Should have been the question that maybe I didn't amplify, what exactly should that capital tax gains be and what about a Progressive structure based on overall income?
As we could see Gibson wasn't necessarily regurgitating the supply-side rhetoric or those corporate agenda folks (I really dug into this one), so to me the question is where is the level that creates investment, also helps 401ks and so on and where is the level that overtaxes it?
Before slamming Obama here, let's go look at the payroll FICA tax issue. It sure does seem currently like a regressive tax.
There is one issue with the vicious cycle you're talking about, the ave. home price in the bay area (last I checked) was $850k and nobody, even 6 figure incomes can afford those kind of prices.
So, how does one deal with that reality versus the economic meltdown if prices drop to levels in line with what people can afford (and also by these speculators just letting these be foreclosed on)?
...........you don't tax capital gains. 1932 is what happens. The money piles up in the uber-rich's accounts and does not 'create more jobs....' or 'stimulate consumption....'. Eventually the income and asset stratification gets so bad, see 'Bank Holiday', the economy grinds to a halt.
To me 'Bonehead' Gibson is just mouthing more supply side bs. Economists have clear proof that breaking the Pareto Rule, already not correct due to Pareto's lack of understanding of discontinuous functions much less basic sociology, as was done by FDR and his tacticians resulted in what Krugman and others call the Great Compression. Generally considered a good thing by the average citizen and the work of the Devil by such as Bush, Reagan and the rest of the uber-rich's sockpuppets.
Obama's ignorance on this subject is typical for him. He's not ready now, nor probably never will be, ready to lead due to sheer unadulterated ignorance of basic policy and the theory that underpins GOOD policy as opposed to his hero Reagan's 'conservative' economics which basically said:
'I got mine and I intend to keep all of it..'
Which in a modern economy, or an old one for that matter, just doesn't....
From watching Wall Street reward things like Citigroup for only losing $1.06 per share vs. $1.66 per share (shakes head) and JP Morgan getting rewarded despite their heavy losses, I think you're right that this "recession" which seemingly is defined only for the super rich, will end and much through a rigged game of the bail-out of the financials, putting onto the taxpayer the costs of this folly. For most Americans it will just continue on, much like the erosion of the middle class has been going on.
I believe that we're at the middle class squeeze blood out of a stone point by the financials. Yet the Fed seems intent on extending this Ponzi game by dumping it all onto the taxpayer long term.
That was something in the Elizabeth Warren Lecture (my recent post) I saw, was she was trying to differentiate between the US poor and middle class and I was thinking, hmmm...there really isn't much difference if one is one paycheck or illness away from bankruptcy and poverty.
You've raised both points I figured might be brought up...
In the first place, I'm always skeptical of arguments that boil down to "It's different this time."
Secondly, while 1974 and 1990 can be put down to transient interruptions in the supply of oil (Arab oil embargo, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait), 1980 cannot. OPEC was producing a certain amount of oil, and jacked the price up so high the entire world went into recession. Over the period of a year or two, "peak oil" doesn't make a difference on the amount of oil available to consuming countries.
Thirdly, as to the argument that China et al. are continuing to grow and so will oil demand, I give you the Shanghai stock exchange:
down almost 50% (more precisely, 47.5%) in a little over 6 months. Now what do you suppose that might be telling us about China's economy?
This history to me isn't taking into account the increasing demand of oil in China, India and other fast growing economies. Add Peak Oil to that plus whatever the hell this Iraq mess is, I don't see oil returning to steady state, or has the potential to not return to steady state at least.
Opps, I forgot the tanking dollar in that as well as Dubai and a series of other nations talking about decoupling from the US economy and the dollar.
I used to think that the reason we don't have "medicare for all" is that the health insurance industry held too much sway, but that once other industries realize how much they stand to gain, they'd demand a government program -- the insurance industry be damned.
So what's going on?
1. Ideology. Never underestimate the plutocracy's sincere belief in their own fairy tales. Occassionally, you find a bright bulb like Warren Buffet who knows all the free-market stuff is bullshit. But most of the ruling class isn't that smart. The rich are fluffed by a well-paid clique of court flatterers -- think-tankers, academics and journalists -- who propound the fable that the rich have risen to the top in a free and fair competition.
