I just reread your blog post and I think the crux of the issue is those right wing economists have bad math. So, for example those who claim free trade is just great have never even read one United States trade agreement to see it's clearly not free trade by the theory.
Then, in Global Trade and Conflicting Interests they show, by the mathematics that there are multiple outcomes and that is when one is actually using the theory of free trade, it's not a win-win or necessarily a net win. It completely depends on a series of conditions.
So, those right wingers ya know, many of them suffer from bad math in just making sweeping assumptions and generalizations.
What I am trying to get to is instead of looking at x+y=z they are focused in on why and how x+y != z or say x+y + Δ = z
That's just not mathematics. I'm sorry that's probability and predictive analysis, markov models at best and when one takes out the probability and puts in absolutes...ya just ignored the realities of mathematics in a behavioral world. What happens is one takes the focus off of quantities x, y and results z and disproportionately weights Δ
Just as their example, on the 1040EZ. So, they are going to fill the entire thing out to modify behavior so people do not take itemized deductions, do not use accountants. They point to $2B in savings and hours of time.
What is the assumption in this idea? Why would they not instead encourage people to itemize on their tax forms?
Why would they not create an automated system, perhaps in collusion with VISA, MC (since they are already profiling people and know every dime, where you spent it and why) to automatically calculate out one's tax bill....or create some other behavioral modification system beyond the one presented?
It is just assumed that their behavioral model is the good one. Where is the mathematics which states this is so?
Who made that behavioral choice? What about all of those CPAs losing income, revenue? Who decided that was a good idea?
So, instead of looking at the issue holistically a decision on what was the correct behavior was decided and a correction is prescribed.
That removes the entire equation on how much overtax people will pay or any analysis on how to get people to itemize themselves more easily.
Why have deductions at all if one is going to steer people away from them? Is that because one cannot get the tax law changed or ?
Even worse, human behavior is not a linear system. One might be able to model some actions based on probability and "zones" of convergence as well as prediction models. But to assume that behavior has an absolute mathematical result, even with a series of experimental trials at a moment of time is incorrect. One cannot say that human behavior is time invariant. In other words, one cannot say what man did in the year 1700 is necessarily what people will do in 2008 and the reason for that is the societal conditions and so many factors it's not a linear system.
So, of the objects that are quantifiable, that is where the real focus needs to be. One can assuredly weight in these other factors but that's not what I'm getting in their focus.
Now surely in modeling that's fine to take into account human behavior but to focus in on behavior instead of the hard line mathematics that are well proved ....sure one can test models and so forth but to well, put the focus on the nebulous and take away the focus on the quantifiable.
You just messed up the weighting in a mathematical model in a nutshell.
Of let me put it another way. Instead of focusing on the reality that free trade theory by the calculus itself and differential equations will show that under certain conditions it is not a financial "win-win" and there are losers. Right there in the math.
So, ok, we have Goolsbee focusing in on people just behaviorally (supposedly) are just not willing to adjust, instead of looking the hard cold numbers from the mathematics of free trade theory...which show the United States is screwed and we should be modifying US trade policy accordingly.
Is it if you don't like the math you make up a new science?
I think in this diary you have picked the wrong target. Goolsbee's support for behavioral economics (explored in the first part of theMIT article), is in no way tied to his support for "free trade" (explored in the second part of the article).
I wrote a diary entitled Calling BS on Right-wing Economics exploring in great detail how behavioral econ was a potent challenge to traditional Milton Friedman style economics, so much so that even the U of Chicago has had to acknowledge its relevance. Here's just a small part of that diary:
The defects of an exclusively mathematical approach, where simplistic assumptions are substiuted for actual, complex human behavior, which is ignored, ironically was set forth nearly a century ago by another University of Chicago professor, John Maurice Clark:
“The economist may attempt to ignore psychology, but it is sheer impossibility for him to ignore human nature,” Clark wrote in a 1918 Journal of Political Economy. “If the economist borrows his conception of man from the psychologist, his constructive work may have some chance of remaining purely economic in character. But if he does not, he will not thereby avoid psychology. Rather, he will force himself to make his own, and it will be bad psychology.”
