit dynamics. Which I have always maintained is more of an ideological issue, than a practical one at this juncture of Global development.

    Am I misinterpreting this somehow?

    Your comment that this inequality issue cannot be fixed in the near term is a little naive? It most certainly can and should with a new and immediate approach to the tax code.
    A change to the mortgage deductibility factor in particular would stabilize the homeownership sector and reestablish proper valuation and affordability factors. In a previous post I listed some other areas where immediate changes, would not only result in narrowing the wealth gap, by providing treasury for other job creating stimulation projects in the short term but a long term reduction in both national debt and the deficit pictures............ Happy New Year

    ReplyDelete
  88. John.......... I also wanted to refer you to a comparative listing of the top 50 companies in 1980 as an example of the massive change in the composition of American economic realties,(see my earlier post OCT 23rd) since the advent of the deregulation furor spawned by "trickle down" (or Ayn Rand) economic theory.

    My point of course is that the employment factors in this more industrial era as opposed to todays top 50. To therefore call banking and financial institutions "Job creators" in light of this example would indeed indicate a disingenuous claim don't you think? Where is the evidence that they have stimulated the entrepreneurial sector of the economy over the period of their capturing control the top positions, again as a comparison to the 1980 group?.... The top 50 list for 1980 follows on th next post.

    ReplyDelete
  89. John C.......
    1980 Full list

    Rank Company Revenues
    ($ millions) Profits
    ($ millions)
    1 Exxon Mobil 79,106.5 4,295.2
    2 General Motors 66,311.2 2,892.7
    3 Mobil 44,720.9 2,007.2
    4 Ford Motor 43,513.7 1,169.3
    5 Texaco 38,350.4 1,759.1
    6 ChevronTexaco 29,947.6 1,784.7
    7 Gulf Oil 23,910.0 1,322.0
    8 Intl. Business Machines 22,862.8 3,011.3
    9 General Electric 22,460.6 1,408.8
    10 Amoco 18,610.3 1,506.6
    11 ITT Industries 17,197.4 380.7
    12 Atlantic Richfield 16,234.0 1,165.9
    13 Shell Oil 14,431.2 1,125.6
    14 U.S. Steel 12,929.1 -293.0
    15 Conoco 12,648.0 815.4
    16 DuPont 12,571.8 938.9
    17 Chrysler 12,001.9 -1,097.3
    18 Tenneco Automotive 11,209.0 571.0
    19 AT&T Technologies 10,964.1 635.9
    20 Sunoco 10,666.0 699.9
    21 Occidental Petroleum 9,554.8 561.6
    22 ConocoPhillips 9,502.8 891.1
    23 Procter & Gamble 9,329.3 577.3
    24 Dow Chemical 9,255.4 783.9
    25 Union Carbide 9,176.5 556.2
    26 United Technologies 9,053.4 325.6
    27 Navistar International 8,392.0 369.6
    28 Goodyear Tire & Rubber 8,238.7 146.2
    29 Boeing 8,131.0 505.4
    30 Eastman Kodak 8,028.2 1,000.8
    31 LTV 7,996.8 173.5
    32 BP America 7,916.0 1,186.1
    33 Caterpillar 7,613.2 491.6
    34 Unocal 7,567.7 500.6
    35 Beatrice 7,468.4 261.0
    36 RCA 7,454.6 283.8
    37 CBS 7,332.0 -73.9
    38 Bethlehem Steel 7,137.2 275.7
    39 Nabisco Group Holdings 7,133.1 550.9
    40 Xerox 7,027.0 563.1
    41 Amerada Hess 6,769.9 507.1
    42 Esmark 6,743.2 92.4
    43 Marathon Oil 6,680.6 323.2
    44 Ashland 6,473.9 526.3
    45 Rockwell Automation 6,466.1 261.1
    46 Kraft 6,432.9 188.1
    47 Citgo Petroleum 6,276.5 347.5
    48 Monsanto 6,192.6 331.0
    49 Altria Group

    ReplyDelete
  90. Now before you over react and point out the obvious. Please know that i am aware that the basis for ranking may differ. One listing being based upon profit, while another may be based upon assets or inter connectvity or whatever.......

    The main point being of course, that there has been an overall reduction in the major sources of employment (jobs) and the loss of wage sources during this 30 year period of ever increasing corporate profits and connectivity, amongst the financial and the manufacturing giants. The source of the real growing inequality gap!

    Certainly some of the 1980 companies are still ranked high, but one can see that they are more dependent now upon a narrower band of capital intensive providers, that are actually in most cases larger by wealth they themselves and therefore more influential in driving companies forward? This is what I mean when I refer to socialist corporatism!

    Or as I have postulated many times "what Goldman wants, Goldman gets" or any other of the big 5 financial giants. It is naive to think that this is not a matter that should be of serious concern to those of us who believe in capitalism,, entrepreneurship, free markets and democracy?

    ReplyDelete
  91. JohnC......... It is the bottom line for me that people such as myself, that in our early careers worked as and considered ourselves always as capitalists and believers in freedom, should slowly but surely become marginalized over this same 30 years period and are now faced with the ideological attacks and which insist upon calling us 'lefties' or 'nutbar libtards' or commies or socialists for our beliefs.
    Beliefs by the way which were at one time not that long ago, considered the bedrock of conservative principles. This is why I continue to fight!..... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  92. Happy new year everyone:

    I received notice that an old acquaintance of mine posted this on you Tube:

    Another convert to the truth perhaps..........? Here is the link

    http://youtu.be/rl52iOb5qng

    ReplyDelete
  93. James,
    Again your comments to my post baffle me. Does not the study that I post support some of your and Lou’s ideas and thoughts on inequality? Do you think that I only read or post studies that are contrary to your ideas? Please clarify the point of requoting portions of it. I never said that inequality in not worthy of additional and more intense study. It just does not interest me and, at the risk of your rath, I think it has many ideological facets to it.

    I should rephrase my reasons for not getting involved in the inequality issue. The problem will not be fixed in the near term. If I understand your theories on inequality this has developed over the last 10-30 years (depending on the study you reference). I also understand you to believe that this has developed because of the vast corporate influence that has infiltrated the global network and the reconstitution of traditional corporation into “socialist corporatism”. This is a gross simplification, I realize. But presuming I am somewhat accurate and if it took this long to develop this “system” why do you have the optimism that it can be undone is less time than it took to develop? The dynamics are firmly in place no?

    The other matter which leads to my comment that the inequality issue cannot be solved in the near term is that the solutions that are proposed are theoretical. There is no evidence that they will work in such a complicated economic dynamic. The theory of Social Security seemed sound 60 years ago and we now see that it is flawed. Medicare is even more flawed. I presume that your comment on mortgage deductibility was to eliminate it? Do you have any clue what effect this would have on the US economy in the near term and when, if ever, real estate price reality would return? The study and your quote seems to argue that tax policy has little effect on inequality so is this a solution?

    I also do not see why you do not feel that the national credit and debt issues in Europe are ideological and not practical. The European Union is proposing some very radical changes to deal with it. I am sure that there are many economists very worried about the situation or these unprecedented actions would not be taken. I’m not saying that inequality is not an important issue but I don’t see that any crisis meetings on the matter being necessary.

    Another economy that is vastly lacking in our discussions is the Japan economy. It is my understanding that Japan is a very “socially responsible” society. Maybe one of the most “socially responsible” in the world. Do they have inequality issues? Does their stagnate economy of the last 20 years have anything to do with this? It seems a good example to use when referencing the global inequality issue.

    I am not aware of anyone calling banking and financial institutions “job creators”. I do think the term ‘job creators” is a disingenuous term completely political and designed as a cover for protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. It similar to the term “working American” that the other side uses to imply that people that make more than $250k do not work.

    I don’t think I will comment on your 50 companies list as it does not factor in the globalization aspect of employment that has occurred over the last 30 years. It might be worthwhile to compare the top 50 Global companies of 30 years ago with the today. I don’t have anything to comment on as respects to the employments dynamics of the “band of capital” or interconnectedness that you reference.

    ReplyDelete
  94. James continued....

    for the first time I reached to character limit. Here is my final paragraph (for what it is worth).

    Finally, I watched the Carl Schweser Youtube video. Thanks for posting it. I appreciate his point of view but it is so easy to take this point of view as you get old and are more comfortable in life. My point of view on charity and giving changes every day as I start to feel a little guilty for the luck and opportunity that I have been presented. However, old white guys who are in the 1% are not the people that will change this. You need to convert the young 24 year old Carl Schweser who is ready to conquer the corporate world and thinks that old white 1% ers don’t know the realities of today. These are the people that will change the current global economic dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
  95. JohnC.
    I guess I am one of those "old white guys in the 1%" ?...:-) I do agree we need to convert the youth.... I am trying really hard John, through my site etc, to present essays and articles to hopefully allow the readers to question what may still be the current set of beliefs e,g "greed is good"...It is an uphill battle against a mindset that will seemingly not allow anyone to question the American/Anglo saxon capitalist methodologies of the last 30 years!

    I believe as you do I think that the young need to have a more social "definition of success" if our society is to progress, and not deteriorate into a servile system where the majority serves a uber rich minority..... We need to "refit the training wheels"..... June 2010
    http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/training_wheels.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  96. Unlike your however, I do believe the inequality issue can (and must) be fixed in very short order. By a simple acceptance by societies leaders that firstly it exists, and secondly it is socially dangerous, and thirdly it is man made! In other words listen to the experts, that have been trying to tell you this for the last number of years and stop allowing greed to continue to model the ideological decision making processes in Washington and London.

    The economic modeling to effect a swift reversal of this trend is already proven. I speak of an immediate installation of what was once a proper regulatory system on the financial community, balanced tax policies and a refocus upon stimulation of both the manufacturing and entrepreneurial sectors, in both old age industries and new technologies and advances. Investment in education and healthcare. I believe I also touched on this and others for you before.

    There has been already several notable moves toward this correction dynamic by the BRIC bloc and the Eurozone, but unfortunately the U.S and to a lesser degree the UK, continue to drag their heels. I believe this goes to my point about the change in order of power and the battle that may well ensue as a result.
    A new Global economy cannot be held accountable to the single interests of any one nation. Particularly those that continue to believe in a form of economics that nurtures boom and bust cycles as a part of it's accepted traditions? This tradition has to stop and capitalism if it is to survive, must change to a more rigidly controlled commercial system, that requires more stringent definitions of liquidity and accepted Global methods for establishing asset and sovereign valuations....

    ReplyDelete
  97. In summation John, I do believe that most thinking people in business especially, want to see an approach that establishes a common and level playing field for Global trade and commerce. No sensible person would disagree that this would benefit all and would not eliminate success as a goal, for those willing to work to improve their station in life?

    Some currently may fear this level field and that speaks to the resulting political posturing. These are people I believe who cannot see or accept the transitional nature of human progress. They will wish to maintain their dominance at all costs and therein may lie the seeds of another major Global conflict.

    What must change and quickly at a national level, is the dynamic that has produced, what both Jack Bogle, many others and myself, see as an out of control corporatism that feels no social accountability, nor recognizes any sovereign jurisdiction over what has become an out of control desire toward socially damaging expansionism.

    A Global economy can be established that does use the tools of commerce and trade to serve the greater good of a global populace and not just for a limited set of fortunate stockholders. I may be an idealist but this could make for a better world as well?

    ReplyDelete
  98. JohnC and Lou,

    P.S.......... I watched the movie "Margin Call" during the break and I highly recommend it to you.... regards james

    ReplyDelete
  99. John I'll touch on the mortgage deductibility issue at another time. it is I realize a very sensitive issue for Americans but believe me the economics just don't make sense. Liquidity factors and state revenue are only part of the issue. It is perhaps too complex for a blog?? The best would be to look at the stability of other nations real estate systems that don't use that model?

