Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The End of Economics: Down Reagan's Rabbit Hole
At the end of the Cold War, historian Francis Fukuyama stirred a few months of lively controversy — and eventually embarrassed himself — by declaring the “end of history.” Despite Fukuyama’s example, however, I suspect the first person to declare 2011 the beginning of the “end of economics” will be seen as a prophet.
The gradual death of economics as a serious element of public policy dates to 1981, when new president Ronald Reagan embraced the supply-side ideas of George Gilder. “Reputable economists” mocked Gilder’s theory as “trickle-down economics.” But it scored a big hit among free-market fundamentalists who saw too much money churning through the U.S. economy without first passing through their sticky fingers.
In spite of reality, supply-side theory is still with us. Skeptics, of course, were right. In 30 years, nothing has trickled down. I haven’t gotten a penny. Neither have you. Money directed to the rich, as it turns out, clings to the rich.
Meanwhile, the average U.S. family’s net wealth — adjusted for inflation —has not changed. At all. The top one percent of earners are 176 percent better off than they were pre-Gipper, but income for the middle of America’s middle class grew just 21 percent, or about 0.8 percent a year. Better than nothing? Maybe, except that most of this growth came from one-income families becoming, by necessity, two-income families.
The current evolution of trickle-down incorporates a kind of bleak magical thinking. Right-wing economics today conjures intimations of Alice growing small by drinking a potion and then growing freakishly large by eating a cupcake.
This conservative solution includes six elements: a) tax-free corporate power, b) unregulated financial speculation, c) offshore manufacturing (and engineering, and design, and R&D, and customer service, and banking), d) unchecked development and e) union-busting, with f) no government role whatsoever. You could say (if you were cynical) that the 21st-century Lobbyist State has swallowed the Security State whole, after which it got the Welfare State drunk, sodomized it and drowned it in the bathtub.
Among the Lobbyist State’s victories have been the housing bubble, the Crash of 2008, the near-death of the U.S. auto industry and the nation’s rollercoaster plunge from a $230 billion surplus (in 2000) to a $1.3 trillion deficit.
Since the outset of the Bush Depression in 2008, the standard conservative plan for rescue has been austerity for the masses, an approach tested by Herbert Hoover from 1929-1932 and, recently, by governments in Britain and Greece. In both countries, the results have been a no-growth economy accompanied by riots in the streets, accompanied by teargas and collateral fatalities. In other words, Herbert Hoover all over again.
OK, but this is only half the story. While right-wing theories have been discrediting themselves in practice, right-wing propagandists have labored tirelessly to trash all other economic remedies. And they’ve done a bang-up job — destroying the reputation of programs like, for instance, President Obama’s national recovery act.
“Reputable economists” estimate that the stimulus created some two million jobs. They say it prevented a double-dip recession and kept unemployment under 12 percent. The same guys faulted Obama for compromising on a stimulus that was too small. It worked, they say, but only well enough to halt the decline, not turn it around.
This is not a popular perception. For three tiresome years, the public has heard louder voices — Rush Limbaugh on talk-radio, the minions of Roger Ailes on Fox News, plus Romney, Paul, Palin, Perry, etc. — shouting over and over — without evidence — that the stimulus “failed,” creating no jobs and worsening the recession.
But never mind. Propaganda always prevails. Its next target is Obama’s jobs plan, which blends tax cuts, public works, budget cuts, and the wonderful idea of an infrastructure investment bank. “Reputable economists,” as well as public opinion, tend to agree that all this is pretty good (except, again, it’s not big enough).
The right wing, preferring chaos, cries foul. Obama’s GOP critics insist that, in a healthy economy, government never raises taxes on the rich or stops punishing the rest of us for our sins. It does nothing to close the loopholes that guarantee annual IRS refunds to GE and Bechtel. Nor does it wage the sort of “class warfare” that might imperil the jet set’s comfort or lessen the day-to-day fear that haunts 15 percent of American working families who are trying to survive on less than $22,500 a year.