Mathematical neoclassical economists refused to even consider reality-based testing....:
The neoclassical economists refused to perform even the simplest tests. These aren't really that complicated, pyschologists were running similar tests (though of course focused on physchological theory, not economics) 50+ years ago. The neoclassical economists literally could have walked less than 25 feet in some cases, and learned how to do these experiments in a very short time.
Not only was there not even the most minimal effort to try to test neoclassical micro-economics, the issue had to be forced by folks like Kahneman, Tversky and Thaler, who actually started releasing test results and were promptly considered as nutcases by the economic high priesthood.
When tests started actually being run, very few of the neoclassical principles actually were sustained by the experimental results.
In an article entitled The Marketplace of Perceptions, Harvard Magazine explained how "Behavioral economics" offers a scientifically and experimentally valid counter to the "rational man" Chicago school economic theory. Behavioral economics "typically integrate insights from psychology with neo-classical economic theory", and "apply scientific research on human and social cognitive and emotional biases to better understand economic decisions and how they affect market prices, returns and the allocation of resources." Brain MRI scans have "also been used to determine which areas of the brain are active during various steps of economic decision making.... Experiments are designed to be incentive compatible, with binding transactions involving real money"
In other words, behavioral economics takes the insights of experimental psychology, and challenges the bullshit "rational man" assumptions of traditional economics.
The pdf article you cite, "In Defense of Mindless Economics" shows exactly why traditional neoclassical economics is so deserving of the challenge. Here's a few excerpts:
Neuroeconomists share with many other critics of economics the view that individual rationality is an empirically invalid assumption. Over the years, critics of rationality have identified various economic assumptions as ‘rationality.’....
Neuroeconomists criticize both standard positive economics and standard normative
analysis....
[But] Evidence of the sort cited in neuroeconomics may inspire economists to write different models but it cannot reject economic models.....
[Rather, W]e argue that these criticisms typically underestimate the flexibility revealed preference methodology
Economists use the revealed preference of individuals as a welfare criterion because it is the only criterion that can be integrated with positive economic analysis.
The dominant role of revealed preference analysis in economics has little to do with technology. Economic phenomena consist of individual choices and their aggregates and do not include hedonic values of utilities or feelings. Therefore, it is not relevant for an economic model to explore the feelings associated with economic choices.
In summary, argues "In defense of Mindless Economics", because we neoclassical economics use "revealed preferences", we don't need no stinkin' information about what is actually happening!
Let me put that in math terms. I as a neoclassical economist say that x + y = z. When you make an economic decision that results in the answer of "7.5", that must mean that whatever x + y was, that was your preference, because you made "z" decision at 7.5 . My equation, "x + y = z" is never falsifiable, because you will always "reveal" some number z in your actions. So I never have to define "x" or "y", let alone prove my conjecture about their proportion. My equation cannot be falsified.
This of course is exactly why neoclassical economics is not really a science. Its paradigm can never be falsified. Behavioral economics calls BS on this idea, and says, not only are x and y relevant, x and y are testable, and x + y, when tested, might not add up to z at all.
Personally, I think behavioral economics is a necessary but not sufficient correction to economic theory. More is necessary. Too much of economic results depend on the power of the actors at any given starting point, their knowledge at the starting point, and their relative intelligence or stupidity. But behavioral economics is a terrific advance over traditional econ, and in no way inherently leads to Goolsbee's conclusions about free trade.
I keep focusing in on Democratic policy because McCain all I can think of is saying he's a lettuce head.
I mean it's so bad but frankly I'm finding the differences here to be on the fringe and that's not good when the entire nation wants dramatic change, especially on trade.
This is simply John Kerry plan from 2004 in so many words.
I've got something more CT, supposedly Goolsbee is a member of Skull and Bones.