2. Solidarity. What makes union squabbles so sad - witness the CNA-SEIU fight -- is the contrast with capitalists who come together when it counts.
3. Unions. When unions have to fight just to keep their medical benefits in the newest contract, they're less likely to squawk about higher wages, benefits, retirement, safety or hours.
4. Dependency. Union or no, most of us are tied to our healthcare by our employer. Loosing healthcare benefits is something you think about before you tell your boss to shove it.
Now, I'm not dismissing the role the insurance industry continues to play in keeping Universal Healthcare off the table. They do most of the heavy lifting -- as they should since they have the most to loose. But there's more to it.
... then there's no need for a season adjustment ... more to the point, if it is primarily cost-push inflation rather than demand-pull inflation ... and with U6 in excess of 8% even at what was supposed to be the peak of the business cycle, there's nothing to indicate a strong driver for demand-pull ...
... then there's no reason to expect it to accelerate, since cost-push inflation seems to have been self-amplifying primarily when it involves imported inflation from a melt-down in the exchange rate.
I don't know, about food being so low in reality. I'm also wondering if food inflation is becoming geographical dependent, due to transportation costs.
This is YAI - yet another issue.
BLS assuredly does not accurately measure the unemployment data anymore because they do not count those who have rolled off the looking for work, the fact they count guest workers into the statistics, while corporations push and push for more guest workers to lower labor costs (displace US citizen workers), do not count the permatemp workers, the contractors and finally any small business owner and the health of how they are doing or the people underemployed, pushed out of their original and chosen career fields.
So, I look forward to you picking apart CPI stats and explaining the details.
My YAI is we need legislation to change a lot of the data collected by BLS, CBO and others to get an accurate read on what is going on.
One example we still don't know about is how many jobs have been offshore outsourced just as an example.
I'm seeing really good speeches, in depth policy understanding and more policy positions that really are Populist coming from Hillary. I never have seen them from Obama.
So, while I can understand the distrust, especially considering Bill's administration pushed through so many bad trade agreements and other corporate sponsored agenda and so on, I can't understand what is the belief that Obama isn't more of precisely that sort of policy. His rhetoric is ok but his votes, his actual position statements,proposals ...well, they are not the policy everyone has been trying to get for so long.
So, I don't get it. I haven't been for either of them but when someone presents really good policy, such as what Hillary did on keeping critical manufacturing technology, know how that is in the national interest in the US and performed by US citizens, I was really impressed.
It's like it cannot even be acknowledged when these policy statements are really good.
........and since you're speaking on you own blog you can't be banned for saying so!
Obama is total disaster for the progressive wing of the party. No surprise there as he is a Liebercrat, not a Democrat. The really sick part is they don't even know it. With people like Kos and Bowers trying to 'lead' from ignorance it's no wonder.
Hillary has been making better speeches about what she would do; read my post:
Your point about her past history is well taken by me. Perhaps she's 'seen the light' this is possible and we can only hope.
But....
The real problem lies in the heart of the DLC which long ago sold out to corporatist America....for not much.
Until we can clean house of the likes of Hoyer, Emmanuel, Schumer, DiFi all the rich, money-grubbing vermin which infest the party no change will take place.
I'm optimistic as the populace seems to be 'getting it...' at last. Obama helped tremendously with his classist comments on Billionaire's Row. If I were the DLC I'd be really worried if he won the GE.
He'd surely do for what currently passes for 'liberalism' what Bush did for 'conservatism'.
I'm trying to build up a head of steam to blog more about what populists or 'progressives' should stand for rather than waste time discussing the horse race. None of the candidates have any solutions to our economic crisis although as I said Hillary is stating tto say the right things.
You need to spell out the lessons for us (and yes What's the Matter with Kansas? is an excellent read).
What I'm getting out of it is the mobile guard, given a minor bit of power and pauper's wages turned around and fought against the others because of it. A little drop of power and they turned against those fighting for really their best interests.
I see this with some women. They have obtained power by arguing against equality (in effect) for women.