The current right-wing attitude, as Obama notes, is “my way or the highway.” And the right wing is going to win — to the dismay of “reputable economists,” for whom Republican intransigence conjures the theater of the absurd. Call it Ionesconomics? The invisible hand of Samuel Beckett? Or are we all just trapped in a Lewis Carroll spoof?
I write “reputable economists” in quotes because, ay, there’s the rub. Ain’t no such thing any longer. Theories that have more or less helped us understand the economy over the years — from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes to Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman — are roadkill. They’ve been hit, and run over, by our so-called “Tea Party” nihilists and their politician sock-puppets. We are captives of a cult whose economic philosophy makes “survival of the fittest” sound like “blessed are the merciful.”
Until sometime this year, capitalist theory reluctantly presumed some government role in the economy — for taxation, interstate commerce, the common welfare, etc. In today’s end-of-economics Tea Party era, we kiss all that goodbye. Virtually every elected Republican in Washington has signed in blood Grover Norquist’s lifetime pledge never to approve any tax for any reason (a pledge which, if it had been in effect in 1941, would have prevented us from counterattacking after Pearl Harbor).
America has somehow fallen into a rabbit hole down which no economist is reputable. Our econ profs now are a mad hatter named Boehner and a big white bunny named McConnell. They keep saying (and we keep believing) that if we make everything smaller, pretty soon everything’s — boing! — gonna get bigger.
Or, as Lewis Carroll once said to Grace Slick: “DRINK ME… EAT ME.”


52 Comments so far
Show AllAs I noted on another thread, the Right is following the playbook they used in Germany in 1932-33. Hard times lead to voter willingness to swallow the worst kind of right wing policies and people. They expect to gain power, and then follow the German playbook to implement massive changes like a national sales tax (flat tax), and an economy revived by a huge military buildup, paid for by that new sales tax on the poor. Grover Norquist will then back the flat tax because it allows the rich to escape. And the people shout, "Sieg Heil" ...
As I have been telling everyone who would listen, there is no longer a path to electing an honest government.
Our only chance is to start state by state refferedums to create a national lottery to select a government of the people by the people. If we can be trusted to determine as a jury member if someone lives or dies, don't you think we can be trusted to do what is in our own best collective best interest?
We all thinking people know a revolution is needed before we are destroyed.
This is the only constitutional way. I can't get any print or even serious consideration.
I once started a legal valid petition, I got 6 signatures.
I'd like to know who has abetter idea, preferably before we let them destroy us all!
Does anybody care? I have been preaching this for 30 years to many serious people, institutions without success. Perhaps its time has come?
Please just check with the next person you see and ask what they think.
I believe this is our only hope.
Gary Douglas Sr
garydouglassr@hotmail.com
Supply side economics does not create demand and it is the lack of demand that has stopped our economy from growing. It should be clear to everyone that the shift in wealth to the wealthest among us is the reason demand for goods and services has dried up. The rich can still get everything they want, but it is just not enough to spur the economy. To illustrate, there was a story in my paper today telling how demand for high dollar housing is driving up home prices in the high-end houses while lack of demand for low-end housing is driving prices down in the low-end price ranges. The poor barely have enough to survive and subsistence spending will not grow the economy. The middle class (what's left of it) simply does not have enough disposable income to spur economic growth. All working class people need a substantial raise to grow our economy but employers can only see the bottom line; they seem intent on cutting to maintain their profit margins. Soon they won't have any customers. Where will they be then? In the bread line with us?
Very well stated. Clear and to the point. My sentiments exactly. Can we print this comment in our Money Stream Media?
I am ok with that.
Excellent comment. The small number of super rich who have the lion's share of the wealth, it seems to me, limits the amount they can spend. How many yachts, mansions, cars, etc. can a single person have? Surely they have far more money than they know what to do with. Unless the wealthy engage in philanthropy on a massive scale, their ill gotten gains will sit in their coffers unused.
What I have never seen explained satisfactorily is why already extremely wealthy people favor tax cuts for themselves (aside from ideological reasons), and others, such as Wall Streeters, spend all their waking hours dreaming up more and more tenuous and dangerous schemes to further enrich themselves. Why will such people ,who as CEOs ruined their companies, accept obscene salaries and severance packages? They don't need the money. These people are sociopaths.
