Neoliberal Economics is DEAD

TheHermit

Well-Known Member
Does the rest of Europe need to be kicking the legs out from under Greece with quite so much enthusiasm? Of course not; this is about power, not money. The money is chump change...

Since when does austerity do anything except impoverish a country while making the debt holders richer?

How about the fact that Greece was indebted by scams pulled by Goldman Sachs and others in the first place? Why are we punishing the victims instead of the perpetrators?

Because the perps bought the gov't. But that is a far different thing than trying to say the Greeks did it to themselves.

Time for you to do some more homework on this subject.
I don't think you can blame the banks for Greece borrowing more than it could pay back, for lying about their economic situation in order to borrow more money, or the fact that almost half the population engages in tax fraud. They absolutely created this situation, although I will agree the way the banks and the rest of the EU have reacted have done nothing to help the situation.

I do agree that the austerity measures are more about punishment and less about fixing the problem. The best option for Greece may to be to simply default on their debt. It would be terrible in the short term, but probably better for their overall long term health. If they had done it five years ago, they might be on the road to recovery now. The austerity measures will insure their economy is stagnant for decades to come.

The difference between us now is they fell under the Euro which devalued their own ability to create wealth from thin air.
Agreed, they would probably be better off leaving the EU and going back to the drachma. They need to devalue their money to get out of this, and they can't because they are tied to the Euro. They really are quite stuck with no real way to get out of it.

how about now? are we greece now?
Apples and oranges. We can control our money supply to some degree, Greece cannot. They are at the mercy of other EU countries. We are also in the position of being to big to fail. If we go down, we would likely take the rest of the world with us.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I don't think you can blame the banks for Greece borrowing more than it could pay back, for lying about their economic situation in order to borrow more money, or the fact that almost half the population engages in tax fraud. They absolutely created this situation, although I will agree the way the banks and the rest of the EU have reacted have done nothing to help the situation.

I do agree that the austerity measures are more about punishment and less about fixing the problem. The best option for Greece may to be to simply default on their debt. It would be terrible in the short term, but probably better for their overall long term health. If they had done it five years ago, they might be on the road to recovery now. The austerity measures will insure their economy is stagnant for decades to come.



Agreed, they would probably be better off leaving the EU and going back to the drachma. They need to devalue their money to get out of this, and they can't because they are tied to the Euro. They really are quite stuck with no real way to get out of it.



Apples and oranges. We can control our money supply to some degree, Greece cannot. They are at the mercy of other EU countries. We are also in the position of being to big to fail. If we go down, we would likely take the rest of the world with us.
Too big to fail? How so? The rest of the world could simply move off the dollar and use another form. Isn't there a movement afoot by the Chinese to facilitate that?

The rest of the world could abandon the dollar then, no?

Also, when you say "we can control our money supply" don't you mean increase debt instead? Isn't that the end result of
it?
 

TheHermit

Well-Known Member
Too big to fail? How so? The rest of the world could simply move off the dollar and use another form. Isn't there a movement afoot by the Chinese to facilitate that?

The rest of the world could abandon the dollar then, no?

Also, when you say "we can control our money supply" don't you mean increase debt instead? Isn't that the end result of
it?
And what form of money would they move to? The euro is a mess right now. There are however many countries with their own economic policies using the same currency. The ruble has been tanking. The Chinese have no desire to increase the worth of their currency. They keep it artificially low so they can continue to export. The yen could be a possibility, but the Japanese economy has been stagnant for about two decades now, and they are facing an upcoming demographic nightmare. The British pound could be a possibility, but I don't see it replacing the US dollar. Lets say that the Chinese do want to move away from the dollar. They would have to find someone to buy the trillion plus that they currently hold. They aren't going to sell it for pennies on the dollar, and if they did, I am sure the US would find some "terrorists" in China to drone strike.

And yes, the US has the ability to create more debt whenever it wants to. The Greeks cannot do this. They really need to if they want to get out of the mess they are in. Their exports are too expensive, and they cannot afford to import much. If they could devalue their currency, they could solve a lot of their problems. Government debt is completely different than private debt. As long as an economy can grow at a higher rate than its debt obligation, then debt really doesn't matter. When debt obligations outpace growth is when problems arrive. Whether the US has reached that point is debatable. I don't think we are there yet, but if we keep up our current pace, we could have problems down the road.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
And what form of money would they move to? The euro is a mess right now. There are however many countries with their own economic policies using the same currency. The ruble has been tanking. The Chinese have no desire to increase the worth of their currency. They keep it artificially low so they can continue to export. The yen could be a possibility, but the Japanese economy has been stagnant for about two decades now, and they are facing an upcoming demographic nightmare. The British pound could be a possibility, but I don't see it replacing the US dollar. Lets say that the Chinese do want to move away from the dollar. They would have to find someone to buy the trillion plus that they currently hold. They aren't going to sell it for pennies on the dollar, and if they did, I am sure the US would find some "terrorists" in China to drone strike.