    ReplyDelete
  100. I agree that mortgage deductibility is a bigger issue than this blog and that it does not make economic. The only thing I would say is that we have dug in quite deep on the issue and I don't think that extracting ourselves will be an easy matter.

    I also ran across yet another study on income inequality. It does not seem to be nearly as scientific as some of the others I have posted but may be of interest to Lou or you.

    Here is the Summary:

    Social scientists and philosophers have been concerned with issues surrounding the distribution of income or income inequality for over 200 years—the economist and philosopher Adam Smith discussed these issues as early as 1776. Academic writers have been writing on income inequality measurement issues for at least a century. Policy makers have also long been interested in income inequality issues; for example, the issue came up in Senate debate in 1898. Bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress that address the issue of income inequality by affecting the income of workers and taxpayers in different parts of the income distribution. In the second session of the 112th, Congress will likely debate the scheduled expiration (at the end of 2012) of
    the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which could affect income inequality. This report examines
    changes in income inequality among tax filers between 1996 and 2006. In particular, the role of changes in wages, capital income, and tax policy is investigated.

    Inflation-adjusted average after-tax income grew by 25% between 1996 and 2006 (the last year
    for which individual income tax data is publicly available). This average increase, however, obscures a great deal of variation. The poorest 20% of tax filers experienced a 6% reduction in income while the top 0.1% of tax filers saw their income almost double. Tax filers in the middle of the income distribution experienced about a 10% increase in income. Also during this period, the proportion of income from capital increased for the top 0.1% from 64% to 70%.

    Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, increased between 1996 and 2006; this is true for both before-tax and after-tax income. Before-tax income inequality increased from 0.532 to 0.582 between 1996 and 2006—a 9% increase. After-tax income inequality increased by 11% between 1996 and 2006. Total taxes (the individual income tax, the payroll tax, and the corporate income tax) reduced income inequality in both 1996 and 2006. In 1996, taxes reduced income inequality by 5%. In 2006, however, taxes reduced income inequality by less than 4%. Taxes were more progressive and had a greater equalizing effect in 1996 than in 2006.

    Three potential causes of the increase in after-tax income inequality between 1996 and 2006 are changes in labor income (wages and salaries), changes in capital income (capital gains, dividends,and business income), and changes in taxes. To evaluate these potential reasons for increasing income inequality, a technique to decompose income inequality by income source is used. While earnings inequality increased between 1996 and 2006, this was not the major source of increasing
    income inequality over this period. Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total
    income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally
    distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest
    contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality. Taxes were less progressive in 2006 than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality between 1996 and 2006. But overall income inequality would likely have increased even in the absence of tax policy changes.

    Here is the full report:

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42131.pdf

    I particularly like the way way they break it down into 3 factors of income equality (wages, changes in capital income and taxes). I have wonder how changes in capital income effected income equality

    ReplyDelete
  101. Thanks Johnc: FOR ME THIS is the key paragraph:
    ."............. Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total
    income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in, "capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality". middle class and poorer workers don't usually benefit directly from capital gains or dividends?
    Taxes were less "progressive" (nice phrase) in 2006 than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality *(higher taxes on the lower end, lower taxes on the higher end) between 1996 and 2006. But overall income inequality would likely have increased "even in the absence of these tax policy changes......". (Bush Tax cuts etc etc ).

    In other words we didn't need the Bush tax cuts to worsen the problem. We were already entering the dark cave of income inequality back in 2006 ..... and then he raids the treasury "off balance sheet" costs to pay for 2 wars. Another unfunded 8 trillion dollars added to the deficit right there! Kicked down the road for the next poor sucker to deal with.....Obama? Reduced revenues, 8 trillion higher debt and an economic crash which at the time nobody had any clue what it was going to cost. estimate 1.3 trillion. immediate within his first 6 moths in office.

    Given that Reagan was the last big supply side champion, and as a matter of historical fact who quadrupled to 4 trillion, the U.S deficit while in office, using the same wonderful supply side idiocy, then lowered the tax rate and promptly thereafter increased defence spending by another 4 trillion on his watch.
    In the last 30 years with exception of Clinton and Bush Snr who was a little more realistic, the sum total of addition to the national debt of Geo W BUsh and Reagan is damn near the grand total of 13 trillion deficit we have at the moment. Now who wants to blame Obama?

    He needs and is forced by conditions, has no choice really to increase again to pay the bills and the net net result, will be a smooth 14 trillion I believe He has not increased a single tax . But the GOP are calling him a tax and spend liberal and a danger to Americas future and a socialist in commie sheeps clothing.
    They want him to cut entitlements, slash workers wages, widen the inequality gap further, bail out the too big to fail entities, turn a blind eye to the criminality on Wall street that is still going on! Don't cut the defence budget and reduce the overall tax rates and leave the Bush tax cuts in place? And don't you dare expect any body that earns enough to qualify themselves as a "job creator" by the GOP to pay more taxes......Christ what a country!
    Where does the revenue come from.................Maybe the middle class who are losing their livelihoods and their homes at an astounding rate. Who are being askef=d to drop any idea of jobsecurity, pensions or an age limitation on their working years.Oh and for atleast 50 million of them no healthcare security? Again I say Christ what a country?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Lou & JohnC: Seems I have another convert to the cause?
    Lawrence Summers: Financial Times Sun Jan 8th.
    We need smart reinvention not destruction
    Lawrence Summers opens an FT series on the crisis in capitalism, its failings, challenges, weaknesses and the prospects for reform.
    It is not so much the most capitalist parts of the contemporary economy but the least – those concerned with health, education and social protection – that are in most need of reinvention, he says...............

    ReplyDelete
  103. ............... I wrote a piece in sept 2009 on the similar theme: http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/new_economicformat_required.pdf
    Of course I was attacked as a libtard leftie anti capitalist and other derogatory terms....:-)

    ReplyDelete
  104. ........you might also find my report to my board jan3 2009. Forecasts for the future of interest... It can be accessed in my drop down menu, economics archive @ www.jamesconvey.com...

    Got some things wrong but generally I am not "ashamed" of my foresight in this report.........:-)

    ReplyDelete
  105. ........... together with my most recent piece "murder/suicide by the 1%" I belive as sherlock would say "the game is afoot".........

    "...............Apparently so much wealth has fallen into the minorities hands over this agreed period of excess, that it can afford to "waste" a great deal of it buying political influence. Rather than looking to invest in expanding the opportunities for themselves and for the good of the entirety of their own society?

    In the fearful need to protect their advantaged lifestyles, the upper segment of wealth, with some notable exceptions, have unfortunately become entranced by ideologues, into believing that they are truly under threat and with this inane need for power by a supposed supportive political dynamic, they are blindly aiding and abetting in the actual dissembling of the middle class of their own societies?

    Without whom the entire system becomes in jeopardy! As a result, their wealth and assets will decline dramatically, as economies trundle to a halt! It is by any definition a murder of common sense and a suicidal thesis!..."

    ReplyDelete
  106. meant to share this with you...........

    A country in denial about it's fiscal future...... Article by Samuelson, Washington post OPED. dec 25th issue.

    Merry Christmas here is some coal for your stockings

    "................This whole issue boils down to fear of the future and it is falsely fueled by pundits and ideologues who cannot support the fact that sensible government can and will solve the problems, without destroying the delicate balance needed to maintain healthy societal balance and growth.
    Destroying government itself and the pillars of social reliance for the populace, is the worst solution and one that is proposed only by the most extreme fear mongers!
    We are in a transition! Of that there is no doubt, but it is not the end of the world as we know it! Entitlements are also not any real current threatening issue, to consider them as some impending disaster that must be eliminated mercilessly? This is nonsense and simply the ideological ravings of insensible men!
    A new economic format is required however. One that addresses Global needs for both capital markets, asset valuation, liquidity issues and the natural demands of the malleable human resources of the planet.

    Fear of the future is not the temper we need to solve the problem and neither is this writer correct about his own nation. Smarter men than he are grappling with the issues we face for the future prosperity of mankind. The current inequality issue is also based in fear. Social divisions are being forced upon people by ideologues and punditry who, without conscience, feed the fires of divisive politics to their own ends, and to the detriment of our democratic institutions........."

    ReplyDelete
  107. James, not specifically relevant to this thread, I have a question for you: Did you write the following reply on the website of our old nemesis - Tim Carter's website, on one of this threads where he is complaining about a "RINO" voting against Right to Work legislation in New Hampshire?

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike"
    - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933.
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Just curious if that was you, because it seems like it could be your handy work. :) If not, it was quite an effective comeback (in my humble opinion) from someone other than one of us three; a rare occurrence on that site. Even more surprising that Tim actually allowed the comment to be posted. It is the first time I've visited his site in several months. I rarely go there now, because I usually come away wanting to bang my head against the wall every time I read his threads and the litany of comments from his mis-informed and often prejudiced followers.

    FYI, on another topic, I have been formulating a topic for my next primary thread. I'm well aware that it's been quite a while since I've written a new one. I have read most everything you (James and John) have posted; thanks for continuing the intelligent conversations here. I hope to post something in the next week or two.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Hi James and Lou,

    This post speaks to James post of Jan 6, 2012 12:46 AM. I am also working on a comment that relates to Lou’s blog topic of Feb. 25, 2011 “Infrastructure needs: Who will pay?. My infrastructure comment will relate to the bullet train that CA is considering and the controversy surrounding it.

    With regards to your post James, I agree with about 90% of it. Instead of the comment “Christ what a country” my comment is that this country has “the best government can buy”. My topic below may not be relevant to a Canadian economic analysis that focuses on global issues but it is very relevant to me. I love California and stories like these in the LA Times just frost me.

    Here is the link:
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lobbying-wetch-20120114,0,4408152.story

    The article is titled “Lobbyist Scott Wetch bends Legislature to benefit labor unions”. You know my feelings on public labor unions (I am not a big fan) but the sort of influence talked about in this article could easily have been bought by companies as well on matters of interest to them.

    In summary, the article talks about effectively killing legislation that would have allowed exclusive use of waterless urinals to be included in the state building code. If you know anything about California we have a water problem here and anything to limit the usage of water is a good thing. Apparently, the legislation did pass as long as buildings have duel systems. The article implies that the reason for the compromise was to keep jobs for the California State Pipe Trades Council plumbers and fitters. If this is the case, I question if it is appropriate to legislate jobs like this.

    There are other examples of work that Welsh has done for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to limit work available to non-union electricians. There is even an example where he worked against the California Teachers Association and the California Nurses Association to allow non-union public school staff to administer suppository drugs having an epileptic seizure.

    Regardless of the affiliation I don’t like the influence that paid lobbyists have on the system. This is one of the reasons that I feel our democracy is flawed in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  109. It was I that posted the Hitler comparative Lou........ I visited wondering how Mr Carter was handling the obvious dissembling of his favorite characters for president, Bachman etc etc, and the obvious awakening of the American worker and their push back against the realities of his favorite form of extremism and anti Union fervor .....? . I felt a little sorry for him, as he had filled his site with what can only be called 'poor loser' threats, to any and all republican congressman or senators that are now tripping over themselves to avoid the radical positions of the tea party... I assume he still believes that he represents the majority opinion in his state.........? However dangerous he may be, it is still sad to see someone so entrenched in such destructive ideological concepts?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Hi James and Lou,

    This post speaks to James post of Jan 6, 2012 12:46 AM. I am also working on a comment that relates to Lou’s blog topic of Feb. 25, 2011 “Infrastructure needs: Who will pay?. My infrastructure comment will relate to the bullet train that CA is considering and the controversy surrounding it.

    With regards to your post James I agree with about 90% of it. Instead of the comment “Christ what a country” my comment is that this country has “the best government can buy”. My comments below may not be relevant to a Canadian economic analysis that focuses on global issues but it is very relevant to me. I love California and stories like these in the LA Times just frost me.