But on that score supposedly it's Goolsbee who advised Obama to not consider any sort of a freeze for homeowners in terms of the mortgage foreclosures. They give a $500 dollar tax credit. Right o, that will do a lot.
is considering how much stocks have already fallen what does this mean in terms of just plain ole profitability, growth and makin' stuff?
I just wouldn't have assumed just an outrageous P/E overall considering just the crash already, but I guess that's taking into account the lovely financials, whose favorite activity these days is to announce write downs.
I wonder what the ave. P/E is minus the financials, real estate, relating housing sectors?
This isn't going to help anyone. But it looks unavoidable.
The best already may be over for the U.S. stock market this year.
The Standard & Poor's 500 Index, which had the worst first half since 2002, added 0.2 percent this quarter, the only gain among the world's 10 biggest markets in dollar terms. Shares in the benchmark index for American equity climbed to an average 25.8 times reported profits, the highest valuation in five years. The last time that happened, the S&P 500 fell 38 percent.
A combination of rising prices and falling earnings caused S&P 500 valuations to surge more than 20 percent this quarter, the biggest increase of any major market, making them the most expensive since November 2003.
The index's price-earnings ratio rose above 25 three times in the last five decades, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The last was in 2001, during the bear market that followed the bursting of the dot-com bubble. The increase in valuations preceded a plunge that helped erase about half the market value of U.S. companies.
We told our readers to be wary of speculating on Gustav.
Specifically, we mentioned the SPR. I saw the same actions
with Nixon in 1971 when he closed the Gold Window. I was holding AMEX Travelers Checks and was caught penniless. Except for my time and mercy of a London Hotel reminiscent of John Lennon's 'We're only trying to get us some Peace'.
That's why we're trying to get the focus on specifics. It's all about the money and this election cycle has been talking about anything but the money. They don't want to talk about policy because it exposes the corporate agenda, both sides.
Hey, format your links! Over in the user guide is the example.
oil futures dropped $6 bucks. So I suspect that this opening of the markets to place bets that Gustav was going to be a category 3,4,5 just burned these people.
Chicago School Boys and Ne-Cons will tell you that the bottom scale of society does not matter and there is no risk in forgetting the bottom strata of society. They will say that there is no risk in shredding the scraps of the safety net. At the time of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, two sides argued whether destruction of communism, plus deconstruction of welfare states, and loss of labor union was benign. The Bush I, Chicago School, argued that the loss of all forms of slimy socialism was good, necessary and to be pursued. But how much history did they forget?
The comments about the top of the income pyramid are correct. The top of the pyramid - 1 percentile earn 50 percent of all income. The the bottom 50 percent that is 150 million income recipients, earn the other half of all income.
Whether that is a relaxed place depends on whether we are discussing a business owner or a worker bee with high income. There is nothing relaxing about a worker bee with a high income who works day and night. But the top one percent essentially do no have to work. What used to be called the 'Bourgoisie'.
Now to evoke A. Smith "Wealth of Nations" is to forget the rest of the economists who followed Smith from Ricardo, Marx, Keynes and the quantitative econs of the 20th Century.
Starting with Germany under Bismark/Metternick, advanced industrial states figured that reform was better than social upheaval, remembering the times of the French Revolution through the Paris Commune in 1870. These same Conservative German Reformers were copied by Lloyd George in Britain, and TR/FDR in the U.S. Again, reform sure beats social upheaval.
We are coming back to this argument again, due to statistically provable income inequality. Ignore income maldistribution only at great peril to the stability of society as a whole (see Anatomy of Revolution, Harvard Press, Crane Brinton), so says 400 years of history.
Internationally, critics of our form of government see the U.S. election as a discussion between 2 wings of the same party. I believe they forget that it is the people in the U.S. that really matters. Call me a sentimental democrat, just keep the 'd' in democrat small.
Continue to write, email and call your elected officials, write letters to the editor in the local papers.
Support populist/labor leaning candidates downticket because they go on to become the leaders of the future.