And yes, the US has the ability to create more debt whenever it wants to. The Greeks cannot do this. They really need to if they want to get out of the mess they are in. Their exports are too expensive, and they cannot afford to import much. If they could devalue their currency, they could solve a lot of their problems. Government debt is completely different than private debt. As long as an economy can grow at a higher rate than its debt obligation, then debt really doesn't matter. When debt obligations outpace growth is when problems arrive. Whether the US has reached that point is debatable. I don't think we are there yet, but if we keep up our current pace, we could have problems down the road.
Is it possible that China and Russia will collaborate and replace the dollar as "world currency" ?

It looks like they are amassing gold and plan to establish a currency based in some kind of reserve, rather than in debt.

The British pound was replaced by the dollar. Why is it impossible for the dollar to get replaced? What will prevent it?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
excerpted from an article published 3/19 at the Lew Rockwell blog.

...Washington’s EU vassals might be finding their backbone. Britain, Germany, France, and Italy are reported to have defied Washington’s orders and applied to join the Chinese-led Asian Investment Bank. Australia, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland and Luxembourg might also join.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
You realize the argument from China against the dollar started under Bush, not Obama right?

Obama inherited a shit pile of troubles, the debt being one of the. Some people started trying to control the debt under Bush because our debt had doubled under his watch. Trying to stop that seemed logical.

I'd like to say they would have been against raising the debt ceiling if McCain had won.... but I seriously doubt it. A few would have, those few who understand, but partisan mostly gonna partisan.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/working-poor-non-working-rich_b_6973822.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Text follows;

Rise of the Working Poor and the Nonworking Rich

Robert Reich

Many believe that poor people deserve to be poor because they're lazy. As Speaker John Boehner has said, the poor have a notion that "I really don't have to work. I don't really want to do this. I think I'd rather just sit around."

In reality, a large and growing share of the nation's poor work full time -- sometimes sixty or more hours a week -- yet still don't earn enough to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

It's also commonly believed, especially amongRepublicans, that the rich deserve their wealth because they work harder than others.

In reality, a large and growing portion of the super-rich have never broken a sweat. Their wealth has been handed to them.

The rise of these two groups -- the working poor and non-working rich -- is relatively new. Both are challenging the core American assumptions that people are paid what they're worth, and work is justly rewarded.

Why are these two groups growing?

The ranks of the working poor are growing because wages at the bottom have dropped, adjusted for inflation. With increasing numbers of Americans taking low-paying jobs in retail sales, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, childcare, elder care, and other personal services, the pay of the bottom fifth is falling closer to the minimum wage.

At the same time, the real value of the federalminimum wage is lower today than it was a quarter century ago.

In addition, most recipients of public assistance must now work in order to qualify.

Bill Clinton's welfare reform of 1996 pushed the poor off welfare and into work. Meanwhile, the Earned Income Tax Credit, a wage subsidy, has emerged as the nation's largest anti-poverty program. Here, too, having a job is a prerequisite.

The new work requirements haven't reduced the number or percentage of Americans in poverty. They've just moved poor people from being unemployed and impoverished to being employed and impoverished.

While poverty declined in the early years of welfare reform when the economy boomed and jobs were plentiful, it began growing in 2000. By 2012 it exceeded its level in 1996, when welfare ended.

At the same time, the ranks of the non-working rich have been swelling. America's legendary "self-made" men and women are fast being replaced by wealthy heirs.

Six of today's ten wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans combined.

Americans who became enormously wealthy over the last three decades are now busily transferring that wealth to their children and grand children.

The nation is on the cusp of the largest inter-generational transfer of wealth in history. Astudy from the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy projects a total of $59 trillion passed down to heirs between 2007 and 2061.

As the French economist Thomas Piketty reminds us, this is the kind of dynastic wealth that's kept Europe's aristocracy going for centuries. It's about to become the major source of income for a new American aristocracy.

The tax code encourages all this by favoring unearned income over earned income.