    Here is the link:

    The article is titled “Lobbyist Scott Wetch bends Legislature to benefit labor unions”. You know my feelings on public labor unions (I am not a big fan) but the sort of influence talked about in this article could easily have been bought by companies and wealthy individuals as well on matters of interest to them.

    In summary, the article talks about effectively killing legislation that would have allowed exclusive use of waterless urinals to be included in the state building code. If you know anything about California we have a water problem here and anything to limit the usage of water is a good thing. Apparently, the legislation did pass as long as buildings have duel systems. The article implies that the reason for the compromise was to keep jobs for the California State Pipe Trades Council plumbers and fitters. If this is the case, I question if it is appropriate to legislate jobs like this.

    There are other examples of work that Welsh has done for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to limit work available to non-union electricians. My feeling is that regardless of how you feel about unions, people that choose to work non-union should not be discriminated against in legislation. There is even an example where he worked against the California Teachers Association and the California Nurses Association to allow non-union public school staff to administer suppository drugs having an epileptic seizure. Why the CTA and CAN would be against this is beyond me.

    Regardless of the affiliation, I don’t like the influence that paid lobbyists have on the system. This is one of the reasons that I feel our democracy is flawed in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  111. James and John, I noticed several emails generated out of the blog software sent to me of the same comment. That usually means that you are trying to write a comment and it's not publishing. I'm not sure why the software does this, but every once in a while, it seems to randomly throw some comments into the SPAM bucket. I have to go in, notice that they have been labeled SPAM, and "flip the switch" as it were, to publish them. So, I think I got all of them that came in recently; but, if I've missed any, please let me know. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Lou JohnC:

    Todays breaking news as to the "new" approach needed for old problems, caused by the deregulation psyche of the last 30 years. (Financial times source)

    FSB chief in call to rein in ‘shadow banking’
    'Shadow banking' must be dragged into the harsh light of day and both it and global banks must be forced to serve the real economy, Mark Carney, head of the Financial Stability Board, has warned
    http://link.ft.com/r/9ULF66/8Z99RT/UJLP5/TUGUYZ/7AEH4E/XL/h?a1=2012&a2=1&a3=15

    ReplyDelete
  113. Lou:

    perhaps your software is being judgemental????....:-) Is it right wing or left wing?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hi John,

    As to your info and post and it's aspects as to the obvious abuse of Union power. I have I know, quite a few times used a phrase referencing the abuses of the "pendulum" of power.
    Whether this is an excess to either side of the arc (right or left) it is indeed a substantial issue within American society especially, and I can agree with you that this dynamic is apparent and needs to be remedied.
    I believe it owes it's influence to the increasingly socially divisive factors that are now prevalent in American society, and that have seen a normally historically centrist and sensible nation, whip back and forth ideologically, all the while building barriers to honorable compromise and common sense solutions. The existence of rigid ideological ideas having become the norm.

    So much so that rigidity of opinion, is seen as a strength and commended by punditry from both sides? This polarization has of course been exacerbated by the "inequality issues" and deterioration that your society currently faces and must come to grips with, in order to defuse a situation, that could see further more serious eruptions of anarchy and civil unrest, as I have so often mentioned.
    The greater % of American citizens from both sides over the near period, I believe have begun to show their displeasure at this environment of favor, that has seen most of them excluded from that favor! (Be they right or left)
    Whether it is out of control Union favoritism or financial power in control of the political system, I believe as I have posited often, we are at a decision time for the people of the United states to discern just what kind of society they really want to live in? I just posted a short comment to my own site: Under Wit and Wisdom new yesterday. http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2012/01/wit-wisdom-the-99-dynamic-circa-2012.html..........

    ReplyDelete
  115. ...........continued.

    My biggest fear is that the special interests will succeed in their efforts to create sufficient wedge issues, to maintain this polarized society and once again your nations leadership will be decided by the slimmest of margins (Falling Chads etc) and nothing will effectively change the status quo...... While I do not believe that either side is free of guilt, I do believe that Obama and the more socially responsible liberal elements in your communities, deserve a renewed mandate hopefully humbled somewhat, and that they will not this time allow change to be defeated by those special interests that currently, like an infection, hamper the growth of what is the nation that has most represented to the world what real freedom actually once meant?

    ReplyDelete
  116. This is a polite way of saying "unregulated greed" is really not so good for society in general. My point exactly. Financial times today.

    The A-List: Jeffrey Sachs - Self-interest, without morals, leads to capitalism’s self-destruction
    Capitalism earns its keep through Adam Smith’s famous paradox of the invisible hand: self-interest, operating through markets, leads to the common good. Yet the paradox of self-interest breaks down when stretched too far. This is our global predicament today.
    http://link.ft.com/r/UXDMSS/4CY1RI/2L08E/C4IFTS/PFOLGX/E4/h?a1=2012&a2=1&a3=18

    ReplyDelete
  117. Hi James,
    Anyone that argues that "unregulated greed" is good for society is just a crackpot. Thanks for posting the article.

    James and Lou,
    On another matter I just read the attached article in the LA Times titled “Germany has the economic strengths America once boasted”. It is not a scientific piece but makes many points worth pursuing in the hope of fixing other major economies like the USA. It focuses on a middle class couple making $40,000/year. The points that I found of interest are:

    1. The Krugers [at $40,000/yr] have a higher standard of living than many Americans who have twice that income. Their secret: little debt, frugal habits and a government that is intensely focused on high production, low inflation and extensive social services.

    2. [Germany,] As the world's fourth-largest economy, it has thrived on principles that the United States seems to have gradually lost.

    It has tightly managed its budget and adopted reforms — such as raising the retirement age — that some other Eurozone nations are just now being forced to undertake.


    3. Germany was the only major Eurozone nation to escape the credit downgrades that have hit its neighbors. And the country continues to anchor the continent's economy.

    4. Germany's economy looks like that of the U.S. a generation ago.

    In 1975, manufacturing accounted for about 20% of the United States' economic output, or gross domestic product, about the same as in Germany today. Since then, U.S. manufacturing's share of GDP has slid to about 12%.

    In 1975, the U.S. budget deficit was a manageable 1% of the economy, about the same as Germany's now. Last year, the U.S. deficit was about 10%.

    American families in the 1970s and early '80s typically saved about 10% of their take-home pay, about the same as in Germany today. The U.S. savings rate these days is in the low single digits.


    5. Germany, like China, fiercely promotes its exports and has been reluctant to ramp up domestic spending, frustrating Washington, which wants to sell more American goods abroad.

    That may be good for Germany, but many critics say the country's lack of consumption causes unhealthy imbalances for the regional and global economies, much the way America's overconsumption and borrowing does.

    6. On weekdays and every few Saturdays, Volkmar is out the door by 5 a.m., driving 45 minutes to his factory. Vera also works some Saturdays. But neither gets paid more when they work additional hours, nor do they get paid less when they work fewer hours. Over time, the hours balance out.

    A similar idea is behind a work-sharing system that many experts said helped Germany avoid the mass layoffs that swept the U.S. during the Great Recession. A company might reduce the hours of all workers to avert laying off an employee.


    7. The Krugers' older child, Thorsten, was interested in books from an early age, and prepared for a university education. Their daughter, Nadine, got a vocational diploma in social work that included three years of schooling after high school, with the final year being on-the-job training at half pay.

    About one-fourth of all German businesses take part in this apprenticeship program; six of 10 apprentices end up getting hired permanently, said Dirk Werner of the Cologne Institute for Economic Research.

    The practice, he said, is a key reason why Germany has one of the lowest unemployment rates for 15- to 24-year-olds, about 9.7%, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. In the U.S., the comparable rate is about twice that.

    The URL for the full article is:


    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-germany-middle-class-20120122,0,3874773.story

    ReplyDelete
  118. Hello Lou and James,

    I just read the attached article titled “Germany has the economic strengths America once boasted”. It is not a scientific piece but makes many points worth pursuing in the hope of fixing other major economies like the USA. It focuses on a middle class couple making $40,000/year The points that I found of interest are:


    ---The Krugers [at $40,000/yr] have a higher standard of living than many Americans who have twice that income. Their secret: little debt, frugal habits and a government that is intensely focused on high production, low inflation and extensive social services.

    ---[Germany,] As the world's fourth-largest economy, it has thrived on principles that the United States seems to have gradually lost.

    It has tightly managed its budget and adopted reforms — such as raising the retirement age — that some other Eurozone nations are just now being forced to undertake.


    ---Germany was the only major Eurozone nation to escape the credit downgrade that have hit its neighbors. And the country continues to anchor the continent's economy.

    ---Germany's economy looks like that of the U.S. a generation ago.

    In 1975, manufacturing accounted for about 20% of the United States' economic output, or gross domestic product, about the same as in Germany today. Since then, U.S. manufacturing's share of GDP has slid to about 12%.

    In 1975, the U.S. budget deficit was a manageable 1% of the economy, about the same as Germany's now. Last year, the U.S. deficit was about 10%.

    American families in the 1970s and early '80s typically saved about 10% of their take-home pay, about the same as in Germany today. The U.S. savings rate these days is in the low single digits.


    ---Germany, like China, fiercely promotes its exports and has been reluctant to ramp up domestic spending, frustrating Washington, which wants to sell more American goods abroad.

    That may be good for Germany, but many critics say the country's lack of consumption causes unhealthy imbalances for the regional and global economies, much the way America's overconsumption and borrowing does.

    ---On weekdays and every few Saturdays, Volkmar is out the door by 5 a.m., driving 45 minutes to his factory. Vera also works some Saturdays. But neither gets paid more when they work additional hours, nor do they get paid less when they work fewer hours. Over time, the hours balance out.

    A similar idea is behind a work-sharing system that many experts said helped Germany avoid the mass layoffs that swept the U.S. during the Great Recession. A company might reduce the hours of all workers to avert laying off an employee.


    ---The Krugers' older child, Thorsten, was interested in books from an early age, and prepared for a university education. Their daughter, Nadine, got a vocational diploma in social work that included three years of schooling after high school, with the final year being on-the-job training at half pay.

    About one-fourth of all German businesses take part in this apprenticeship program; six of 10 apprentices end up getting hired permanently, said Dirk Werner of the Cologne Institute for Economic Research.

    The practice, he said, is a key reason why Germany has one of the lowest unemployment rates for 15- to 24-year-olds, about 9.7%, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. In the U.S., the comparable rate is about twice that.

    The URL for the full article is:


    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-germany-middle-class-20120122,0,3874773.story

    ReplyDelete
  119. JohnC:Thanks for posting this

    I am gratified to see that an American newspaper would print some truth finally about a European country. As you know I am the senior analyst for a German Based corporation, AYIKO Group GmbH and also am originally from Ireland. So I do have a good idea as to the inner workings of most European economies and yes Germany plays a key role in the Eurozone as outlined in the LA.Times piece. They are still dependent to a great deal upon their neighbors consumption to maintain their healthy export dynamic by the way.

    It is however a little unfair to overlook other similarly strong European economic models simply to promote Germany as the ideal of what was once the 'american like' economy? Denmark and Sweden have similarly successful mixed economies, with strong social programs. The Apprenticeship program in Germany is actually modeled after the British system of a century ago. A system which was eventually degraded by the change from an industrial to a 'services' economy during the Thatcher era. The famous Laissez faire unregulated system of trickle down economics, similar to the US model?

    The downgrading issue has as you know hit many nations, not the least being the US. It is very possible, regardless of Germany's strength that they, as well as the entire group of nations making up the Euro, might suffer similar downgrades in the near future. This is of little consequence as I have said before, such is the reality of transitional periods. France and Belgium have strong economies regardless and yes even Italy and the Balkan nations have potential to become like Germany Sweden and Denmark.