Vote out the old imcumbents. Give them real competition and make them work to keep their seats
Yes both parties are occupied by globalist corporatists - we need to rid our govt of this disease
I fear things will have to get worse before they get better though - much worse. What ideally should happen is the dissaffected rank and files of both parties should come together and form a new on on the common grounds of economic and trade policy
The money and agenda is pretty clear in both parties and ya know, I think that's why we have 2004 redux. So, way beyond plain voting and assuredly being a party cheerleader, I think it's vital for us to point out the bad policy positions and demand something better. i.e. not only point out the bad policy or corrupt policy but analysis a better policy and ask "why not this" for what would actually work.
The physical manufacturing jobs get "off-sourced" to China. The IT jobs get "off-sourced" to India. Where a job cannot be profitably sent to India, you just claim an H1-B visa and import the Indians.
As a computer network engineer, my pay in the last 10 years has gone from $30/hr to $10/hr - when I'm even called for interview consideration. Why employ a citizen? They cost too much! You can just claim that you can't find an American who will do the work (no lie at $10/hr for 8yrs of school & 8yrs exp). There's no real requirement to prove that you actually tried to hire an American. Just bring in an H1-B visa Indian at $10/hr (no taxes); then tell him at the end of the day that he's working another 5hrs (off clock). If he doesn't like it, then you fire him (he's on the plane back to India when his employment is terminated) and import another "better team player" than the last one.
Eventually, 'globalization' will ensure that their standard of living rises a bit - and the American's falls a lot. Then, we'll have a nice level playing field - when everyone but the business owners have become 'microserfs.' It's worse if your manufacturing job was outsourced: then you have to figure out how to compete against Chinese (Communist slave labor) + transportation costs in order to retain your job. Perhaps if you work for $3/hr you might get some consideration - oh, wait: there's that irritating little Federal minimum wage thing...
America has become so corrupt, it's virtually beyond belief.
There's only one way out for the average American or it'll all end in tears with blood in the streets: If you want to sell it here, then you must make it here. REALLY make it here.
The Empire can't support the rest of the world any more. This is exactly the same thing (a bit more modernized) that caused the Roman Republic to fall into chaos and enter into the Roman Empire: Too many slaves. The illegal immigrants (Mexicans), distant Chinese, and distant/imported Indians are all just economic slaves. The American Roman middle classes are being displaced into poverty - the 'guvmint' had better seriously ramp-up it's "bread & circuses" to keep the sheeple tame...
I'm taking fric. It is a lousy way to have to vote, but it is what it is. Obama said to push him. Give him the squeaky wheel that can't be ignored. January, we go for it.
These powerful lobbies might try to stop better, more fuel efficient biofuels, such as algae and claim they cannot switch over from high fructose corn syrup to ethanol.
Honestly I don't know why they cannot plain switch over to a better biofuel and let the tariffs on sugar expire.
I'm all for US industry and US jobs, but come on, be smart about it and they should be heavily subsidized to transition.
isn't that a little bending the rules to suddenly decide to create a special trading time on a Sunday? How many regular folks were even aware of it? It seems very unfair.
The problem is both parties do not have trade, economic and labor positions people really want. It's the policy stupid.
Where's the polling on completely renegotiating trade agreements? There are degrees of policy change and the token phrase one is worker and environmental standards which is not enforceable.
I think renegotiating trade agreements crosses party lines as well.
I agree we need to discuss policy or the lack thereof, effects, consequences.
I just reread your blog post and I think the crux of the issue is those right wing economists have bad math. So, for example those who claim free trade is just great have never even read one United States trade agreement to see it's clearly not free trade by the theory.
Then, in Global Trade and Conflicting Interests they show, by the mathematics that there are multiple outcomes and that is when one is actually using the theory of free trade, it's not a win-win or necessarily a net win. It completely depends on a series of conditions.
So, those right wingers ya know, many of them suffer from bad math in just making sweeping assumptions and generalizations.