Good Day Cathy, Yes some have more money then they could spend in ten lifetimes. This wealth is power used to bend others to their will. There are some that are sociopaths as you say. Their ambition and greed are at a level that most of us could never understand. It totally overrides any sense of morality they might have. Then there are the control freaks, they seek total domination and control. They understand true control does not come simply from wealth. The game these guys play is disempowerment. Sure they want the money, but it's even more important to their power that we don't have it. The goal is to constantly disempower the masses by taking away everything they work for. Keeping us in debt buying things we don't need, and can't afford is one of their longest running ploys. They own the banks,and the money system, and they don't use it for the betterment of mankind. Money is the whip of the wage slavers. The two things that piss these guys off, is that they never achieve the absolute power and control they lust for, and their own mortality. They have no souls and they know it.
I'll just add this little quote to your fine post.
"If you want to take a relation of violent extortion, sheer power, and turn it into something moral, and most of all, make it seem like the victims are to blame, you turn it into a relation of debt.” -- Economic anthropologist David Graeber, author of Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Good Evening NC-Tom, I don't believe in evil as a fundamental force, but the way some of these guys act, it makes me question my own judgement. That is a great quote, and I will read the book. Thank you!
I won't be holding my breath until they are in the bread lines with the masses. They do not need prosperity to hold their wealth. They do not need the masses, period. All they need is control of wealth and the power that wealth generates.
What good is it to be lord if there is no one to lord over?
So much for that 'rising tide lifts all boats' rhetoric:
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/the-growing-gap/
Doesn't help if the middle and lower class boats are tightly moored to the seabed. The rising tide is swamping them.
Supply-side NEEDS the demand-side. That's what the supply-siders are conveniently forgetting.
gr5vgr5vgr5vhu6mhu6mhu6mhu6m
"Supply side" economics is the same system that the former Soviet Union had. The Soviet system decided what to supply and that's what the consumers had available to buy. The former USA, now the UCE, United Corporations Empire, decides what to supply and then tells consumers what to buy through advertising and by instilling mindlessness into the psyche by government, business, pretend christians. The only difference between the failed Soviet system and the supply side being that the supply side uses advertising propaganda tells consumers, what to buy while the Soviet system didn't use advertising. Who better to implement a Soviet style system, you buy what we supply, than Reagan the pretend anti communist just as a pretend Democratic, ObomberBush, to gut the Social safety net of Social Security and Medicare while using the NCLB, no child left behind, program to instill mindlessness into children.
Unbelievable. Could people be any more confused?
Yep, those commies on Wall Street are the problem. Communists, capitalists - all the same. Yep.
I also placed this answer on a different thread but it seems much more appropriate here:
"My father, the FBI agent, listened to Reagan's talk after investigating his CA cronies who put him in power - 1st CA, then the U.S. - and looted the public treasuries of both
His actions?
1. Resign from being lifelong GOP supporter
2. Took early retirement because of all the charge sheets and investigation results mysteriously 'disappeared'
3. Asked me what I was gong to do when the U.S. eventually failed economically, morally and ethically as a result of the extreme right wing agenda of the rich and wealthy masquerading as a legitimate political party - the GOP.
Wow, I dont know if that was your father, or you were talking about someone else's dad, but that man was pretty prophetic...
Rick Perry recently gathered his flock together in Houston to pray for Gods forgiveness for our sinning ways. This of course didn't include War crimes and mass murder, God wants us to do that. When this house finally collapses we will see it has been eaten away by Termites. Not all of the Termites are white republican Christians, but they all share a voracious appetite, and could careless about the untold misery they cause. The R's will claim that the collapse is Gods punishment for the path we have taken. Once again there will be no mention of crimes against humanity, they will roll out the tried litany of Americas sins. Tolerance of the gay lifestyle, sex outside of marriage, contraception, abortion, welfare,socialism,and immigration. You know its these damn liberals, they really piss God off with all this tolerance, and trying to help the down and out. By the way R's you know Fire Departments are socialist so I guess those will have to go. Yes it may sound a bit harsh, but we just can't allow these communist ideals to take root in a God Fearing Nation. It's also good economic policy, you see the building destroyed by fire will have to be replaced, making more profit for developers, and jobs for the working class. A win win for everyone, and making God very proud and happy! Strap on your seat belts sinners it's fixin to get rough out here. If you are not a God fearing man you might want to reconsider cause now it's everyone for them selves, and the big kahuna has got his eye on you!