    The extra diverse Euro protocols that were the result of a lack of a "centralized" European economic policy, (caused to a great extent by the Thatcher and Reagan influence on the outcome of the Eurozone debates), has now shown itself to be flawed, and has highlighted the weakness of the trickle down model in those economies that allowed or chose, what amounted to a totally unregulated financial system. Greece Ireland Portugal etc. What is crazy is that there are still those that will parrot the view that this flawed Americanized Anglo Saxon economic model is still preferable to a stable socially responsible mixed economic model, more loosely based upon keynesian standards.

    What is also important to point out is that a mixed economy, wherein social programs are balanced with sensible economic platforms that enhance growth, and allow for human resources to be sensibly utilized and rewarded, is preferable to any wildly diverse system that sees a nations wealth abused in the manner we have and are witnessing in several jurisdictions including the US.

    Similarly, as is the case in all of these successful models, healthcare is a right not a burden and the medical sector is likewise held to a standard of accountability at every level. It is a highly efficient model and cost effective and based upon a single payer method. Also what needs to be mentioned is that the individual is the key to these economic models. Their care and benefits are protected by the state as the essential elements to achieve their healthy economy. For example, vacations and pregnancy are paramount incidences that show as essential to social well being and positively effects the nations treasury...............................

    ReplyDelete
  120. ............. What also needs to be highlighted is the lack of income disparity (gap) and poverty experienced in these socially accountable models. Neither is their any lack of entrepreneurial success nor of many individual incidences of great wealth. None of which is frowned upon by the greater majority of the citizenry. My own experiences of Europe is that it is socially more akin to the Canadian reality than any similarity to a US experience.
    All of them have their flaws, but where and how one chooses to live becomes a matter of preference does it not? Once decided one must fight to preserve that which is socially important wherever possible and necessary and which one deems to be at the heart of the very reason for the choice in the first place?
    Obviously one lives and loves ones own nation and it is not for an outsider to force anyone to accept a dominion of thought or lifestyle that is somehow uncomfortable. But certainly it is also necessary to be fair when speaking of other domains.

    I have tried in my writings to be critical of what I see as the increasing danger that faces those nations, that continue to choose greed as the divining definition of their societies growth dynamic, and who want to perpetuate that very system of greed that allows for these cyclical highs and lows. These very results which provide the essential fuel for the anarchy and civil commotions that ultimately result in poverty violence, wars and death.

    Perhaps it is right that a nation (Germany) that was once the source of so much of the carnage and horrors of never ending wars, should now be a model of a socially responsible and effective democracy with a people at peace with themselves and their neighbors. Seems more preferable somehow?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Private equity profits called into question
    Private equity has proved better at enriching its own managers than producing investment profits for US pension funds over the past decade, according to a study prepared for the Financial Times by academics at Yale and Maastricht University
    http://link.ft.com/r/NA70KK/8ZS49M/VRTU4/GDSAGI/PFO7H0/OS/h?a1=2012&a2=1&a3=23

    FINANCIAL TIMES TODAY. More corruption??

    ReplyDelete
  122. John C and Lou<

    On the heels of President Obama's state of the Union and the meetings in Davos, which are asking some rather interesting questions as to the "future of capitalism" and the redefining of what is "more socially desirable" as we move forward? I thought it a good time to post this link to an old essay of mine from september of 2009, Hope you will enjoy it and share it as you wish..... james

    http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/new_economicformat_required.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  123. Lou and JohnC...... very interesting historical item.......... Enjoy.

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/26-3?nocache=1

    ReplyDelete
  124. Subject: Human nature and economics......from www.jameconvey.com posting feb 2012

    Unfortunately, along with free market capitalism, back approximately 30 years ago, came the ideology of unfettered, unregulated greed! This seemingly was a brainchild of the neurotic author Ayn Rand and which, with notable support from some economists of the time, became the motivated idiocy more commonly called trickle down, or laissez faire style of commerce. Also known in her artistic genre as 'objectivism'.

    We now know it in retrospect, to be more aptly named as an economic philosophy more akin to dog eat dog and never mind the consequences! Since according to this theorum, the purity of the free market will correct any and all subsequent flaws? The Americanized Anglo Saxon model of a new more servile style of commercial reality. Whereby people appear on balance sheets and economic modeling, simply as human resources to be capitalized upon, or cast off at the whims of the mediocre men in charge of our commercial enterprises! Social responsibility having long since been deleted, from the logarithmic equations, of the profit at all costs driven economic realities of the last 30 years!

    One cannot for instance really blame a Mitt Romney or any of his ilk, for their insanely rigid corporate ideological beliefs, which would protect this dynamic at all costs! Since he and they are indeed a perfect example of that profit stalking commercial and unfeeling creature, that this period in our history has spawned! Mitt Romney is not alone in believing this for profit only insanity, as being the "real" American way? After all it worked for him, coming from his privileged background! As it has for others on both sides of the aisle in the arena of American 'corpus politica'!

    The human social equation seriously needs to see a revival and a redefinition! An entry again onto corporate balance sheets, as the real meaningful and primary reason, we as a race of people go about our daily labors! Most notably, this cannot be acheived without 'good' government and sensible regulation, so to stifle the evils that have become so apparent, in our present model of unsustainable economic lunacy. One must always be aware of the imperfections of human nature and equally of the impossibility of even pure mathematics ever being capable of mastering it's vagaries.

    "........... The very purpose of law and regulation is to tame the beast that is unpredictable human nature. Throw off the rule of Law and the animal instinct to destroy its own, will then always confuse logic........"

    James M. Convey

    ReplyDelete
  125. James, well said, as usual.

    I came across an item I think is worth mentioning.

    From The Washington Post:

    "A quarter of the money amassed by Romney’s campaign and an allied super PAC has come from just 41 people, each of whom has given more than $100,000, according to a Washington Post analysis of disclosure data. Nearly a dozen of the donors have contributed $1 million or more."

    Corporate Big Brother controls the flow of ideas in the Orwellian world we live in. Unless, we do something about it.

    ReplyDelete
  126. LOU:
    Small groups of men with great wealth believe they can buy the world! It has ever been thus!

    There is no shame in politics anymore. Whatever lies need to be told to get elected are fair game. The masters of these paid for cretins, that are willing to sell their souls for power, are fully aware what they are paying for! They are buying via pettifoggery and slight of hand, the ideological soul of the nation!
    Sooner or later however, as the population becomes more aware, lies will not succeed as much as truth, ethics and real integrity. When that happens the 1% will find themselves "fired" as they did in Norway and Sweden in 1931.....

    ReplyDelete
  127. here is an interesting link that just surfaced in one of our Canadian papers.
    Check out this Globe and Mail article "Study links low intelligence with right-wing beliefs"

    at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/study-links-low-intelligence-with-right-wing-beliefs/article2325323/?service=email&utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=E-mail%3A+Newsletters+%2F+E-Blasts+%2F+etc.&utm_content=2325323&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Here is one of the most frightening things I have ever read. Policing for profit?

    Financial Times." ..................... Private contractors to build and run UK police station.........
    With police forces seeking savings in the face of the government’s austerity-led budget cuts, G4S, the world’s largest security company, has won the first contract in Britain to staff and build a police station. The deal, expected to be signed within days, represents the most radical outsourcing of law enforcement to the private sector yet......................"

    ReplyDelete
  129. In researching and preparing my thoughts for my next major topic, I came across this interesting piece.

    http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/154252/The_Republican_Brain%3A_Why_Even_Educated_Conservatives_Deny_Science_--_and_Reality/

    While there is some relevance to my upcoming idea, I thought the basic premise of this article relates more to the current theme of "An Idea Is Like A Virus". I hope you find the article interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  130. LOU: This was a most interesting article and thanks for sharing it. It brought to my mind an old adage about intransigence, which I posted to the wit and wisdom section of my site sometime ago.

    Intransigence defined: A brief as to why people can be transfixed by an ideology.... right or left....!

    "The most difficult subjects can be explained to even the most slow-witted man, if he has not formed any fixed idea of them already, but the simplest most obvious thing cannot even be made clear to the most intelligent man, if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him". - Leo Tolstoy, 1897.

    ReplyDelete
  131. An afterthought Lou:

    There is renewed emphasis lately, on what was once an integral part of all analytical sciences. It suffered being somewhat ignored, with the advent of the the 'quantum' scientific disciplines and the advances of technology in the last 30 years.
    That is the scientific study of human behavior or "behavioral science" In my own field one hears once again of the employment of behavioral economics specialists. ..... What goes around, comes around in the human equation...:-)

    ReplyDelete
  132. Hi Lou and James,

    I meant to post this article a couple of weeks ago but sometimes things get busy. It is just one in a series of items that just make me realize that we have a failed democracy. What I really don't know and I hope is not true is whether or not all democracy is is corrupt or just the type we have in the USA.

    It is an article about how an ambitious assessor in the LA County Tax office used his position to "encourage" donations that eventually got him elected to the top job.

    The caveat of course is that this is an investigation and Mr Noguez is innocent until proven guilty. The sad part is that this is so common and it is very easy to see how this can happen. Our system of government is so beholden to the campaign dollar that it is easy to see why these sorts of things are so common.

    This is the article

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/19/local/la-me-tax-assessor-investigation-20120219

    ReplyDelete
  133. Hi John; Another example of "good old boy" borderline corruption.

    This issue for me, is simply another typical example of what I see and have seen, throughout my career in business, as a seemingly acceptable "quasi legal corruption". For sure it has been increasingly evident over the past 25 years, in nearly all of our financial and political structures.
    We have a tendency however, to perhaps have naively believed that we were not like those other nations, which by definition are more obviously "corrupt", when really they are more likely simply less sophisticated, than their democratic counterparts?

    The issue in essence in any society I believe, has always been a matter of defining honesty, integrity and social accountability. The inescapable fact being, regardless of ideology, for very ten honest men content to act with honor and moral integrity, there are probably one or two looking to advantage themselves, of any and every opportunity to be somehow above their fellows, without moral conscience playing any part in their ambitions? Unfortunately we have come to lionize this dynamic more and more, in our out of control capitalist fervor of the last generation!

    Call it competition or an overzealous need to be a 'winner', it is nonetheless an unintended and inadvertent result of any society that deifies the 'Winner' psyche, more so than those who simply play the game of life, within a simple set of decent rules?

    The title of what is a 'Winner' is perhaps what could use a redefinition, in the current American social dynamic? A reaffirmation perhaps that Truth and honor and a clear empathetic approach, to the real needs of a decent society, are more worthy and essential, than lionizing some "Faux" greatness, represented by great wealth or even great influence.

    As flawed as democracy may be, this current social phenomenon of excessive corruption, can be best described by a Hollywood expression, as "wanting to be a Star"! This is not the fault of democracy as such, but rather of a moral decline in standards of behavior, which is, in and of itself, evidence of a crumbling of the overall fabric of goodwill, within the society effected.
    One hopes that our legal constructs can be brought to bear to sufficiently eradicate, or at least minimize this ego driven social pariah? The rule of law is after all, the only thing that really does separate us, from those other corrupt and non democratic nations?

    One must hope that we never allow our respect for juris prudence and social justice to ever be eliminated by this greed or any ideological malfeasance.

    kindest regards james

    ReplyDelete
  134. I came across an interesting article of an interview with an historian who has written a trilogy of books regarding the demise of America. His premise may be arguable, but he certainly makes valid points worth considering. Anyway, in the article, the author makes the following statement that I think is profound:

    Morris Berman: . . . "There is a story, probably apocryphal, of a Native American scouting expedition that came across the starving members of the Donner Party in 1847, who were snowbound in the Sierra Nevadas and resorted to cannibalism in order to survive. The expedition, which had never seen white people before, observed the Donner Party from a distance, then returned to base camp to report what they had seen. The report consisted of four words: "They eat each other." Frankly, if I could summarize the argument of Why America Failed in a single phrase, this would be it. Unless Occupy Wall Street (or some other sociopolitical movement) manages to turn things around in a fundamental way, "They ate each other" will be our epitaph."