What I am trying to get to is instead of looking at x+y=z they are focused in on why and how x+y != z or say x+y + Δ = z
That's just not mathematics. I'm sorry that's probability and predictive analysis, markov models at best and when one takes out the probability and puts in absolutes...ya just ignored the realities of mathematics in a behavioral world. What happens is one takes the focus off of quantities x, y and results z and disproportionately weights Δ
Just as their example, on the 1040EZ. So, they are going to fill the entire thing out to modify behavior so people do not take itemized deductions, do not use accountants. They point to $2B in savings and hours of time.
What is the assumption in this idea? Why would they not instead encourage people to itemize on their tax forms?
Why would they not create an automated system, perhaps in collusion with VISA, MC (since they are already profiling people and know every dime, where you spent it and why) to automatically calculate out one's tax bill....or create some other behavioral modification system beyond the one presented?
It is just assumed that their behavioral model is the good one. Where is the mathematics which states this is so?
Who made that behavioral choice? What about all of those CPAs losing income, revenue? Who decided that was a good idea?
So, instead of looking at the issue holistically a decision on what was the correct behavior was decided and a correction is prescribed.
That removes the entire equation on how much overtax people will pay or any analysis on how to get people to itemize themselves more easily.
Why have deductions at all if one is going to steer people away from them? Is that because one cannot get the tax law changed or ?
Even worse, human behavior is not a linear system. One might be able to model some actions based on probability and "zones" of convergence as well as prediction models. But to assume that behavior has an absolute mathematical result, even with a series of experimental trials at a moment of time is incorrect. One cannot say that human behavior is time invariant. In other words, one cannot say what man did in the year 1700 is necessarily what people will do in 2008 and the reason for that is the societal conditions and so many factors it's not a linear system.
So, of the objects that are quantifiable, that is where the real focus needs to be. One can assuredly weight in these other factors but that's not what I'm getting in their focus.
Now surely in modeling that's fine to take into account human behavior but to focus in on behavior instead of the hard line mathematics that are well proved ....sure one can test models and so forth but to well, put the focus on the nebulous and take away the focus on the quantifiable.
You just messed up the weighting in a mathematical model in a nutshell.
Of let me put it another way. Instead of focusing on the reality that free trade theory by the calculus itself and differential equations will show that under certain conditions it is not a financial "win-win" and there are losers. Right there in the math.
So, ok, we have Goolsbee focusing in on people just behaviorally (supposedly) are just not willing to adjust, instead of looking the hard cold numbers from the mathematics of free trade theory...which show the United States is screwed and we should be modifying US trade policy accordingly.
Is it if you don't like the math you make up a new science?
over traditional neoclassical economics.
I think in this diary you have picked the wrong target. Goolsbee's support for behavioral economics (explored in the first part of theMIT article), is in no way tied to his support for "free trade" (explored in the second part of the article).
I wrote a diary entitled Calling BS on Right-wing Economics exploring in great detail how behavioral econ was a potent challenge to traditional Milton Friedman style economics, so much so that even the U of Chicago has had to acknowledge its relevance. Here's just a small part of that diary:
In other words, behavioral economics takes the insights of experimental psychology, and challenges the bullshit "rational man" assumptions of traditional economics.
The pdf article you cite, "In Defense of Mindless Economics" shows exactly why traditional neoclassical economics is so deserving of the challenge. Here's a few excerpts:
In summary, argues "In defense of Mindless Economics", because we neoclassical economics use "revealed preferences", we don't need no stinkin' information about what is actually happening!
Let me put that in math terms. I as a neoclassical economist say that x + y = z. When you make an economic decision that results in the answer of "7.5", that must mean that whatever x + y was, that was your preference, because you made "z" decision at 7.5 . My equation, "x + y = z" is never falsifiable, because you will always "reveal" some number z in your actions. So I never have to define "x" or "y", let alone prove my conjecture about their proportion. My equation cannot be falsified.
This of course is exactly why neoclassical economics is not really a science. Its paradigm can never be falsified. Behavioral economics calls BS on this idea, and says, not only are x and y relevant, x and y are testable, and x + y, when tested, might not add up to z at all.