Reagan is the father of the modern day banking,military industrial complex, neocon fascist take over, but the Democrats are 50 percent to blame for allowing the take over, and helping it, with destroying Glass Steigal ACT, voting for NFTA and other free trade agreements that sent jobs away from America.
We have had our country hijacked for the last 40 years. They are just ready to lock us down and complete the police state take over to guard their vaults of stolen loot.
End the wars, the patriot acts, and the FED, and for Gods sake, will the Christian right please wake up, I dont care what your beliefs are, but if you want to keep them, protect the constitution, stop listening to your ministers and pastors, they were bought shortly after 9/11 by Bush and the DHS.
"See something say something my ass", those who have the need to have you spy for them, are the very people we need to watch, and ouster.
Right on!!
This puts things into perspective . . . even a right-wing neighbor of mine thought it was jaw dropping:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs
(About the history of the Fed, INC.)
"I write “reputable economists” in quotes because, ay, there’s the rub. Ain’t no such thing any longer. Theories that have more or less helped us understand the economy over the years — from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes to Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman — are roadkill. They’ve been hit, and run over, by our so-called “Tea Party” nihilists and their politician sock-puppets. We are captives of a cult whose economic philosophy makes “survival of the fittest” sound like “blessed are the merciful.” "
Readers of this article would do well to read today's Robert Reich's article, as well, a welcome corrective to the short sighted hyperbole such as the above.
"Juicing the economy back to health (notice I didn’t use the “s” word Republicans have now vilified) will require at least $700 billion in additional federal spending this year and next. (This number takes account of state and local government cutbacks as well as well as the current shortfall between current economic activity and the economy’s productive capacity at or near full employment.)
But this magnitude of additional spending isn’t feasible in the face of Tea Party Republican intransigence. Hell, Republicans won’t even spend additional money on flood and hurricane relief. The Tea Party obsession about the federal deficit and the size of the government is prevailing.
Not only is this obsession keeping millions of Americans out of work, it’s also starting to bring down the Street.
If this keeps up, we’ll have a showdown between establishment Republicans who understand what must be done — and who will support substantially more federal spending in the short term in order to goose the economy — and Tea Party zealots who refuse to face reality.
The crack in the Republican Party between its establishment and Tea Party wings is viewed politically as a contest between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. But in reality it’s a brewing fight between economic pragmatists and right-wing ideologues. (Don’t expect Romney to call for more government spending, at least before the Republican nomination.)
The titans of Wall Street may not want to Barack Obama reelected, but the Street has an even greater interest in saving its assets and its ass."
Make no mistake, the titans of Wall Street want Obama re-elected. The Trojan Horse, worked for the Trojans and it is working fantastically well for the Titans.
From Wikipedia:
The Financial crisis of 2007–2010 led to public scepticism about the free market consensus even from some on the economic right. In March 2008, Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, announced the death of the dream of global free-market capitalism.[58] In the same month macroeconomist James K. Galbraith used the 25th Annual Milton Friedman Distinguished Lecture to launch a sweeping attack against the consensus for monetarist economics and argued that Keynesian economics were far more relevant for tackling the emerging crises.[59] Economist Robert Shiller had begun advocating robust government intervention to tackle the financial crises, specifically citing Keynes.[60][61][62] Nobel laureate Paul Krugman also actively argued the case for vigorous Keynesian intervention in the economy in his columns for the New York Times.[63][64][65] Other prominent economic commentators arguing for Keynesian government intervention to mitigate the financial crisis include George Akerlof,[66] Brad Delong,[67] Robert Reich,[68] and Joseph Stiglitz.[69][70] Newspapers and other media have also cited work relating to Keynes by Hyman Minsky,[17] Robert Skidelsky,[12] Donald Markwell[71] and Axel Leijonhufvud.[72]
The secularist claims I'm right and all those of faith are wrong. The people of faith say the seculsarist is wrong. Neither has any proof except their faith in being "right"
Supply Side economics is as big a crock of do-do as Keynesian economics is.
