Blog Catalog

Showing posts with label economist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economist. Show all posts

Thursday, October 29, 2020

All These Endorsements for Biden---and Against Trump

 Check out this list of endorsements, incomplete as it is.


'Record-breaking group' of faith leaders endorses Biden






















Not only do I love this next one, given from whom it comes but also the depth and breadth of the endorsements and then finally, also from where it's being reported. None other than Fox.


The list includes former US attorneys, former state attorneys general, former sheriffs and former police chiefs

And this one came out yesterday.


I'm telling you, folks, between all this which is, again, only a partial list, and what I'm seeing in the polls, I'm what you'd call at least hopeful if not out and out optimistic.  But we must certainly, absolutely take NOTHING FOR GRANTED. We must vote, folks. We have to vote. And VOTE BLUE!

#BlueWave2020

86 45!

BYEDON!


Sunday, October 2, 2016

Quote of the Day -- On Tax Cuts for the Already-Wealthy and Corporations


As we're seeing in Kansas with the Republicans' and Governor Sam Brownback's horrible economics efforts and all the deficits and education and other slashing budgets it's getting them.


No automatic alt text available.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Today's "Gilded Age" and This Presidential Election (Guest Post)


Robert Reich's photo.


"Not nearly enough has been said about the tax cuts for the rich now being proposed by Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. They’re larger, as a proportion of the government budget and the total economy, than any tax cuts ever before proposed. 5 things you need to know:

1. Trump’s proposed cut would reduce the top rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent – creating a giant windfall for the wealthy (at a time when the wealthy have a larger portion of the nation’s wealth than any time since 1890).

2. The Cruz and Rubio plans would abandon our century-old progressive income tax (whose rates increase as taxpayers’ incomes increase) altogether, and instead tax the amount people spend in a year and exclude income from investments. Such a system would burden lower-income workers who spend almost everything they earn and have few if any investments.

3. Cruz also proposes a 10 percent flat tax, which would lower tax rates on the rich and increase taxes for lower-income workers.

4. The Republican plans also repeal estate and gift taxes – now paid almost entirely by the very wealthy, who make big gifts to their heirs and leave them big estates.

5. These plans would cut federal revenues by as much as $12 trillion over the decade -- but neither Trump, Rubio, or Cruz has said what they’ll do to fill this hole. They'll either explode the national debt, or have to cut Social Security, Medicare, and assistance to the poor (they’ve called for more military spending).
Bottom line: If any of these men is elected president, we could see the largest redistribution in American history from the poor and middle-class of America to the rich.

This is class warfare with a vengeance."

--Professor, author, columnist, economist Robert Reich.


Thursday, February 11, 2016

What Is It That's Different About This President, Anyway?


Last week, this took place:




Then, this, yesterday.

Agencies of the U.S. government make regulations to implement acts of Congress – such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation limiting carbon emissions from power plants, under the Clean Air Act. Sometimes plaintiffs challenge the legality of such a regulation, arguing the agency exceeded what Congress intended – as plaintiffs have done in this case. Occasionally, plaintiffs ask the courts to put the regulation on hold until the courts have fully considered their lawsuit – arguing they’ll otherwise suffer irreparable harm while awaiting a ruling. Often, as in this case, the lower court refuses. But never before in history has the Supreme Court overruled a lower court that refused such a stay, and decided itself to put a regulation on hold. Yet that’s what the five Republican appointees on the Court did yesterday evening -- blocking the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark regulation. They gave no reasons.

The result is to freeze the heart of Obama’s climate policy until the courts have fully considered its legality. When might that be? The D.C. Circuit’s Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for July 2, so a ruling from that court could be early next fall. The Supreme Court might then hear an appeal in late 2017 and decide by 2018. Of course, the five Republican appointees might then decide the regulation is illegal, or by then a Republican president might simply refuse to put the rule into effect. (Several Republican candidates, including Marco Rubio, don’t believe carbon emissions are contributing to climate change.)

In this case, the five Republicans on the Court decided that the plaintiffs – coal companies, power plants, utilities – will suffer irreparable harm over the next two or three years if the regulation is put into effect. But what about the irreparable harm to the environment from two or three more years of gunk being spewed into the atmosphere? Why should harm to profits take precedence over harm to life on earth? What planet are the five Republicans on, anyway?         --
Robert Reich

What is it?