Personally, I think behavioral economics is a necessary but not sufficient correction to economic theory. More is necessary. Too much of economic results depend on the power of the actors at any given starting point, their knowledge at the starting point, and their relative intelligence or stupidity. But behavioral economics is a terrific advance over traditional econ, and in no way inherently leads to Goolsbee's conclusions about free trade.
I keep focusing in on Democratic policy because McCain all I can think of is saying he's a lettuce head.
I mean it's so bad but frankly I'm finding the differences here to be on the fringe and that's not good when the entire nation wants dramatic change, especially on trade.
This is simply John Kerry plan from 2004 in so many words.
I've got something more CT, supposedly Goolsbee is a member of Skull and Bones.
But on that score supposedly it's Goolsbee who advised Obama to not consider any sort of a freeze for homeowners in terms of the mortgage foreclosures. They give a $500 dollar tax credit. Right o, that will do a lot.
No different than Phil Gramms asinine statement is it?
is considering how much stocks have already fallen what does this mean in terms of just plain ole profitability, growth and makin' stuff?
I just wouldn't have assumed just an outrageous P/E overall considering just the crash already, but I guess that's taking into account the lovely financials, whose favorite activity these days is to announce write downs.
I wonder what the ave. P/E is minus the financials, real estate, relating housing sectors?
This isn't going to help anyone. But it looks unavoidable.
We told our readers to be wary of speculating on Gustav.
Specifically, we mentioned the SPR. I saw the same actions
with Nixon in 1971 when he closed the Gold Window. I was holding AMEX Travelers Checks and was caught penniless. Except for my time and mercy of a London Hotel reminiscent of John Lennon's 'We're only trying to get us some Peace'.
Maybe we can get us some Peace.
That's why we're trying to get the focus on specifics. It's all about the money and this election cycle has been talking about anything but the money. They don't want to talk about policy because it exposes the corporate agenda, both sides.
Hey, format your links! Over in the user guide is the example.
oil futures dropped $6 bucks. So I suspect that this opening of the markets to place bets that Gustav was going to be a category 3,4,5 just burned these people.
Chicago School Boys and Ne-Cons will tell you that the bottom scale of society does not matter and there is no risk in forgetting the bottom strata of society. They will say that there is no risk in shredding the scraps of the safety net. At the time of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, two sides argued whether destruction of communism, plus deconstruction of welfare states, and loss of labor union was benign. The Bush I, Chicago School, argued that the loss of all forms of slimy socialism was good, necessary and to be pursued. But how much history did they forget?
The comments about the top of the income pyramid are correct. The top of the pyramid - 1 percentile earn 50 percent of all income. The the bottom 50 percent that is 150 million income recipients, earn the other half of all income.
Whether that is a relaxed place depends on whether we are discussing a business owner or a worker bee with high income. There is nothing relaxing about a worker bee with a high income who works day and night. But the top one percent essentially do no have to work. What used to be called the 'Bourgoisie'.
Now to evoke A. Smith "Wealth of Nations" is to forget the rest of the economists who followed Smith from Ricardo, Marx, Keynes and the quantitative econs of the 20th Century.
Starting with Germany under Bismark/Metternick, advanced industrial states figured that reform was better than social upheaval, remembering the times of the French Revolution through the Paris Commune in 1870. These same Conservative German Reformers were copied by Lloyd George in Britain, and TR/FDR in the U.S. Again, reform sure beats social upheaval.
We are coming back to this argument again, due to statistically provable income inequality. Ignore income maldistribution only at great peril to the stability of society as a whole (see Anatomy of Revolution, Harvard Press, Crane Brinton), so says 400 years of history.
Internationally, critics of our form of government see the U.S. election as a discussion between 2 wings of the same party. I believe they forget that it is the people in the U.S. that really matters. Call me a sentimental democrat, just keep the 'd' in democrat small.
