Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Sucking it out faster than you make it, Income distribution and gdp 2008

« Back

I am reposting this at Dan’s suggestion as it relates to the recent post by Steve Roth.  I have edited it slightly along with a retitle to clean up some wording and hopefully have made it easier to read.  For those new here, my posts started with income inequality and a thought that we changed our economy as to how we would make money starting in the 80’s.   My one new thought is that the obvious political party to promote policy that addresses the issue noted in this post and it’s links still don’t fully get it.  Yes, Sanders, Warren etc are talking policy, but even they are not discussing the philosophy and processes of an economy that allows the massed to “get it”.   In simple terms it is the difference of references when talking about team work.  The apparent accepted reference being sports…competition, win.  The truth as I see it however, is that the appropriate reference for team work in a democratic society’s economy is that of a barn raising.  When is the last time you heard anyone use that reference.   Hell, even in my other outlet for relaxation, music, the concept of an orchestra or large band is dying and competition models are being applied.  In Trump’s words “Sad”.

But then again, we’ve lost the idea of the rat race.

Income distribution and GDP, it matters

Daniel Becker | December 28, 2008 9:00 am

 

US/GLOBAL ECONOMICS

I should title this: Yeah, it is just like 1929 you freak’n see, hear and speak no inequality monkeys.

I have this pile of income data sorted out from Saez’s work (the GDP is BEA). My thoughts regarding our economy is that income inequality (or equality) matters. It matters so much, that it is the all defining focus of government in a democracy. Every policy made should be judged against this goal of ever greater equality as we use the tool called “economy” for the betterment of our lives.

For most (even the tippy-top earners), the biggest share of income is not earned from money, but from labor, whether physical or cognitive. Because of this, there must be effort as reflected in our policy toward regulation and initiatives that continually work to equalize the share of income. I am confident, that just as Mike Kimel showed there is a low and high to top marginal rates correlating with GDP growth rates, the same is true for share of income. That’s my thoughts.

Tags: , , Comments (5) | |

A little bit about our supreme court and corporate power

In case you did not see this, it is my Senator’s opening comments at the Gorsuch hearings.  He sums up just what a 5/4 split court has been doing.

 

This is his discussion on Cspan about his book: Captured: The Corporate Infiltration of American Democracy

 

Tags: , , , Comments (19) | |

Harvard surveyed their Alumni and guess what they found?

So some econ out of Harvard is shocked about what he found regarding our economy.  It’s a government problem.  The government is just not responding (read that: not doing anything).

Americans no longer trust their political leaders, and political polarization has increased dramatically. Americans are increasingly frustrated with the U.S. political system.

The political system is no longer delivering good results for the average American. Numerous indicators point to failure to compromise and deliver practical solutions to the nation’s problems. Political polarization has especially made it harder to build consensus on sensible economic policies that address key U.S. weaknesses.

The solution:  Cut the corporate tax and balance the fed budget.

The Eight-Point Plan consists of the following policy recommendations: simplify the corporate tax code with lower statutory rates and no loopholes; move to a territorial tax system like all other leading nations’; ease the immigration of highly-skilled individuals; aggressively address distortions and abuses in the international trading system; improve logistics, communications, and energy infrastructure; simplify and streamline regulation; create a sustainable federal budget, including reform to entitlements; and responsibly develop America’s unconventional energy advantage.

What did you expect from the conservative mind?  OK, they do want to do more than cut the corp rate:

Consensus corporate tax reforms include reducing the statutory rate by at least 10 percentage points, moving to a territorial tax regime, and limiting the tax-free treatment of pass-through entities for business income. The transition to a territorial regime should be complete, not half-hearted via the inclusion of an alternative minimum tax on foreign income.

Tags: , , , , Comments (77) | |

Yes, she changed her vote

“You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.”

 

If you have not seen it, there is a youtube cut of a Bill Moyers show in which Senator Warren explains just how dramatically Hillary Clinton changed her vote.  It is dramatic, as Mrs. Clinton’s initial position actually resulted in her husband vetoing the bill in 2000.  But, once she became a New York senator….

 

Clinton has to know we live in the digital age?  Did she really think that she was safe with such a statement?  As Samantha Bee noted regarding the repubs failing a presidential test of walking to the podium…Clinton fails too.  And yet again shows that her campaign style is totally out of the repubs play book.

Tags: , , Comments (15) | |

What to do with $45 billion? Giving it to charity is too cliche. So old hat.

Facebook founder and his wife have decided to give away 99% of their fortune.   That is $ 45 billion.