I'm trying to think.

What is it about this President, this one President that's different that Congress treats him differently than any other.

Let me see...

Barack Obama


Monday, February 8, 2016

How Do We Fix the Broken Government? (Guest Post)


Author/economist/professor Robert Reich writes:

The Chicken and the Egg 

At the core of crony capitalism lies a chicken-and-egg dilemma: 

How is it possible to get big money out of politics when the political system is controlled by big money? 

Even candidates who pledge reform but depend on big money to get elected give up on reform. Bill Clinton said he’d clean up the system but once in the White House did no cleaning (in fact, he offered the White House’s own Lincoln Bedroom to wealthy campaign-donors). Barack Obama bemoaned the role of big money but in 2008 became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that went with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals, and has since done nothing to stem the tide.

Since the Supreme Court's “Citizens United" decision, that tide has been washing away what's left of our democracy. By the 2012 election, donations from the richest 0.01 percent were 40 percent of all campaign contributions.

The only answer is a citizen’s movement that propels a candidate into the White House who’s not only committed to ending crony capitalism, but whose campaign is based on small donations. That movement is occurring right now, and that candidate is Bernie Sanders.



Thursday, January 14, 2016

A Call For Corporate Taxation and a Required National Wage


An economist warns that "advances in technology and automation are set to wipe out up to half of all jobs in the developed world."

RBS WarnsSell Everything

A small bit from the article:

RBS economists have urged investors to sell everything except high-quality bonds, warning of a “fairly cataclysmic year ahead.”

If that isn't a call for a national, base wage to all citizens, I don't know what is.

Also reason why all corporations should pay a minimum tax and not be able to deduct their way out of paying any taxes or, worse, get a rebate or, worse yet, offshore profits or be able to.

Another good, related article:


The current rout in oil prices has obvious implications for the giant oil firms and all the ancillary businesses — equipment suppliers, drill-rig operators, shipping companies, caterers, and so on — that depend on them for their existence. It also threatens a profound shift in the geopolitical fortunes of the major energy-producing countries. Many of them, including Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, are already experiencing economic and political turmoil as a result. (Think of this, for instance, as a boon for the terrorist group Boko Haram as Nigeria shudders under the weight of those falling prices.) The longer such price levels persist, the more devastating the consequences are likely to be.

If anything like or near these "worst case scenarios" take place, governments and corporations the world over may HAVE to give and require a minimum payout to their citizens, just to keep the economic world spinning.

Here's a perfect example and it's from a current article.

Chinese factory replaces 90% of humans 

with robots


A nation of more than 1.4 billion people and the companies, the corporations replaced, as the headline shows, the vast majority of the employees with machines.

If corporations and nations don't give a minimum payout to their citizens, who will be able to buy the  products that keep this whole merry go round turning?


Tuesday, January 12, 2016

On Tonight's State of the Union


I have read no other, better, brief summary of President Obama's 2 terms as President and their relative success, like it or not, than what I saw last evening on Facebook from Professor/economist Robert Reich:

Obama Victory Speech

Tomorrow night will be Barack Obama’s final State of the Union – the last time he addresses a joint session of Congress. So it seems like an appropriate time for a few thoughts about his presidency.

First, I think historians will judge it to be among the most successful – saving the U.S. economy from a second Great Depression, enacting the first almost-universal health insurance system (something neither FDR, nor Truman, JFK, LBJ, or Clinton could get done), finding and killing the person who engineered the worst terrorist act ever to occur on American soil, and, all the while, holding at bay the most disciplined, adamantly right-wing Republican Congress in history. The Obama administration has played the long game, and mostly won.

Second, Barack Obama as a person has exhibited extraordinary coolness under fire. No president in my lifetime has come under such relentless, scathing, disrespectful (often thinly-veiled racist) attack from political opponents and opportunistic pundits, and yet he has never wavered from the dignified tone he set for himself and his presidency at the outset.

Third, this administration has not been marred by scandal – no revelations of self-dealing by high officials, no sexual exploits, no illegal political payoffs, no secret and illicit deals. To laud a presidency for its lack of scandal may be a sad commentary on our era, but given the harshness and meanness of politics it is nonetheless a significant achievement.