There is tons of evidence she was against NAFTA and one needs to remember that she was first lady. That is not an elected position, she was wife of the President, her role is to support her husband. That is not an elected official position.
In terms of believing, she mentions holding her accountable to her campaign promises and policy positions in this speech.
I know what people are saying, and frankly there are forces behind the Clintons which are very scary...yet in terms of legislation she literally has introduced legislation, votes that goes completely against what Bill is actively lobbying for (Dubai Ports World). On the other hand, Obama has repeatedly endorsed open borders, "free trade" and has no positions to revamp trade at all.
So, I can counter this and say what makes you believe that Obama would magically change his positions to revamp trade in office when none of his policy positions during the campaign state he will renegotiate trade treaties?
So, we have here better Clinton positions and no one believes a word she says and we have Obama positions which are much weaker in favor of the US middle class than Hillary, so I must say, what makes you think Obama would magically decide to change his positions once in office?
The problem for me with this ruling (beyond it being illegal in my view as well as there is no worker shortage), is just how many qualified US students are there who were denied these opportunities?
I don't know the answer to that but it sure seems that almost no one is monitoring our University system, as an employer, and investigating discrimination against US citizen students.
With that many STEM students, surely they could have filled these jobs and because educational costs are so high, probably could have really used the money on top of it.
and I sure want to believe and we know all three have promised to increase guest worker Visas, ignoring the affect on Professional workers. I just posted an overview on the manufacturing forum where I seriously cannot find evidence on precisely now how he will be different.
Another grid style comparison contrast of Obama/Clinton on Economics here.
Should have been the question that maybe I didn't amplify, what exactly should that capital tax gains be and what about a Progressive structure based on overall income?
As we could see Gibson wasn't necessarily regurgitating the supply-side rhetoric or those corporate agenda folks (I really dug into this one), so to me the question is where is the level that creates investment, also helps 401ks and so on and where is the level that overtaxes it?
Before slamming Obama here, let's go look at the payroll FICA tax issue. It sure does seem currently like a regressive tax.
There is one issue with the vicious cycle you're talking about, the ave. home price in the bay area (last I checked) was $850k and nobody, even 6 figure incomes can afford those kind of prices.
So, how does one deal with that reality versus the economic meltdown if prices drop to levels in line with what people can afford (and also by these speculators just letting these be foreclosed on)?
...........you don't tax capital gains. 1932 is what happens. The money piles up in the uber-rich's accounts and does not 'create more jobs....' or 'stimulate consumption....'. Eventually the income and asset stratification gets so bad, see 'Bank Holiday', the economy grinds to a halt.
To me 'Bonehead' Gibson is just mouthing more supply side bs. Economists have clear proof that breaking the Pareto Rule, already not correct due to Pareto's lack of understanding of discontinuous functions much less basic sociology, as was done by FDR and his tacticians resulted in what Krugman and others call the Great Compression. Generally considered a good thing by the average citizen and the work of the Devil by such as Bush, Reagan and the rest of the uber-rich's sockpuppets.
Obama's ignorance on this subject is typical for him. He's not ready now, nor probably never will be, ready to lead due to sheer unadulterated ignorance of basic policy and the theory that underpins GOOD policy as opposed to his hero Reagan's 'conservative' economics which basically said:
'I got mine and I intend to keep all of it..'
Which in a modern economy, or an old one for that matter, just doesn't....
...work.
From watching Wall Street reward things like Citigroup for only losing $1.06 per share vs. $1.66 per share (shakes head) and JP Morgan getting rewarded despite their heavy losses, I think you're right that this "recession" which seemingly is defined only for the super rich, will end and much through a rigged game of the bail-out of the financials, putting onto the taxpayer the costs of this folly. For most Americans it will just continue on, much like the erosion of the middle class has been going on.
I believe that we're at the middle class squeeze blood out of a stone point by the financials. Yet the Fed seems intent on extending this Ponzi game by dumping it all onto the taxpayer long term.
That was something in the Elizabeth Warren Lecture (my recent post) I saw, was she was trying to differentiate between the US poor and middle class and I was thinking, hmmm...there really isn't much difference if one is one paycheck or illness away from bankruptcy and poverty.