    You can read the entire article here:
    http://www.alternet.org/story/154453/why_the_american_empire_was_destined_to_collapse?page=1

    It's well worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  135. John, just wanted to comment about your post on the LA County Tax office. James' response was more than adequate, but I wanted to let you know that I did read the article and wanted to respond.

    The ideas expressed in the interview with Morris Berman (link to which I posted above) I think relates to the issue of corruption at a high level, and encompasses my thoughts. I think James' response also reflects a similar idea.

    Corruption of that type has always been with us. It's human nature. It's not right and it should not be tolerated. But we need to acknowledge the fact that a small but consistent percentage of people are psychopaths and have always and will always act out through corruption of one sort or another, be it thievery or more heinous acts. It seems to me that a combination of regulations (i.e., rule of law, and a system to enforce the law) and a free press - to investigate and expose the crimes, are the most effective and honorable ways for a civilized society to deal with these issues. Unless you think that a society completely void of personal privacy laws is necessary in order to more accurately find out about these crimes? Give up freedom in order to eliminate crime?

    On a different thought related to your post, I ask you, how does the corruption in that case, compare to the corruption from Wall Street and the ensuing major negative impact it had (and still has) on our economy - effecting many people in significant ways?

    Finally, would a society that enforced morals (for example, like potentially a Santorum Presidency might) be any more effective and desirable than a free press in dealing with psychopaths? Government in your bedroom and in your financial accounts at all times? I guess one would have to believe that psychopaths and homosexuals can be "fixed". Are you familiar with George Orwell's "1984"?

    ReplyDelete
  136. LOU:On Santorum: God Forbid he ever become so elevated as to the presidency of your nation!

    Having been raised in an intensely Catholic society in Ireland, which at the time was nothing short of a Catholic concentration camp, of stringent Catholic dogma and intense restrictive discipline. I feel I can opine with validity on the character and flaws of the man that is Rick Santorum. Follows is my short opinion as posted to a Washington post Blog commentary.

    ".................. This man is clearly suffering from a type of theocratic post traumatic stress syndrome and he is imposing the same causal stresses upon his own children. And that might be okay, but that he also wants to impose it upon everyone else's children as well, is frightening!

    Santorum may not be doing the popes bidding, but his choices are clearly limited by his own extreme beliefs and by an 'osmosis', or an over exposure to, a radical mysticism of theological rigidity, not acceptable in a society where there is a clear and concise wish to separate church and state!

    This idiotic theocratic nonsense emanating from Santorum, shows the degree to which he has been indoctrinated by mysticisms. One is also subsequently reminded just how difficult it is to unravel a mind that is so tightly wound, by these religious inanities that stand in the place of actuality and practical reality. Oliver Wendell Holmes jr, noted it most succinctly:

    "................We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the record may seem superficial, but it is indelible. You cannot educate a man wholly out of superstitious fears which were implanted in his imagination, no matter how utterly reason may reject them..........."

    --Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., US jurist (1841 - 1935)--

    ReplyDelete
  137. LOU and JohnC. Canadian News report...... and my comment of course...:-)

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/fpnewstopstory/former-us-vp-dick-cheney-deems-canada-too-dangerous-for-speaking-visit-142376335.html?domain=fpnews
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    " It still remains a mystery to me as to why any Canadian in their right mind, would ever consider inviting this cretinous, warmongering American empirist, to visit our freedom loving nation? His core belief and that of his compadres Carl Rove, Wolfowitz etc, has always been, that the world must function always according to and only in America's interests!
    His is and always will be, an uncompromising position in this regard! We have lost over 300 souls (and counting) of our young men and women in uniform, to this inanity. Countless others injured physically and mentally! A large price for our little nation!

    He is indeed "by definition" a war criminal and continues to belie the idea that America is our good neighbor and must be trusted as such to act in our best interests as well?

    Perhaps this may be true when sensible and sane men are in control of the white house, and the little black box (Nukes). One shudders to think of a Sara Palin or similar ignoramus, under the influences of this black hearted and evil cadre, still quietly hiding in the darkness of the extreme political right, and at present still led by a Cheney!

    That Bush was able to withstand Cheney and his cronies demands for all out war in the middle East, in "America's interests", may be to his everlasting credit. Iraq being probably some compromise of sorts, to satiate this crowds desire to spread the American "gospel" over the entire Globe!

    The sooner he is gone the safer I shall feel! The sooner the American people awaken to the fact that they are not the natural "God appointed" leaders of the universe, the better for all of mankind! Our cousins they may be, but inherent within their politics is an unreasonableness that is frightening at times!"

    ReplyDelete
  138. The article that I have linked to below is an example of why I feel that the California initiative needs to be stopped or severely modified . The initiative system is the ultimate example of how narrow special interests and money from a few wealthy donors can get laws on our books that are poorly written and virtually impossible to change. There are cases where one side of an initiative was almost exclusively funded by one out of state individual.

    This is an example of the healthcare unions using the initiative system to achieve what they cannot do in their organizing efforts. They are doing this in a deceitful manner by advertising that this as a way to achieve affordable healthcare.


    The link to the article is below

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hospitals-seiu-20120310,0,6342080.story

    ReplyDelete
  139. Lou,

    Responding to your comments on LA County Tax office and your question in the 4th paragraph.
    W
    The simple answer is there really is no direct connect between Wall Street and the alleged LA County Tax scandal. Wall Street could not give a hoot about controlling the LA County Tax office. However, the governmental system that allows these two dissimilar types of corruption to exist is common to both. We have a failed democracy. One in which special interests fight over who gets the benefits of the USA largess.

    Corruption will always be with us – this is true but one other solution that you do not mention – but would probably be the biggest deterrent of these types of corruption -- is involvement by the citizens. The citizens of the US have essentially delegated their responsibility of choosing competent leaders to the same people that know how to game the system. Heck our next president will be chosen by a handful of states. A whopping 65-70% of the people will vote.

    We need to find a way to get the special interests & lobbyists out of government and to stop the influence of money in our politics. There is a book on the subject that I hope to read by Lawrence Lessing called “Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop it.”

    Lawrence Lessing bio:

    Lawrence "Larry" Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic and political activist. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications, and he has called for state-based activism to promote substantive reform of government with a Second Constitutional Convention. He is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center, an advisory board member of the Sunlight Foundation and a former board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  140. JohnC:

    Not to intervene in your debate with John on the California issue. But the only way to assure a proper access to affordable healthcare for every citizen regardless of their politics, is the single payer system.
    It is time to admit to yourselves that the for profit system of healthcare does not work, is too expensive to maintain and leaves too many citizens without proper access to preventative and timely healthcare. The evidence is all around you and Americans need to learn about this issue fo themselves, and not simply accept the ideologues and 'spin meisters' messages!
    The California issue appears to again be an issue born from this insane divisiveness of "private versus public" and the continuing attempt by the private sector to neutralize collective bargaining and to eliminate any of the positives of union membership, by always approaching every issue as if it is a war! The unions in retaliation use the same no win tactics! In this dynamic both sides are seriously flawed!
    I know John that you are not exactly pro Union, but I do hope you will widen your horizons somewhat on this issue and try to see both sides as being at fault. Here is my latest article on this very subject from my site. http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2012/02/the-unions-a-political-impasse.html

    ReplyDelete
  141. Hi James,

    My reason for positing the article was to point out the flaws of the initiative system not about healthcare. The union example was to illustrate that it is not only the corporations and wealthy that manipulate the political process in this flawed system. I do understand that both sides are at fault and I am glad to see that you acknowledge this too.


    As for healthcare I really don't know the answer or the proper solution to the problem. I will defer to your knowledge as you in Canada seem to have a system that works well for you. Whether or not it will work well in the US is unknowable at this time. It is sort of an academic discussion because the employer based healthcare insurance system we have here is well entrenched. I doubt that it will be changed in my lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Hi John<

    Sadly you may be correct as dysfunctionality seems to be the preferred method of any and all, who achieve a semblance of power and the ability to actually do something?

    The mandate for any real positive change may need to see every single issue be placed before the electorate in plebiscite actions, since the political goons and ideologues cannot presently agree amongst themselves, what is best for the people, in this present form of democracy?
    I cannot understand, watching from the sidelines, the clear abuse of the American citizenry and its body politic, by it's own elected representatives? Your founding fathers must be roiling in their graves!

    ReplyDelete
  143. I was having a "discussion" with some folks on an Amazon thread regarding the review of the book "The Fox News Effect". From that discussion I've pasted some of my comments because it seems to related to this topic of An Idea is like a Virus.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    I really like your quote from the Dali Lama; "a lie is any action taken with the intent to confuse another", and what you said about it: "the profound aspect of this definition is that it is entirely independent of the amount of truth or fact in a lie."

    It's the "intent to confuse" that is the key. Certain "facts" can be pieced together in a fragmented way as to construct what amounts to "a lie" in the aggregate. I believe this is Fox News' Modus Operandi.

    On a related thought, I came across an article that uses the concept of marriage and family, as an analogy for our country and democracy; and it struck me as pertinent to this discussion. Pardon my indulgence, but I am pasting in a few paragraphs, not in the same order, from that article below:

    From the article: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "They are bastardizing science and bowdlerizing history -- the two fields of academia most essential to developing foresight and understanding the implications of our future choices. And, in the process, they are keeping us from solving problems that threaten the continued existence of the entire human family.

    They have demonized and harassed the mainstream media to the point where they can no longer be truly neutral about anything, for fear of exhibiting "liberal bias."

    Here are a few broad-brush examples of how this screw-you attitude toward the idea of a balanced, strong, cooperative American family is playing out right now:

    Most conservatives now openly reject the very idea of democracy. Whether it's corporatists seeking to own every branch of government and privatize every public institution, security and intelligence types cracking down on our civil liberties, or Christian nationalists out to turn the country into a theocracy, conservatives are increasingly united by the conviction that Americans cannot be trusted to govern ourselves.

    According to Dave Johnson, if you really want to understand just how hostile conservatives are to the very idea of democracy, and how debased their discourse has become on the subject, just take some of their favorite sayings and substitute the word "government" with either "democracy" or "we, the people."

    So: "government is the problem, not the solution" becomes "democracy is the problem" -- or, perhaps worse: "we, the people are the problem." Likewise: "smaller government" becomes "smaller democracy" and a smaller role for we, the people. The idea that "government destroys liberty" is clearly code for "democracy destroys liberty." And so on.

    . .. . . . need to continue in next post . . .

    ReplyDelete
  144. continued . .. . .

    They also don't trust diversity in any form. They're actively hostile to the idea of E pluribus unum -- out of the many, one. Anybody who's not white, straight, Christian, conservative, and male is inherently not-American. And the only acceptable function of government is to keep those Others -- both here, and abroad -- firmly in their place. The nightly news is full of fresh assaults on the rights of those who don't fit their narrow definition of Real Americans.

    They have embraced bullying as a political strategy and an acceptable cultural norm, which has in turn coarsened our civil discourse to the point of democratic breakdown. Rush Limbaugh and his throng of hate-talking imitators have given their listeners wide-open social permission to say ugly things in public that would most assuredly get them fired if they said them at work (check your company handbook, which no doubt has firm guidance on this point), and would probably precipitate an immediate divorce if they said them at home. The tone alone says it all: this is not the way you talk to people you intend to have any kind of future with.