See : http://www.marxist.com/usa-socialism-change-we-can-actually-believe-in.htm
Continue to write, email and call your elected officials, write letters to the editor in the local papers.
Support populist/labor leaning candidates downticket because they go on to become the leaders of the future.
Vote out the old imcumbents. Give them real competition and make them work to keep their seats
Yes both parties are occupied by globalist corporatists - we need to rid our govt of this disease
I fear things will have to get worse before they get better though - much worse. What ideally should happen is the dissaffected rank and files of both parties should come together and form a new on on the common grounds of economic and trade policy
Pretty amazing it really weakened. That was looking for a 4 or 5 for sure so crisis over (except for the 3 forming right now)
The money and agenda is pretty clear in both parties and ya know, I think that's why we have 2004 redux. So, way beyond plain voting and assuredly being a party cheerleader, I think it's vital for us to point out the bad policy positions and demand something better. i.e. not only point out the bad policy or corrupt policy but analysis a better policy and ask "why not this" for what would actually work.
The physical manufacturing jobs get "off-sourced" to China. The IT jobs get "off-sourced" to India. Where a job cannot be profitably sent to India, you just claim an H1-B visa and import the Indians.
As a computer network engineer, my pay in the last 10 years has gone from $30/hr to $10/hr - when I'm even called for interview consideration. Why employ a citizen? They cost too much! You can just claim that you can't find an American who will do the work (no lie at $10/hr for 8yrs of school & 8yrs exp). There's no real requirement to prove that you actually tried to hire an American. Just bring in an H1-B visa Indian at $10/hr (no taxes); then tell him at the end of the day that he's working another 5hrs (off clock). If he doesn't like it, then you fire him (he's on the plane back to India when his employment is terminated) and import another "better team player" than the last one.
Eventually, 'globalization' will ensure that their standard of living rises a bit - and the American's falls a lot. Then, we'll have a nice level playing field - when everyone but the business owners have become 'microserfs.' It's worse if your manufacturing job was outsourced: then you have to figure out how to compete against Chinese (Communist slave labor) + transportation costs in order to retain your job. Perhaps if you work for $3/hr you might get some consideration - oh, wait: there's that irritating little Federal minimum wage thing...
America has become so corrupt, it's virtually beyond belief.
There's only one way out for the average American or it'll all end in tears with blood in the streets: If you want to sell it here, then you must make it here. REALLY make it here.
The Empire can't support the rest of the world any more. This is exactly the same thing (a bit more modernized) that caused the Roman Republic to fall into chaos and enter into the Roman Empire: Too many slaves. The illegal immigrants (Mexicans), distant Chinese, and distant/imported Indians are all just economic slaves. The American Roman middle classes are being displaced into poverty - the 'guvmint' had better seriously ramp-up it's "bread & circuses" to keep the sheeple tame...
I'm taking fric. It is a lousy way to have to vote, but it is what it is. Obama said to push him. Give him the squeaky wheel that can't be ignored. January, we go for it.
Over on Open Secrets is a fairly in depth article on the Corn/Soybeans lobby to produce high fructose corn syrup and ethanol.
These powerful lobbies might try to stop better, more fuel efficient biofuels, such as algae and claim they cannot switch over from high fructose corn syrup to ethanol.
Honestly I don't know why they cannot plain switch over to a better biofuel and let the tariffs on sugar expire.
I'm all for US industry and US jobs, but come on, be smart about it and they should be heavily subsidized to transition.
isn't that a little bending the rules to suddenly decide to create a special trading time on a Sunday? How many regular folks were even aware of it? It seems very unfair.
The fact that they opened this early would be a good thing.
The problem is both parties do not have trade, economic and labor positions people really want. It's the policy stupid.
Where's the polling on completely renegotiating trade agreements? There are degrees of policy change and the token phrase one is worker and environmental standards which is not enforceable.
I think renegotiating trade agreements crosses party lines as well.
I agree we need to discuss policy or the lack thereof, effects, consequences.
Pages