His report on China in the studies section. It's downright scary so I think the Shanghai report really isn't tell that much. They are flush with cash.
You've raised both points I figured might be brought up...
In the first place, I'm always skeptical of arguments that boil down to "It's different this time."
Secondly, while 1974 and 1990 can be put down to transient interruptions in the supply of oil (Arab oil embargo, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait), 1980 cannot. OPEC was producing a certain amount of oil, and jacked the price up so high the entire world went into recession. Over the period of a year or two, "peak oil" doesn't make a difference on the amount of oil available to consuming countries.
Thirdly, as to the argument that China et al. are continuing to grow and so will oil demand, I give you the Shanghai stock exchange:
down almost 50% (more precisely, 47.5%) in a little over 6 months. Now what do you suppose that might be telling us about China's economy?
This history to me isn't taking into account the increasing demand of oil in China, India and other fast growing economies. Add Peak Oil to that plus whatever the hell this Iraq mess is, I don't see oil returning to steady state, or has the potential to not return to steady state at least.
Opps, I forgot the tanking dollar in that as well as Dubai and a series of other nations talking about decoupling from the US economy and the dollar.
I used to think that the reason we don't have "medicare for all" is that the health insurance industry held too much sway, but that once other industries realize how much they stand to gain, they'd demand a government program -- the insurance industry be damned.
So what's going on?
1. Ideology. Never underestimate the plutocracy's sincere belief in their own fairy tales. Occassionally, you find a bright bulb like Warren Buffet who knows all the free-market stuff is bullshit. But most of the ruling class isn't that smart. The rich are fluffed by a well-paid clique of court flatterers -- think-tankers, academics and journalists -- who propound the fable that the rich have risen to the top in a free and fair competition.
2. Solidarity. What makes union squabbles so sad - witness the CNA-SEIU fight -- is the contrast with capitalists who come together when it counts.
3. Unions. When unions have to fight just to keep their medical benefits in the newest contract, they're less likely to squawk about higher wages, benefits, retirement, safety or hours.
4. Dependency. Union or no, most of us are tied to our healthcare by our employer. Loosing healthcare benefits is something you think about before you tell your boss to shove it.
Now, I'm not dismissing the role the insurance industry continues to play in keeping Universal Healthcare off the table. They do most of the heavy lifting -- as they should since they have the most to loose. But there's more to it.
and review all his posts on 'health-care' in the U.S. as compared to other nations. He's got a series that starts here:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/04/real-crisis.html
next:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/04/health-care-in-us-and-world-part-i...
He goes on for a total of 7 posts. All found on the mid-left column here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060826010416/http://angrybear.blogspot.com/
Truly eye-opening.
... then there's no need for a season adjustment ... more to the point, if it is primarily cost-push inflation rather than demand-pull inflation ... and with U6 in excess of 8% even at what was supposed to be the peak of the business cycle, there's nothing to indicate a strong driver for demand-pull ...
... then there's no reason to expect it to accelerate, since cost-push inflation seems to have been self-amplifying primarily when it involves imported inflation from a melt-down in the exchange rate.
I don't know, about food being so low in reality. I'm also wondering if food inflation is becoming geographical dependent, due to transportation costs.
This is YAI - yet another issue.
BLS assuredly does not accurately measure the unemployment data anymore because they do not count those who have rolled off the looking for work, the fact they count guest workers into the statistics, while corporations push and push for more guest workers to lower labor costs (displace US citizen workers), do not count the permatemp workers, the contractors and finally any small business owner and the health of how they are doing or the people underemployed, pushed out of their original and chosen career fields.
So, I look forward to you picking apart CPI stats and explaining the details.
My YAI is we need legislation to change a lot of the data collected by BLS, CBO and others to get an accurate read on what is going on.
One example we still don't know about is how many jobs have been offshore outsourced just as an example.
I'm seeing really good speeches, in depth policy understanding and more policy positions that really are Populist coming from Hillary. I never have seen them from Obama.