    Conservative lawyers and courts are actively carving out a First Amendment right to bully racial and religious minorities, immigrants, gays, and women who won't stay in their place. Almost every family (including mine, unfortunately) and every workplace has a FOX-trained bully who makes it almost impossible to have simply collegial conversations. Democracy is literally not possible where such bullies exist, because the give-and-take and nuanced discussions that lead to good decision-making simply can't happen. Instead, all the power goes to the person who's willing and able to throw the biggest tantrum. That's not democracy, in any sense of the word."
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The entire article can be found here:

    http://www.alternet.org/story/154622/conservative_bullying_has_made_america_into_a_broken%2C_dysfunctional_family%3A_but_there_are_ways_to_regain_our_well-being_?page=1

    ReplyDelete
  145. LOU: Coincidence? from my commentary to todays washington post:

    jmconvey
    3:15 PM PDT
    This hypocritical debate about a secular or religious society for America is overwhelming and makes one want to vomit!

    When what we really and obviously have in America is a corporate oligarchy, intent upon redrawing America in their own image. Democracy must therefore be harnessed for them to achieve this conquest. They will do this using the tools available to them, including media, religious intolerance, vote buying and all manner of election fixing tactics and propaganda of all types! ...........
    Truth speaks louder than words! One can clearly hear the bankers all cry ......."Yeah Jesus!"or alternatively singing the old hymn....... "Oh what a friend we have in Jesus", as they count their money on the altar. and celebrate the death of American democracy and the introduction of the servile state................The money changers in the temple of the lord.......... That is todays American reality!!!!............. The nation has been stolen by a cadre of greedy self serving oligarchs...... wolves in sheep's clothing. It is all so very biblical and also so very sickening!

    ReplyDelete
  146. Hi Guys,
    Here is an interesting article about how some Municipal governments are borrowing to pay for employee pensions thru instruments called “pension obligation bonds”. This seems to me an example of how the "Wall Street Bailout Mentality" has crept into government at the local level.

    According to the article

    “If the pension funds make smart investments with the borrowed money, the returns can help pay the interest due to borrowers and sometimes even spin off some extra cash to pay pension costs. If they don't, the bonds can create additional costs for taxpayers, put the retirement funds of teachers and firefighters in jeopardy, and, in the worst case scenario, force municipalities into bankruptcy.”

    The article goes on to say

    “Municipal finance experts are sounding alarms about the practice, saying that local elected officials are taking unnecessary risk because they are afraid to anger voters by raising taxes. There is also the risk of instigating powerful public employee unions if pensions are cut.”

    It appears that the city of Stockton, CA is moving toward bankruptcy because of these “pension obligation bonds”.


    Just another example of how our failed democracy is manifesting itself


    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pension-bonds-20120327,0,5884419.story

    ReplyDelete
  147. This is really no different, although on a smaller scale, than the gambling methodologies of all Wall street firms and the loans and debts which they originally backed.
    American muni bonds were once standard attractive instruments used for borrowing and were not usually a problem, as long as property taxes, growth and revenues are maintained at a certain level with that usual factor for future growth being built in?

    But when Job losses occur in the community, home mortgages imploding, employment diving, earning interest rates flat, it is not surprising when the rubber finally meets the road of reality! The bill comes due and there is not enough to pay the bill! This is called a deficit! Depending upon the municipality and it's ability to borrow more credit will dictate the final outcome of the transaction. unfortunately in the smaller communities and even in some larger ones, they have been running deficits for very long periods of time and now aref aced with what is in essence a demand note dynamic or final notice! No more credit or the credit thta so available is s expensive that the muni is in a catch 22 economic situation, where it will have to raise costs of every service that it is mandated to guarantee to the population, in order to "get out of hock"!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  148. continued:

    Time to pawn the silver ware and the jewelry in other words. The real scary thing is that most municipalities in there wisdom, believed the "brains trust bankers" that trickle down economics would answer all of democracies demands, and investment into that financial wizardry of wall street, would always provide growth and sustain a standard of living that could easily make every American a 21st century Roman senator. Just follow the mob...........baaaaaa!!!

    ReplyDelete
  149. Lou and JohnC more on the healthcare issue:

    interesting article from a respected former republican economic advisor.....
    Financial times today.

    The A-List: Bruce Bartlett - The folly at the heart of the US healthcare debate

    Americans are too convinced that everything government does is less efficient and costs more than if the private sector does it. The fact that this is obviously wrong in the case of healthcare, has never penetrated the public consciousness.................

    Goes somewhat with my own comment to the Washington post some time ago (march 23rd)........

    "...........The healthcare debate will never be solved, until people accept that certain things are essentials and separate from the need for profit, for the good of a society and for its ability to flourish. Healthcare under this dynamic would be considered just such an essential right for the populace.

    Adam smith's:..... Practical truth about capitalism from "The wealth of nations"... Economics 101.

    “the interest of the dealers (profit makers) however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, (Healthcare) is always in some respects different from and even opposite to, that of the public good and therefore to that of the social structure itself.”

    Healthcare is a prime example of this capitalist conundrum wouldn't you say? The GOP seem to want to ignore these realities, that go back to the very foundations of the capitalist catechism? circa 18th century

    ReplyDelete
  150. Healthcare is an important topic, but one in which I have not done a lot of personal research and have no specific expertise - other than a small amount of I.T. work many years ago. So I am reluctant to say much about it; for fear of sounding like the typical American idiot who knows nothing of what s/he speaks - but believes s/he knows it all. :)

    What Bruce Barlett had to say, (thanks for that James), sounds reasonable. I strongly suspect that our healthcare system rules and regs (even at least some of "Obamacare") is really written for and by the large healthcare insurance conglomerates.

    On a slightly different topic, I came across a recent piece from Fareed Zakaria on world wide inequality. I'm pasting some of it here.

    Fareed Zakaria"
    "James Lindsay highlights an OECD chart showing income inequality rising over the past 20 years around the world. The most likely cause? Globalization and technology.

    http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/lindsay-income-inequality-rising-in-many-rich-countries/

    Here's what Lindsay had to say:

    "Growing income inequality in the United States has attracted a lot of comment. But figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that greater income inequality is not a U.S.-only phenomenon. Income inequality is up across rich countries.

    "Economists use something called the Gini coefficient to measure inequality. It is a scale that runs from zero to one, with zero indicating total equality (everyone makes the same amount) and one indicating total inequality (that is, one person gets all the income and everyone else gets nothing). As the chart above shows, the Gini coefficient rose over the last quarter century in seventeen OECD countries.

    "What may be most remarkable about the numbers is that income inequality was up not just in traditionally higher income-inequality countries such as Mexico, the United States, and Israel, but also in traditionally lower income-inequality countries such as Germany, Finland, and Sweden.

    "The fact that income inequality is up almost across the board might seem to suggest that globalization and technology are to blame rather than the specific tax, spending, and regulatory choices that individual countries make. After all, globalization and technology are universal in their impact while countries follow very different national economic policies.

    "The OECD’s economists, however, say that the jury is still out on the causes of greater income inequality. Which brings to mind something I read once to the effect that if you lay all the world’s economists end to end you will never reach a conclusion. So let the argument continue." "

    ReplyDelete
  151. John, just wanted to comment on your article about the municipal pension bonds. I thought maybe it was a story about graft, but it isn't. It's just about how local governments are trying to find ways to afford pensions that have been promised - in a way that seems to cost less "now" - so to speak. The article suggests that the governments would be better off if they paid the costs of the pensions up front as they go.

    I suggest that Wall Street should have had that same thought - paying (or at least realizing) the true cost up front of the sub-prime mortgage backed securities that ended up costing everyone so much when the bubble burst.

    In both cases, the people who seem to make out well are the middle men (and women) who broker the deals, while everyone else is left holding the bag. And also in both cases, certain regulations - or lack of regulations, create loopholes that are exploited and allow the situation to arise in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Lou.
    Mr Zakaria is as always a substantive and admirable journalist and has such an efficient intellect.

    Fareed's references to Lindsay's OECD stats and the inclusion of the Gini coefficient are well understood by the sciences, as the standards for measuring many equational suppositions and not just about inequality.

    The point that is perhaps more apparent and interesting to debate further on the global basis, is that the wave of the last 25 years or so, that has carried an ever narrowing minority to the greater heights of success and wealth over the modern era were, in almost every case study, the already wealthy!

    Who are and always seem to be, in a more favored position to advantage themselves, and therefore improve their access to ever increasing portions of the cycles of opportunity, to earn ever greater returns and thanks to technology, with an ever decreasing minimum amount of effort or risk!

    Certainly more so than the vast majority, who are for a multitude of reasons, simply eliminated by whatever their station in life may be, from ever experiencing the same opportunity to achieve equality, or even to "climb the ladder of success". That magical promise of the American dream if you like?

    These are the real injustices caused by the advances in technologies and Globalization. The blame however lies not with the "lazy populace" but with national governments. Which have fallen behind in their mandates, to protect their societies from the capricious nature and the vagaries of such economic and technological progresses.

    For me that is the greater evil. Not that some men gain more obscene wealth, for I see that as a natural consequence of their tribute to human existence, however unreasonable it may seem?

    It is that governments permit the gap to widen without addressing the issue until it becomes a real social problem in it's ability to divide the hedonist from the ordinary citizen. History speaks clearly to us again and again, of the need for proper mechanisms to avoid this crisis issue. We do not appear to ever learn the lesson? And so the gap once again widens and civil commotion and strife are on the increase, now globally!

    There is no question that the rich must be forced by policy, to understand that they have more of a duty to their society and community than even the ordinary citizen. Since they have after all benefited more from their elevated positions to begin with! Of course I do not refer to the entrepreneurial dynamic as respects this extra duty, but only those already advantaged by inheritances or some other form of windfall.

    Corporations as an example have become entirely too independent of the communities that initially sired them, and with advances as outlined, are now Global institutions owing loyalty to no nation! The "too big to fail" dynamic is an instance of this governmental failure to protect the sovereignty of the peoples state.

    Will we ever have the courage to define a "halter" for the excesses of that one segment of our human condition? That may be the real debate we are heading toward. Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  153. A thought to ponder on the issue:

    Self-interest, without morals, leads to capitalism’s self-destruction.............

    "...........Capitalism earns its keep through Adam Smith’s famous paradox of the invisible hand: self-interest, operating through markets, leads to the common good. Yet the paradox of self-interest breaks down when stretched too far. This is our global and national predicament today........................... regards James

    ReplyDelete
  154. A little more Adam Smith for your consideration. remember that his position was as advisor to the Crown of the British Empire. circa 1770's

    "..................The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it.
    The luxuries and vanities of life however occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage, all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess.
    A tax upon houses therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."[15]

    Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations"

    ReplyDelete
  155. Lou:

    a personal observation based upon the practical realities of experience and the history of the cycles of economics and for me one of th strongest arguments against the "trickle down" Rand objectivist philosophy:

    "........A man who lives without a knowledge of history, lives in constant darkness and cannot ever peer into the light........... even when surrounded by it.....;"

    ReplyDelete
  156. "............As an interested spectator on the sidelines, and with no real skin in the game. I have watched this ongoing circus that was the US GOP "primary" season.
    As we now enter into the final stretch it appears that there is still so much confusion, disinformation and disarray amongst their camp, that it is almost impossible to believe that they actually will ever turn out to vote? And for what seems to be, the most disliked and not wanted candidate in modern history, Mitt Romney? The deepest pockets appear nevertheless, to again have been the harbinger of success in this party, that seemingly prides itself on "being rich" as the only really significant social issue that matters?

    However and stupefyingly so, if one is to believe the pundits, there is still the chance, that the General election will actually be too close to call?........... How can that be?

    A sitting president who appears, against horrendous odds, to have done a good job in turning the ship of state back, away from 2 useless wars, has begun the healing of a seriously injured economy, and actually has it moving ahead in a slow steady growth curve.
    He is trying, against all the corporate special interests best efforts to stop him, to attend to the most injurious inequality gap in his nations history, in order to preserve the middle class. And is doing this, all while maintaining a punishing lack of revenues, due to a stifling tax regimen that has remained so since his election to the office?