Cassandra's have been predicting our downfall and the wreck of our economy since before the Civil War, haven't been right yet, not right now. The American people are in the midst of ignoring the extreme left and right, rejecting the liberal/conservative blather and are engaged in getting ready to repair the country this decade.
You are about to get a republican President, Romney if Perry can't find a decent answer on illegal immigration, Perry if he can. The House will increase in R's and it's quite possible that the Senate could go republican, but not a foregone conclusion. But it is not a back to Bush republican bunch.
You may be right but not likely because the fascists do not want a GOP take over. Make no mistake, it is the fascist who are now in control of the system through their control of the media and lobbyists. They do not want a GOP take over because they do not need a GOP majority to further their agenda. They like the secret Trojan Horse approach so they can blame the failure of economics on what is labeled as a liberal party. It is liberal in name only but these fascists propagandists don't care about realities. Propaganda is, after all, manipulation of the populous with the use of lies as truths. As the Trojan's learned, secret infiltration is easier and much more effective than a direct siege. If carried out while the populous sleeps, the task of complete take over is even easier. Just ask a Trojan.
I got a rainbow farting Unicorn I can sell you for $50 bucks. You interested?
if the american people are ignoring the extreme right and rejecting the conservative blather as you say, why on earth would they elect perry?
Because he is both cowboy and white. A decider...
I like the authors style. Humorous, cocky, and basically truthful. He does give to much credence to the supposed existence of a two party system, thus allowing the failure of economics to be shouldered only by the GOP side while both wings of the one party must be held accountable for the death of economics.
The flow of money is like the flow of blood in your circulatory system. When you clump it all in one spot, you have a stroke. When it's flowing properly, the body functions & moves well.
And I quote:
"Democracy is not an outgrowth of free markets. Democracy and Capitalism are antagonistic entities. Democracy, like individualism, is not based on personal gain but on self-sacrifice. A functioning democracy must defy the economic interests of elites on behalf of citizens. This is not happening. The corporate managers and government officials trying to fix the economic meltdown are pouring money and resources into the financial sector because they only know how to manage and sustain established systems, not change them. Financial systems, however, are not pure scientific and numerical abstractions that exist independently from human beings." Andrew Lahde 07'
Agreed. However, it goes even deeper. The paradigms taught in economics 101....through 502 need an overhaul. You simply cannot have economics that attempts to defy the reality of physical limits and laws. I view ecosystems (at least those spared from massive exploitation and destruction) as highly robust, resilient and long-enduring economic systems. One example, natural systems are resilient because of their resource efficiency and their great biodiversity. If one species gets hit by a drought, another is drought resistant and so forth. Any natural economies that are systemically fragile don't last. Natural systems are localized and full employment economies; the wealth of production is recycled within the local ecosystem. Infrastructures such as root systems that hold the soil and the soil itself is part of a commons that is continually restored. The dominant globalized anthro-economies export capital, fail to invest, and trend toward mono-cultures and monopolization -- all inherently unstable. To see more go to http://ecosquared.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/natures-full-employment-economies-part-3-job-creation/ Henry S. Cole, Ph.D. Publisher Ekos-Squared
hcole, you are right.
mono-systems are inherently unstable.
people do not want to understand the daily cybernetic responses/lessons.
...experience this in my home country, Namibia.
For example:
Colorado incomes fall sharply from 1999 to 2010, analysis says
analysis of census survey
By Aldo Svaldi
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_18952456
Colorado households are making significantly less money than they did a decade ago, pushing up the poverty rate and delaying marriages....
Median household income in Colorado fell an inflation-adjusted 13 percent between 1999 and 2010, according to the analysis...
How about some REALLY DIFFERENT economic ideas? What the Wizard of Oz, Ben Franklin, and Abe Lincoln can teach us......