Now, I know many will heap praise upon them for their generosity.  Same deal when the Gates and Buffet did their give away announcement.  But, I’m not so keen on this.  I know, how heartless of me.  How ungrateful.

Being grateful or not is my issue.  Why, in an economy designed to make money from money, where labor has lost it’s power to assure proper distribution of the income earned from its productivity should I be heaping praise on those who are giving away massive amounts of money that was accumulated off the skewed economy put in place by those with the money to politically create this system?

Just how does them giving away money such that the masses have to in essence beg to get some of the benefit of such money provide equality in this economy?

Tags: , , , , Comments (8) | |

Inequality for All, the film

If you do not know, Prof Reich’s film is currently up on youtube.  I just watched it.  For most readers it is nothing new.  But for the masses this is a great film.  Plus, I did not know that he literally went over on the same boat as Bill Clinton when they were going to their Rhodes Scholarship.

Do share it as it may not be up for long.

Tags: , , , , Comments (1) | |

Argument: more health insurance does not lower cost

This morning on Washington Journal was a discussion with Marogt Sanger-Katz of the NYT Upshot blog.    She wrote a post: No, Giving More People Health Insurance Doesn’t Save Money.  It’s a controversial title for sure, but there is some interesting points that I know are often mentioned on a few email lists I’m on for my profession.

Let me just say I’m am a bit cautious of her writing after listening to her answer regarding why the nation did not get a single payer system in her interview this morning.  She was correct there was not the political will, but she suggested that it was do to a lack of interest/drive on the part of the people.  She states most of the people do not want single payer.  My understanding is that is was more the politicians involved namely President Obama and the congressional dem leadership that flat shut down any talk of single payer and then the Medicare option.  Ms. Sanger-Katz did not mention this at all.   Here is the clip:

In her article however, she does mention the issue of “number to treat”.  This is a big issue in health care and has been ignored generally.  When the move was on to control costs, medicine began to promote prevention, only it was not prevention by means of better food, better life environment via a reduction in the risks of life (security of housing, income, aging).  If you think about it, to promote better food requires going up against our industrialized food system.  To promote a better life environment would mean going up against the entire economic model we have been deriving policy from that has lead to the life people are living today.

Tags: , , , Comments (37) | |

Have you noticed your Home owners insurance? Clean energy news and lots of water.

A year ago I noticed my property owners insurance has been rather high.  I say property because some is home, some is business.  So, being that have been using accounting software since 1991, I went back a few years to see how much.  In 2003 the house was $454/year.  This year it will be $1543.  Better than tripled.   Do you know why?  Natural disasters.  Google it.

That brings me to 2 recent articles.  This one regarding how fast the ice is melting.  Faster than they thought.

The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.

The science of ice melt rates is advancing so fast, scientists have generally been reluctant to put a number to what is essentially an unpredictable, nonlinear response of ice sheets to a steadily warming ocean. With Hansen’s new study, that changes in a dramatic way. One of the study’s co-authors is Eric Rignot, whose own study last year found that glacial melt from West Antarctica now appears to be “unstoppable.” Chris Mooney, writing for Mother Jones, called that study a “holy shit” moment for the climate.

Well, I think that is the correct response.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (18) | |

Sports, John Oliver’s inspiration to say NO!

This is just so perfect.  Yet again, our comedians have to do what journalist are supposed to do.  And, he does it with facts!  Considering here in RIland some rich dude (who just died) paid $20 million for the Pawtucket Red Sox (the Boston’s farm team) and has proposed moving it to Providence on the water front…for $120 million over 30 years in tax free land along with other stuff, Mr. Oliver could not have been more timely.

Unfortunately, the sense I’m getting is that the people are giving a rather large NO!  But, of course our legislators are giving the “Let’s hear them out” line.   One idiot, happens to be representing my home town actually used the phrase “loss leader” as the reason why we should spend the public money this way.   Had the nerve to ask a person if they knew what it means?  F’n idiot!  Our senate leader: Afterward, in a one-on-one interview with NBC 10 News, Sen. M. Teresa Paiva Weed said hopes of keeping the team at McCoy Stadium may be a lost cause.

Watching John Oliver here, he could be talking about our Paw Sox situation.  It is exactly what is being played on the people of RI.  It’s a tried and true game plan used against the people.

Make sure you check out 3 points in the video.  The first is 8:35 onward.  It’s so funny.  The next is 11:00 where he talks about the economic findings and one economist suggested better plan.  The last is the end at 15:37 where he gives the inspirational halftime speech.

Tags: , , , Comments (1) | |