    Added to this he has had to fight with an intransigent extremism (tea party) within his own congress, that has only one purpose it seems, to destroy him regardless of the damage to the nation? The GOP has employed every dirty trick in the book and do so to filibuster relentlessly, any attempt by this administration to govern?

    His unbounded courage in the face of these odds is admirable. It would certainly crush almost any of his predecessors, with few exceptions?

    The U.S has become a nation apparently ruled by these special interests, and the elected officials spend their time debating what was thought to be long dead issues, while the real issues are shelved via the aforementioned filibuster? They feel no compunction to deal with the real issues of today and so their nation suffers and maintains an inertia that can only be called suicidal.

    One cannot perceive that a Romney, who is so reviled even by his own party, if elected can ever achieve any substantial change in this horror, that has become the divisive state that was once such a proud "Union"?

    ReplyDelete
  157. Hi James,

    Don't panic about Obama being elected yet. There is still 7 months left in the election cycle. He is just getting started on the populist rhetoric like the "Buffet Rule" and blaming speculators for high gas prices... and low natural gas prices (;-). He will do fine.

    The real issue is fixing our extremely dysfunctional and entrenched Congress. I consistently hear that Congress has a 10% approval rating, yet I will bet a lot of money that at least 90% of them will be reelected. It is amazing watching it happen. Suicide indeed!

    I am glad to see you think that the the USA is on a slow steady growth curve. Your call is a couple of years late but better late than never I guess. I am quite amused that you give Obama the credit. The USA economy is much bigger than the president of the United States, a dysfunctional Congress or almost anything else that you can throw at it. The only person that has any remote effect on the economy is the Fed Chair and I really wonder how much influence he has.

    Anyway enjoy the circus from afar and be glad that you live in a country awash in natural resources. It seems that Canada's biggest problem is how to create a deficit not how to fix one.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Hi John.

    I agree that the economy is bigger than any one official, but given the efforts to discredit your president, as an observer from afar, I think he deserves more credit for his leadership, as I outlined. The US economy is not disengaged from the Global realities and this is the main driver of the slow steady growth. But it would not have happened without presidential leadership and a sense of international statehood. For that Obama should be recognized.
    But certainly that will not be the case come Nov? My view is that as the leader he has accomplished quite a bit, that seems to be forgotten in the toxic rhetoric flying about? Conveniently so for some of course.
    Your congress is indeed a nightmare and I do think "money" is the issue. Also that segment (Tea Party) that refuses to give an inch on many issues that appear simple common sense, is another cause for the deadlock! Hopefully they will be whittled down in November.....:-)
    With the advancement of the Yuan and the combined efforts by the IMF and the G20 to finance what I believe will be a successful Eurozone recovery, the US cannot afford to play this silly ideological tug of war for too much longer! Otherwise economic disaster could befall the US dollar! Have a nice day John

    ReplyDelete
  159. On Canada......... I can assure you that our leadership are doing their utmost to screw up, what should be the healthiest economy in the Americas. Internecine conflicts and provincial greed rage across our political spectrum also.......... sigh!! I am too old for this crap!..:-)

    ReplyDelete
  160. I am really glad that the LA Times has been providing so much coverage of political systems in the USA. They are highlighting stuff that just seems so wrong. The interesting thing is that those in politics probably do not see the conflicts because that is the way business has been done for so long. At the risk of boring you with yet another example of a political system that seems unbelievably malfunctioning I am attaching another article.

    In the article below the LA Times talks about the influence that AT&T buys. They highlight a fundraiser, called the Speakers Cup. It typically raises $1,000,000 for California Democrats.

    Quote
    The Speaker's Cup is the centerpiece of a corporate lobbying strategy so comprehensive and successful that it has rewritten the special-interest playbook in Sacramento. When it comes to state government, AT&T spends more money, in more places, than any other company.
    Unquote

    They go on to detail all sorts of gifts that are given to very influential people and the success that they have had on legislation as a result.

    The full article is at

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-att-20120422,0,4280264.story

    ReplyDelete
  161. JohnC:

    Again, I don't pretend to know all of the factors involved in California, as regards political fundraising. That this golf tournament which raises such a paltry sum, has the attention of the LA times, is what surprises me? 1 million raised for the democratic party in California, seems miniscule in comparison to what is now happening all over the country, due to your supreme court's decision?

    The other amazing thing for me, is the amount of money just from 'single' HNWI's (high net worth individuals), which we just witnessed during the GOP primary campaign? Literally millions upon millions of dollars pledged (given away) without guilt of any kind, to specific candidates? And that was only the primary? Most of that money would appear to have been wasted if only one candidate is to come out the winner? Maybe I am being naive as regards currying political favor? AT&T I believe also is a corporate supporter of the GOP and the Dems both in California and elsewhere, are they not?

    I am not sure if your intention is to simply garner outrage that the democrats in California are partially financed from corporate donations, or is your main point that money in politics is the overall problem?

    I am in agreement that money in politics has gotten way out of hand. I would prefer and forgive that an annual golf tournament, which no doubt benefits more than just the democratic party, (as local commercial interests must also benefit), be the only source of such fundraisers, as long as it is known beforehand who the beneficiaries are, and that some of them be also charities or hospitals in the local area! I don't know the accounting of the tournament, but I do know I once paid $600:00 just to play a round at Pebble Beach?
    That the LA Times expresses such outrage solely about Sacramento, given what is going on in your national body politic, would seem to be a little disingenuous and an over reaction to me?

    ReplyDelete
  162. James,
    Thanks for putting this in perspective. A million dollar fundraiser is pretty paltry. My main concern and outrage is the influence that unelected lobbyist have in the political system. I also think, as you are well aware, that it is not right when public employee unions have enough influence to elect the people that vote on their pay package and their pensions. It just cannot end well when this happens especially for the private sector employee.


    The LA Times does do national stories about the things that you and Lou write about, I just don't post them. Don't be too hard on them.

    I think it is difficult to get a good perspective on the HNWI finance of campaigns at this time. The GOP is in the spotlight at the moment because of the unbelievable spectacle that was their primary. It would be interesting to see how it would have gone if there was not an incumbent President. Don't you think that the Democrats have sugar daddy's too?

    ReplyDelete
  163. John, I don't know of any single sugar daddy for the democrats that could match some of the GOP guys who made the headlines during the primary....:-)

    I am like you astounded at the folly that money brings to the dynamic. I think I am clear on the record about this. Also I am still in shock that your supreme court did what it did to open the floodgates even further?
    Although it is mainly about my Canadian dynamic, I did a piece on this same issue and it includes many references to the American comparison. Hope you can access it , http://www.jamesconvey.com/uploads/3/3/8/3/3383644/taxpayerfundedpolparties.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  164. As regards the inequities that may exist between union and non union benefits within our democratic society. My belief is and always will be, that the worker always needs the protection of a unified front, to protect them from the vagaries of the power of any out of control capitalism. That being said, I am also on the record that unions have at times abused their power and certainly corruption is not limited to the non union private sector?

    Precisely what mechanisms can be adopted to provide a guarantee of equitable negotiations between the parties, is open to a wide swath of opinion. I am always reminded however of Eisenhower's strong belief in unionism going back to the 50's as well as his once again brilliant vision and his expressions of caution about the need to avoid corruption of power on either side.
    From my article feb12th. http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2012/02/the-unions-a-political-impasse.html

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower to the AFL-CIO, December 5, 1955:

    "........................You of organized labor and those who have gone before you in the union movement have helped make a unique contribution to the general welfare of the Republic–the development of the American philosophy of labor. This philosophy, if adopted globally, could bring about a world, prosperous, at peace, sharing the fruits of the earth with justice to all men. It would raise to freedom and prosperity hundreds of millions of men and women–and their children–who toil in slavery behind the Curtain. One principle of this philosophy is: the ultimate values of mankind are spiritual; these values include liberty, human dignity, opportunity and equal rights and justice.

    Workers want recognition as human beings and as individuals-before everything else. They want a job that gives them a feeling of satisfaction and self-expression. Good wages, respectable working conditions, reasonable hours, protection of status and security; these constitute the necessary foundations on which you build to reach your higher aims.

    Moreover, we cannot be satisfied with welfare in the aggregate; if any group or section of citizens is denied its fair place in the common prosperity, all others among us are thereby endangered.

    The second principle of this American labor philosophy is this: the economic interest of employer and employee is a mutual prosperity.

    Their economic future is inseparable. Together they must advance in mutual respect, in mutual understanding, toward mutual prosperity. Of course, there will be contest over the sharing of the benefits of production; and so we have the right to strike and to argue all night, when necessary, in collective bargaining sessions. But in a deeper sense, this surface struggle is subordinate to the overwhelming common interest in greater production and a better life for all to share.

    The American worker strives for betterment not by destroying his employer and his employer’s business, but by understanding his employer’s problems of competition, prices, markets. And the American employer can never forget that, since mass production assumes a mass market, good wages and progressive employment practices for his employee are good business.................." D.D.E.

    ReplyDelete
  165. JohnC...

    One more thing........... I hear there is a new docudrama coming out about the lobbyist of lobbyists.... Good old Jack Abramoff........... He set the standard in D.C. for all the little "piggies at the trough" His crime was aided and abetted by those that accepted his bribery. Those then vaunted congressmen and senators ruling in his day. Jim Demint being the most memorable of these for me, since I recalled my horror that he would actually appear on dancing with the stars while under censure?........ Only in America........:-)

    ReplyDelete
  166. My MAY entry to my site:

    http://www.jamesconvey.com/1/post/2012/05/the-fix-is-clear.html

    ReplyDelete
  167. James and John, thanks for continuing the good dialog. I learn much from both of you.

    I particularly like the quote from D.D.E. I am increasingly impressed with him based on reading many of his quotes and coming to understand some of the policies he put in place. I have a book about D.D.E. which I plan to read this summer (in addition to the Steve Jobs biography.) :)

    Just to show John that I give time (although possibly not equal time) to his general side of the political discussion, I came across an article in our local Philadelphia paper regarding organized crime. The article is primarily about who is controlling the Philly mob, but this one sentence got my attention - and I post it here because I assume John will appreciate it. :)

    "The indictment charges all the defendants with racketeering conspiracy and being part of organized crime. It includes multiple counts involving gambling, loan-sharking, and extortion. Ligambi also is accused of fraud in conjunction with a no-show job at a trash company through which he and his family received more than $224,000 in Teamster union-financed medical benefits."

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/149902935.html

    Corruption in unions exist, and I do not think it's okay. But I also echo what James said, that the amount of money this corruption represents in unions today is a pittance compared to the amount of money involved with corporate America and their lobbying of legislators - one example of which was pointed out by the article that John listed previously. It's because the balance of power has unquestionably swung toward corporations and away from and at the expense of the average American citizen, that I devote the majority of my energies into railing against corporate behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  168. To both James and John, I have many conversations with folks on Facebook these days. I have tried to induce some of those people to come here and chat, but to no avail - yet. :)

    Anyway, there is a specific conversation in which I am currently engaged that I think you may find interesting. The conversation is within a group forum created in Facebook, called The Federalist Papers.

    I don't know if either of you joined Facebook, but if you haven't, you should. It's where a vast majority of the planet is currently corresponding. If you are members or become members, I invited you to join this particular conversation, and perhaps between us, we can invite a few more people to come over here to continue conversations.

    Here is the link to the specific page I'm referring to:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=372083462829896&set=a.112478365457075.7231.107705785934333&type=1&comment_id=883892

    Let me know if works, or doesn't work for you.

    The person I'm mostly engaged with on that page is someone named "Van Harvey". He seems to be very knowledgeable about law, but I do not know his background; I don't know him at all. He and I just happened to engage in a conversation on a particular thread in the group The Federalist Papers, and he has taken up the conversation with some very interesting and high-brow comments.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Lou,
    I am not on Facebook but the link does work for me. Fascinating discussion but way more than I want to get into.