Would a California State Bank be socialistic? Check out North Dakota's state bank, founded in 1917. Unlike the Federal Reserve, which is neither Federal nor a reserve (the Fed is actually a bunch of private banks that lend money to the government and, of course, skew the system to benefit themselves), the Bank of North Dakota belongs to the citizens of the state. Other banks and credit unions in the state appreciate the collaborative way it functions.
Instead of profit as the goal, the BND supports social benefits like farm credit, providing capital to sound businesses, and saving the state money (the state earns interest on deposits and pays no interest on borrowing). That includes not paying BND executives huge salaries and bonuses.
In fact, in these times when the 49 other states are slashing their budgets and firing state workers whose jobs actually benefit taxpayers, North Dakota has a stable economy and high employment.
Ellen Brown advocates for a California state bank. Her book, The Web of Debt, explains the economics hidden in the ‘children’s book,’ The Wizard of Oz. The Scarecrow wanted a brain (i.e. farmers needed to outwit the monopolistic railroads who bankrupted them getting their grain to market), the Tin Man wanted a heart (i.e. industrial workers were turned into zombies by their deadening jobs), and the Lion represented the popular silver advocate William Jennings Bryan, opposing the gold speculators that made money too scarce for healthy commerce. Dorothy was the archetypal American girl, a smart and compassionate citizen with gumption.
And the Wizard? Ever since Baum's book was first published, the man behind the curtain has represented cowardly connivers who rig the system for profit, no matter the cost to real people.
The Web of Debt also explains various economic practices from the middle ages onward, such as this commentary from 1750, attributed to Ben Franklin, which explains why the colonies were thriving at a time when many in England were out of work. “That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own …. paper money, [therefore] we control its purchasing power while paying no interest…. A legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant …promissory bank notes…. Thus, when bankers in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned, and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury.”
When King George and Parliament decided that taxes to England could only be paid in the very scarce British currency, a huge recession in the Colonies set in, triggering revolutionary activities.
In the August 1, 2011, Daily Kos, Deena Stryker wrote about Iceland’s rebellion against international banksters:
“[The bank bail out plan] required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.” Iceland refused to go along, and has turned the corner towards stability, despite revenge tactics by international bankers.
Then there’s Dennis Kucinich, who wrote the National Emergency Employment Defense Act (the N.E.E.D. Act, i.e. HR 6550), which calls the Treasury to take over the functions of the Federal Reserve and basically issue debt-free money. Although they disagree about some key points, Ron Paul concurs with Kucinich that the Fed needs big changes. The far right meets the far left!
(See the Salon article by Stephen Zarlenga (2-21-11), “Can Kucinich Drive a Stake through the Zombie Heart of the Fed?”)
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln instructed the Treasury to bypass the banks and issue 450 million debt-free 'greenbacks' to pay for the war effort. Kucinich's N.E.E.D. Act includes a section that returns the power to create money to Congress, as the Founding Fathers had originally intended.
When the government no longer pays interest to private banks, the National Debt could be paid off with debt-free, interest-free U.S. Treasury dollars, freeing Americans’ bottled up innovation, and finally funding infrastructure repair as well as the greening of our nation.
Class warfare? You bet! We the people of the United States created the Constitution in order to “establish Justice” and “promote the general Welfare.” Runaway corporations such as the Hudson Bay Company and the East India Company were considered an evil to be avoided by the new republic, but we’ve forgotten that modern versions of that clever financial hedge are the source of vast suffering, all for a buck.
Greece, and the rest of Europe, as well as our own Congress could learn a lot by reading The Wizard of Oz, or get the message directly from the PublicBankingInstitute.org or WebOfDebt.wordpress.com.
It's less useful to analyze and re-analyze the failings of our system, than to educate people to the alternative that most developed countries have chosen: some form of social democracy.
The social democracies are all in trouble because they are just as much at the effect as we are of the destructive juggernaut pillaging the world - capitalism.