It is not all roses. I won’t easily forgive the mass deportations, the early emphasis on deficit-reduction, the compromises on civil liberties, the absurd Trans Pacific Partnership, or the failure to put tough conditions on Wall Street banks that got bailed out. The Administration has been way too kind to big corporations and Wall Street. Fifty years ago we would have considered Obama a liberal Republican.

But given the times and the circumstances, he has done remarkably well. That’s a provisional verdict, of course; there’s still a year to go.


So State of the Union?

Bring it on.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

The Current Republican Congressional Session (guest post)




"Look at the priorities of the new Republican congressional – the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Trade agreement, tax cuts for big corporations and the wealthy, rollbacks of Dodd-Frank regulations on Wall Street, cutbacks on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and decimating the Affordable Care Act – and connect the dots. Republicans want the public to think the central issue of our time is the size of government. Wrong. The central issue of our time is who government is for. Every one of their initiatives advances big corporations and Wall Street, and worsens or weakens everyone else.'

--Robert Reich, economist, author, professor



Sunday, November 30, 2014

The Upcoming Republican Tax Agenda (guest post


From economist, columnist Robert Reich today---and it's not good for you or me or America:

Corporate tax "reform" is high on the Republican agenda because the GOP's corporate patrons are demanding payoff from their investments in the 2014 election. Watch your wallets. Here are the four biggest right-wing whoppers about corporate taxes:

1. The U.S. corporate tax rate of 35% is one of the highest among advanced countries. True but misleading. The effective corporate income-tax rate – what corporations actually pay after all deductions, credits, and loopholes – is 27.7%, close to the average of all rich countries (27.2%).
2. Today's corporate tax rate is high by historic standards. Baloney. In the 1950s it was over 50%.
3. The corporate tax reduces corporate profits, which makes it harder for corporations to hire. Wrong. Corporate profits today are the highest they've been since World War II as a percentage of the economy.
4. Lowering the corporate income-tax would spur economic growth. Baloney. There's no relation between corporate tax rates and growth. In the 1950s and 60s, when the corporate tax was over 50%, the economy grew faster (at an annual average rate of 3.9%) than it has since the rate was reduced.

Once more, the Republicans make it clear they're for the wealthy and corporations, not the middle and lower classes, not for working America. In short, then, not for America, overall.

Quote of the day -- On Wealth Inequality



Photo

Sunday, November 23, 2014

On the 2016 Election (guest post)


What hope looks like:

"I don’t think it’s possible for Republicans to win the 2016 presidential election or keep control of the Senate. That’s because the GOP is disappearing from the most heavily populated sections of the country while increasing its lead in a declining bloc of aging, white, rural voters. Look at voting demographics and you get the likely 2016 voting map below (based on 2014’s returns, New Hampshire and Virginia are turning blue, and Georgia is now at play).  

--Robert Reich, economist

Monday, October 6, 2014

Quote--and question--of the day


The “democracy movement” in Hong Kong is garnering headlines, but what about America? With Congress gridlocked and dysfunctional, the real work of the nation has quietly shifted to three agencies beyond its direct reach -- the Supreme Court (which returns to work tomorrow, and is dictating much of America’s social policy), the Federal Reserve Board (now handling the nation’s economic policy), and the Pentagon (now dictating much of our foreign policy).

The will of the American people is being supplanted by the views of five right-wing Republican jurists, a committee of economists and bankers, and several generals. We could use a democracy movement in America.


I couldn't agree more. It just shouldn't/can't be run by the Republicans, the very wrong Right Wing or the Tea Party.



Thursday, July 17, 2014

Question of the day for America


And for modern society:

Microsoft says it will cut up to 18,000 jobs next year to “streamline” its business. Microsoft now employs 125,000 people.
In an era of increasing technological advances, the logical endpoint is a few humongous companies raking in hundreds of billions a year with a handful of employees. When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer, the profits will go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and investors. 

But the rest of us won’t be able to afford to buy what these companies produce because we’ll either be unemployed or serving the wealthy in menial jobs paying almost nothing. The old economic model was mass production by many, mass consumption by many. 

Will the new one have to be production by a few, redistribution to the many?


Actually, originally, when the clear path forward for humankind and history was seen as the industrialization of the world, of work, of our society and our lives, it was assumed that we would, as a people, as a group, as nations, have fewer and fewer people work but still get a living wage.

Absolutely true. There were books written on it, pointing the way. 

It was the only thing, they thought, at the time that made any sense.

How foolish and naive we were.