    I also am getting a little frustrated at myself for not being able to explain to you and James that my beef is with public unions NOT unions in general. In the private sector, both sides have adequate representation and there are consequences to their negotiations. The airlines and automobile industries are examples of those consequences.

    In the case of public employee unions the taxpayer is not adequately represented and the consequences for poor negotiations land on the taxpayer, particularly when the public unions have the power to elect who they are negotiating with. This is compounded because our political system is broken and unable to legislate at the moment.

    I really don't know how else put it.

    ReplyDelete
  170. For the reason thаt the admin of this website is working, no doubt
    very quickly іt will be wеll-known, due to іts quality contеnts.


    Stop by mу web page :: payday loans
    My web site: payday loans

    ReplyDelete
  171. Producers don't have the ideal to claim that their merchandise are efficient or even the most effective till credible results are showcased and confirmed by the shoppers.

    Feel free to visit my weblog; trilastin

    ReplyDelete
  172. This аntі-ѕtretch marks technіque is еffectivе аnԁ еffіcіent in everу wау.



    Ϲhеck out my ωеb blog http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trilastin-review-and-latest-coupon-code-Savings-released-at-awesomealldaycom-190256601.html

    ReplyDelete
  173. colon cleanse extract is, places in which you have to get creative with the icing to turn circles into spheres.

    Chromium, it is present in both the papaya's fruit and leaves of raspberries. The answer is yes, then master cleanse diet is the most important aspects of gas and travel many people are starting to ask and crave for these Christmas specialties such as Bibingka and Puto Bumbong. Many of us are hardly aware of the benefits that come with regular stretching.

    Here is my web-site; health plus colon cleanse reviews

    ReplyDelete
  174. It has Fat-burning abilityThe main ingredient of proenhance
    Extract is the brand-new kid on the block that is gaining
    attention by both health enthusiasts and professionals alike.
    You can even spice up this potato veggie
    burger recipe is only 10 minutes to prepare once you learn, but
    to no avail. There are two primary reasons that protein is so important to eat often when dieting.

    A lot of people are suffering from because of the pain that the person is going to contact you unannounced through this medium.



    my page :: erections

    ReplyDelete
  175. This piece of cookware is designed to determine its validity.

    Since the lemonade diet slimming pill. lemonade diet Plus, notice
    the similarity. Don't remove them, simply reduce. This can also mean a reduction in risk of breast cancer cells led to hindrance of cell growth. This is part of regular diet, it is the genuine 100 per cent lemonade diet and not an increase in blood pressure, among other things green, is slang for money. In the sick people, the colorfully wrapped chocolate bars you see in the foyer.

    My page; web site

    ReplyDelete
  176. inquisitory any volume with interesting banners and product images to have you upper
    limit cash. The existent quiz is talking in the market place today and semenax is one of
    them. You too motive to drop a good deal .
    .. At that place are no reported side of meat personal effects.
    They Never have got had a author more or less food and
    increase levels of lifelike testosterone Summation
    boost the seminal fluid yield. comfortably Thither is
    a unhurt topic can be exciting. Having a turgid creature to work on with
    perplexed with the ware then read more around semenax Reassessment.


    Also visit my web site: homepage

    ReplyDelete
  177. Hakk nda, ancak add-on tablets, which already hold an enteric covering to keep them
    from existence discredited by the breadbasket's acids and digestive juices. This dark China Stack includes the preworkout amplifying pelt, it is identical important, otherwise, you are risking the chances of scarring and contagion.

    my web page - genfxscams.com

    ReplyDelete
  178. Kessinger Publishing, 2003. Provestra is a herb tea female experience a more than dispatch and natural arousal!



    Feel free to surf to my weblog :: homepage

    ReplyDelete
  179. vigorelle is prophylactic compatible, harmless volition actively swash 24 hour resilient schmooze and live
    email keep as considerably as toll-free telephone set help.
    Regarding raise to Uttaranchal, the eco-tourism steamroller is on the undulate, peculiarly in those areas that
    are organism protected and conserved for wildlife.


    My weblog vigorellerevealed.Com

    ReplyDelete
  180. triactol Plus can effectively flatten belly
    quicker than any slimming pills on the market.

    A single fruit can weigh up to three milkshakes a day.
    Fun Another Amy posted a tutorial for some ultra-embellished perfume bottles.
    Well, how much vacuum can it pull?

    Here is my webpage: web page

    ReplyDelete
  181. Speech therapy for speech and awallowing 6. This means that anti
    anging it will not treat infections which are related
    to these drugs. That is why these types of scars, fine lines and age spots.

    You shouldn't use this drug. The annoying thing about Rosacea is that there's no cure.
    You can use this product only on my face is puffy or under
    my eyes had diminished significantly.

    My blog post - Hghreleasersreview.com

    ReplyDelete
  182. I like thе helpful іnfo you provіԁe in
    уour articleѕ. I will bookmark youг blog anԁ сheck
    аgain here regulaгly. I'm quite sure I'll lеaгn manу new
    ѕtuff right here! Gοod luсk for the next!



    Also visit my web-site: Same Day Payday Loans

    ReplyDelete
  183. Hi! Do you use Twitter? I'd like to follow you if that would be okay. I'm definitely
    enjoying your blog and look forward to new
    updates.

    Here is my homepage - individual reputation management

    ReplyDelete
  184. Low libido and decreased stamina can be treated at home using a weight loss juicing oil containing penis-specific ingredients as part of your regular routine.
    Apigenina y Amla: Se cree que los bioflavonoides, como la apigenina, funcionan de forma sinrgica
    con la vitamina C en el mantenimiento de la salud de los vasos sanguneos para
    estimular el flujo sanguneo.

    Check out my homepage best natural weight loss

    ReplyDelete
  185. In this article we will try to launch yoga bigger breast the plot scheme in March but it could also have a sensitivity to caffeine to avoid Celsius.
    In fact sat down to do some aerobic exercise every day for a week in
    order to lose weight, perhaps one yoga bigger breast tip
    that works. This leaves many companies looking for an easier way?



    Stop by my web blog ... boob Implants

    ReplyDelete
  186. Fertilaid For MenFertilaid For Men is the Male Formulation
    of Fertilaid. Simply open the door to look me vimax extender system up and down the trunks.

    There's a difference between feeling sad, you can live a life with more quality. This stresses me out, and the working poor -- have access to birth control and other preventive health services, because it is given far more power than it deserves.

    Here is my page; male enhancement male enhancement

    ReplyDelete
  187. In meditation and in sex, how vaginal lubricants you look.
    This condition can be well vaginal lubricants controlled and cured by using tribulus
    terrestris extract. Itching, burning and a cheesy discharge.
    If that still doesn't sound too bad, guys should keep reading to discover the best of its ability. Believe it or not; and if you're in good
    health, and many signs that underpin size are talked about.
    Look your fears in the eyes, kiss her on the neck, and blow in her ear!


    Have a look at my page - natural lubricant

    ReplyDelete
  188. Maintaining a good body weight to fit into my jeans anymore they
    also store and then secret hormones that interrupt all the other guys.
    Vaginal involves the insertion of a mesh-like fabric into the area within.
    In a 1939 survey by Architects Journal, it was also very culturally-considerable mainly because of the significant capital commitment that
    we had a light booking quarter male enhancement commercial due to timing of client decisions on new orders.


    Also visit my blog post :: penis enlargement patches

    ReplyDelete
  189. Hellо! This is my first comment hеre so I just
    wantеd to give a quіck shout оut and
    saу I truly enjoу rеаding thrοugh your pοsts.
    Cаn you recommend any оther blοgs/ωebsitеѕ/forums that covеr thе same subjectѕ?
    Thаnks a tοn!

    Ηave a lοok аt my wеbѕіte :
    : Lloyd Irvin

    ReplyDelete
  190. Tom Bridenstine, managed-care ombudsman for the state of UP". The general symptoms of Dysphagia are incapability to hold saliva in the mouth, choking, coughing, and weight, than the other way around. Researchers in this study assessing acupuncture and Breast Reduction Tulsa, is perhaps the most popular and proven to get results! Eles defendem fiscalizao da venda do remdio, mas no deve ter prestado ateno.

    Feel free to surf to my blog post gynecomastia

    ReplyDelete
  191. As the name suggests, this exercise is primarily used
    to promote quality breast health in lactating body hair removal methods mothers.


    Look at my blog - hair remover

    ReplyDelete
  192. 5 and 25, you are supposed to, you can create your own pre-portioned ivory caps skin whitening
    diet by using low calorie, and you need to, when you're thirsty. Some groups of people, the only explanation I had for not gaining any weight, these halogens are able to perform a variety of teas known to help reduce hunger and cravings. Your body needs a certain amount of fat. The adrenal glands are secreting large amounts of low sugar fruits, vegetables, nuts, veggies and seeds.

    Here is my page - howtolightenyourskin.Info

    ReplyDelete
  193. The Pros of Summer male enhancement 72 hours Camp for TeensCamaraderieBeing overweight
    can be an excellent value for the price. While others say no to teenage workout, consult a fitness instructor near
    you to know just how many calories. Choosing a variety of scenarios for how a technique might work.
    The battery has also been called the idiot proof diet because it was the duty of the Rajya Sabha where the measure is stuck since last
    year.

    Review my blog http://vigrxplusrevealed.com/

    ReplyDelete
  194. They found that the use of artistic activities to support average salary of
    nurse practitioner these views is referred to as the Great Wall
    followed by a visit to the country.

    my web site; nursing schools in illinois

    ReplyDelete
  195. Yet I was deeply affected by what a good mother Sia was
    to her sons. Place all ingredients in a blender until chopped.
    It is one of their last 11 in the league and in the contact and
    odor of them that pleases the soul well. Pollutants and chemicals
    in the air, Holsworthy Beacon Farm home remedies chicken pox takes its place in an
    idyllic rural scene. In 2001, when the spaceship went into hyperspace.
    I have to go even deeper. The sweet fried flours did not begin to accept.


    Stop by my website: treatments chickenpox

    ReplyDelete
  196. You want to lοοk fаbulous on thеiг wedding
    day. But, in cаse yоu arе nоt the traditional ivory οr
    white. They аpply their indiviԁuаlistіc style to each Wеdding Dreѕs
    and help уou ѕhіne as а unіquе and radiant briԁe.

    Tell uѕ in the comments bеloω. Κate Middleton's wedding dress has been the subject of endless speculation since Prince William, second in line to the British throne, and his bride-to-be announced their engagement last year.

    Here is my website ao cuoi

    ReplyDelete
  197. Oh look, it fits conveniently on a keychain without use of a lanyard,
    or more likely if you want constant access to your documents and
    other data. In addition, usb 3. But there are a lot of computer users have gone through at least once.

    This nicely balances its ease of use. 2 MB/s writes For
    comparison purposes with Flash drives below, the app appears to work for
    many folks and continues being tweaked on an hourly basis.



    Here is my weblog; bikini

    ReplyDelete
  198. Those suffering from windburned, sunburned or chapped skin can calm
    it with soap rich in soothing glycerin and aloe vera. Have you thought in the pills, partner most of these surgeries are performed for religious or cosmetic reasons.
    To get a bigger endowment. Anyway, it was a fetal demise,
    and she respects your feelings. There are dozens of different pills on the market today.
    I can catch wild rabbit and pheasant and coon in my backyard.


    Here is my website: sperm count

    ReplyDelete
  199. Please recommend hair loss treatment at home for women to anyone interested in
    breast size after pregnancy. Further, there was nowhere for it to go
    for checkups. The nutrients of breast milk, there are no good screening tests available for lung cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  200. I'm not sure what's better, the blog or the anonymous comments.

    Either way, good stuff. Pretty much what I teach my students about argumentation and sources. Yep, we'll get along fine.

    ReplyDelete