It is extremely useful to "analyze and re-analyze the failings of the system" - I would not call it "our" system because unlike most commentators here I do not identify with the ruling class - because that is the only way we can gain an accurate understanding of what is happening. Most of our failings are the result of having an inaccurate view of objective reality, not the result of having incorrect internal and subjective "beliefs" and what-not.
The problem with stimulating the economy is that we still suffer under the illusion that all dollars "earned" are equal, and that it is better to consume more cheap stuff than to live simpler and move into sustainable patterns. The REAL way to efficiency is to aim for MORE satisfaction out of LESS consumption. These are the ideas of E F Schumacher, Herman Daly and others.
If we cannot move forward with the CERTAINTY that our world is finite, and that we are bumping against the limits, then we are only moving backward. If we are not sure of this, then it would be better that we sit in our recession for a while until we get our heads right, and then we might move ahead into a smarter future.
It makes no sense, and borders on cruelty to tell an increasingly desperate population that they need to lower their expectations.
The destruction and depletion of natural resources is not the fault of the working class public. It is the fault of those who control those resources and are exploiting them for profit.
Millions are struggling to afford food, housing and medicine. Yet you lecture them that they need to settle for less, and that it is there fault that they are desperate???
An old comment people use to make was that "It's all about the rich getting richer" When I hear this comment these days I correct this misconception. Economics clearly shows that improving the income of the working class monetarily improves the wealthy even more. It is no longer about wealth. Because in a Democracy wealth does not equal power. Impoverished desperate masses equals power and enables dictatorships and moarchy. The last 30 years has not been about getting richer but making us all poorer. I always ask people , Who's more powerful a Mexican millionaire or a US billionaire and offer some ancedotes. Usually in the setting of desparate,starving village They get the picture and start to understand. Think it over in your own mind. Apply it to the Bush years and nations where dictatorship thrives. These people are some sick, pathetic human beings that pander to the darkest side of human nature and fear. You will begin to get a clear picture that when articulated actually does change some stubborn minds.
Wealth does not equal power in the US?
The wealthy few have not been becoming more wealthy?
Improving the income of the working class improves the income of the wealthy?
Wow.
How does "economics clearly show" that there is any validity to those statement whatsoever?
Keynesianism (demand-side economics) made sense when most national economies were more-or-less closed systems. Boosting government spending (e.g. on capital programmes such as building new roads; today, instead, a national high speed broadband investment programme?) led to workers gaining increased purchasing power, which boosted demand for goods and services produced domestically. The problem now - as France found in the 1970s - is that increasing government spending through, for example, increasing welfare benefits to the poor, simply resulted in demand for imported goods and services increasing, which meant that the government did not receive any income through increased payroll taxes and therefore ran up a large national debt.
At the same time, the increased level of imports caused a balance of payments deficit situation. So, with all new economies now being far more open in nature, it is virtually impossible for any national government to boost employment through deficit funding of national spending programmes. Some have argued that even FDR's New Deal barely made a dent in terms of boosting the US economy. It was only the onset of war that led to full employment of labour and all other resources in the USA. It is clearly time for a new economics, perhaps one of frugality, in which we all consume a lot less and keep our clothing and other personal assets for very much longer. Individuals and households need to become far more self-reliant and they need to eschew the financial actions of state and federal governments. Everyone must act as individual entrepreneurs to survive and prosper in the future.
To be a capitalist requires capital. For the banksters capital has been replaced by debt due to the $30 in debt for each $1 in capital reserve. This is not capitalism which has been replace by counterfeit; debt, stocks, stock options. I refer to Max Kieser, and www.oftwominds.com and their links for conprehensive explanations. The TARP and all the other "knowns, unknowns, unknown knowns and known unknowns"{Rummy} were funding for the counterfeit debt by forcing contributions,withholding taxes, by taxing labor to be transferred to the corporations to sustain the counterfeit assets, interest bearing, debt system which by definition cannot be repaid. The solution to this impossibility is debt forgiveness OT Leviticus which means that counterfeit is not a recent phenomena since Leviticus wrote some 3000 years ago about debt forgiveness. Of course, this advice from Leviticus has Mayer Rothschild turning over in his grave, Mayer being the banksters God.