So, while I can understand the distrust, especially considering Bill's administration pushed through so many bad trade agreements and other corporate sponsored agenda and so on, I can't understand what is the belief that Obama isn't more of precisely that sort of policy. His rhetoric is ok but his votes, his actual position statements,proposals ...well, they are not the policy everyone has been trying to get for so long.
So, I don't get it. I haven't been for either of them but when someone presents really good policy, such as what Hillary did on keeping critical manufacturing technology, know how that is in the national interest in the US and performed by US citizens, I was really impressed.
It's like it cannot even be acknowledged when these policy statements are really good.
........and since you're speaking on you own blog you can't be banned for saying so!
Obama is total disaster for the progressive wing of the party. No surprise there as he is a Liebercrat, not a Democrat. The really sick part is they don't even know it. With people like Kos and Bowers trying to 'lead' from ignorance it's no wonder.
Hillary has been making better speeches about what she would do; read my post:
http://takeaction.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/some-believe-that-we-in-the-p...
Your point about her past history is well taken by me. Perhaps she's 'seen the light' this is possible and we can only hope.
But....
The real problem lies in the heart of the DLC which long ago sold out to corporatist America....for not much.
Until we can clean house of the likes of Hoyer, Emmanuel, Schumer, DiFi all the rich, money-grubbing vermin which infest the party no change will take place.
I'm optimistic as the populace seems to be 'getting it...' at last. Obama helped tremendously with his classist comments on Billionaire's Row. If I were the DLC I'd be really worried if he won the GE.
He'd surely do for what currently passes for 'liberalism' what Bush did for 'conservatism'.
I'm trying to build up a head of steam to blog more about what populists or 'progressives' should stand for rather than waste time discussing the horse race. None of the candidates have any solutions to our economic crisis although as I said Hillary is stating tto say the right things.
You need to spell out the lessons for us (and yes What's the Matter with Kansas? is an excellent read).
What I'm getting out of it is the mobile guard, given a minor bit of power and pauper's wages turned around and fought against the others because of it. A little drop of power and they turned against those fighting for really their best interests.
I see this with some women. They have obtained power by arguing against equality (in effect) for women.
There is tons of evidence she was against NAFTA and one needs to remember that she was first lady. That is not an elected position, she was wife of the President, her role is to support her husband. That is not an elected official position.
In terms of believing, she mentions holding her accountable to her campaign promises and policy positions in this speech.
I know what people are saying, and frankly there are forces behind the Clintons which are very scary...yet in terms of legislation she literally has introduced legislation, votes that goes completely against what Bill is actively lobbying for (Dubai Ports World). On the other hand, Obama has repeatedly endorsed open borders, "free trade" and has no positions to revamp trade at all.
So, I can counter this and say what makes you believe that Obama would magically change his positions to revamp trade in office when none of his policy positions during the campaign state he will renegotiate trade treaties?
So, we have here better Clinton positions and no one believes a word she says and we have Obama positions which are much weaker in favor of the US middle class than Hillary, so I must say, what makes you think Obama would magically decide to change his positions once in office?
Or could it be tweedle dum, tweedle dee?
She campaigned for NAFTA. I don't trust the Clintons at all. I think Obama is more likely to do "the right thing" then either of them.
The problem for me with this ruling (beyond it being illegal in my view as well as there is no worker shortage), is just how many qualified US students are there who were denied these opportunities?
I don't know the answer to that but it sure seems that almost no one is monitoring our University system, as an employer, and investigating discrimination against US citizen students.
With that many STEM students, surely they could have filled these jobs and because educational costs are so high, probably could have really used the money on top of it.
I wrote a blog post on this ruling as well.
Thanks for putting in a comment to DHS Dana, although my impression is they could care less what US workers think.
and I sure want to believe and we know all three have promised to increase guest worker Visas, ignoring the affect on Professional workers. I just posted an overview on the manufacturing forum where I seriously cannot find evidence on precisely now how he will be different.
I found nothing wrong with Obama's comments until he got to the trade part. Trade pacts are not scapegoats.
However, there's a symbolic dimension here that may resonate. He was talking ABOUT small-town Americans to a group of urban coastals (San Francisco).
Pages