Hello from Madison, David, and thank you. The monied interests will do everything in their power to keep the playing field tilted to favor capital over labor. I don't think that Lincoln would be able to say today with a straight face that labor precedes capital.
It is still true that as Lincoln said "capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed." Hence, Labor precedes capital.
It is still true that “labor can exist without capital" and "capital could never have existed without labor" and so "labor is the superior of capital” and "deserves higher consideration."
If you don't believe labor precedes capital, just stop working for a day or a week, and see how much money is made.
80's legacy (happy Independence)
Don't blame the GWB administration, it was Reagan and his merry crew.
Though we protested in the post-Vietnam 70's
hot and sure about every error
the point is, we had that luxury. Yes, there was hardship,
discrimination,
individual need; but really no one need go hungry
for lack of a job, there was real community
spirit, especially on the lower rungs, but philanthropy as well.
There was a strong foundation that made sense
and could be reasoned with.
The 80's brought in a different worldview,
more wide and wild. Days of cocaine,
champagne, glamour and celebration for sweet deregulation,
when every dreamer
could believe the capitalist vision of wealth unbound.
Before it was found that
poisonous as plutonium in the gleeful arms of the truly greedy,
just what we
were free to become.
Since then it's been spinning our balance to bits of
blast-warped brains.
Such unbridled hatred and spitting disdain. Psychic
Cassandras said at the time, his numbers are 666.
A man possessed by
Hollywood fantasies of what we all should be,
folie a deux with the nation.
And here are those snowy yesteryears roosting
in our rafters, laying out
the macabre future of their disaffected dreams.
Who are we, really?
Distanced from our history,
believing convenient lies, what are our chances
for recovery?
"Our econ profs now are a mad hatter named Boehner and a big white bunny named McConnell. They keep saying (and we keep believing) that if we make everything smaller, pretty soon everything’s — boing! — gonna get bigger."
Excuse _me_, Mr. Benjamin, but of what "we" are you speaking?
I have _NEVER_ believed any of the LIES of Bonehead, McConnell, or any other Reich-wing Teabagger in Congress. They are all liars and idiots.
Historically, employment has always been higher during times of high taxation ... BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE MONEY TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. It's also because executives don't demand exorbitant incomes, because they don't want to pay all of it in taxes.
A while back I read an explanation of one reason why higher taxes mean more employment. If an owner of a large, privately held business wants to buy a boat for $80,000 (cheap boat by today's standards), he takes profits from his business (as personal income) to do that. When taxes are low (say 32%), he takes maybe $120,000 out of the business to cover taxes and leave enough to buy the boat. But if taxes are at 72%, where they were before Reagan gave the first big tax cuts to the wealthy, he has to take over $285,000 out to cover taxes and have $80,000 left for the boat. He's much less likely to remove that much money from his business, and more likely to hire another person or two _because_that's_ a_tax_deduction_ for the business. I taxes are at 92%, where they were at the end of WW-II, He would have to take $1 Million out of his business to pay the taxes and have $80,000 left for the boat. He's more likely to invest that money back into his business, and hire a few more people.
But in reality, stimulating the economy is all about creating demand.
The key to a strong national economy is many strong local economies spread around the country. The key to a strong local economy is production of some kind of marketable goods, and a demand for those goods, both locally and outside the local economy.. Without a market outside the local economy, the market soon goes dry.
If every country with a strong economy has fair-market trade with other strong countries, then the whole world economy benefits.
But that is different from today's theory of "globalization", which is really more about finding the cheapest labor market available, producing goods while exploiting the laborers with low wages, then creating a market in countries where consumers have money to spend (probably not the country where the goods are produced).
Obama''s "...national recovery act." What national recovery act? NONE of his policies are actually of benefit to the average citizen. 100% are to benefit the corporate sponsors of his presidency. Benjamin should not be speaking as some kind of expert until he understands that WAGES are the key to national well being. Nothing else. Wages. Get with it, Benjamin! WAGE and only wages create purchases, creating the demand side of the entire economy. WAGES are the key and nothing else if even close. Simple, basic economics.