The top tax rate paid by America's wealthy on their capital gains -- the major source of income for the non-working rich -- has dropped from 33 percent in the late 1980s to 20 percent today, putting it substantially below the top tax rate on ordinary income (36.9 percent).

If the owners of capital assets whose worth increases over their lifetime hold them until death, their heirs pay zero capital gains taxes on them. Such "unrealized" gains now account for more than half the value of assets held by estates worth more than $100 million.

At the same time, the estate tax has been slashed. Before George W. Bush was president, it applied to assets in excess of $2 million per couple at a rate of 55 percent. Now it kicks in at $10,680,000 per couple, at a 40 percent rate.

Last year only 1.4 out of every 1,000 estates owed any estate tax, and the effective rate they paid was only 17 percent.

Republicans now in control of Congress want to go even further. Last Friday the Senate voted 54-46 in favor of a non-binding resolution to repeal the estate tax altogether. Earlier in the week, the House Ways and Means Committee also voted for a repeal. The House is expected to vote in coming weeks.

Yet the specter of an entire generation doing nothing for their money other than speed-dialing their wealth management advisers is not particularly attractive.

It puts more and more responsibility for investing a substantial portion of the nation's assets into the hands of people who have never worked.

It also endangers our democracy, as dynastic wealth inevitably and invariably accumulates political influence and power.

Consider the rise of both the working poor and the non-working rich, and the meritocratic ideal on which America's growing inequality is often justified doesn't hold up.

That widening inequality -- combined with the increasing numbers of people who work full time but are still impoverished and of others who have never worked and are fabulously wealthy -- is undermining the moral foundations of American capitalism.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
...and SCOTUS keeps handing the donor class the keys to our democracy- because more money = more equal. I disagree, I believe this will be the end of our democracy.

Worse, I see troubling parallels between the global situation of today and that which existed in the 1930s, right before WWII. Only this time everyone has nukes and precision munitions.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Republican politicians are waking up to the reality of the necessity of taxation- only they're hitting the poor and middle classes instead of the rich.

Duh... You don't think they'd bite the hands of the donor class that paid for their elections, do ya?!

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/the-morning-after-the-tea-party.html

Text follows;

The morning after the tea party
Governors who thought tax cuts for the rich would create trickle-down prosperity are waking up
April 6, 2015 2:00AM ET
by Amy B. Dean @amybdean
Conservative U.S. governors who came to power during the 2010 tea party electoral wave are facing a reality check. A few years ago, catering to a far-right constituency, they campaigned on pledges of slashing taxes and bolstering business. Their subsequent policies have benefited the wealthy but failed to bring trickle-down prosperity to their states.

It is the morning after the tea party. Republican governors are waking up to a sluggish job market, stagnant wages, state deficits and impoverished services. The party’s trickle-down ideology is no way to manage a government. And a state cannot be run on tax cuts alone.

Recent headlines are much different than those in 2010: “Republican governors buck party line on raising taxes,” read a recent headline in The New York Times.Tax increases a much-regretted necessity for Republican governors,” said another in Bloomberg. “Republican governors are flirting with tax hikes,” the Christian Science Monitor noted.

Conservative governors now recognize the need to generate revenue to maintain schools and highways. But they are still not taking responsibility and cleaning up the messes they have created. Rather than reversing tax cuts for the wealthy, many are implementing regressive measures that penalize middle-class taxpayers.

“Of the 10 or so Republican governors who have proposed tax increases, nearly all have called for increases in consumption taxes, which hit the poor and middle class harder than the rich,” The New York Times reportedlast month. This includes new taxes on gas, e-cigarettes, movie tickets and services such as haircuts.

Tea party economics
In 2010, conservatives had a banner election year riding popular anger at Washington. In all, 11 Democratic governors lost to Republican victors. The GOP took control of both houses in 25 state legislatures.

For the new tea-party-backed leaders, tax cuts were high on the agenda. Governors such as Michigan’s Rick Snyder and Kansas’ Sam Brownback explicitly said business executives — rechristened by Republican wordsmiths as “job creators” — would see immediate benefits. Snyder pledged “to eliminate the Michigan Business Tax and replace it with a 6 percent flat corporate income tax,” according to The Grand Rapids Press, arguing it will result in “a $1.5 billion tax cut on Michigan job creators.” The night of his victory, Brownback flatly said he was opposed to “taxes on capital formation.”

What Brownback and Snyder, along with Ohio’s John Kasich and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, were promoting in their states is merely the most recent incarnation of what George H.W. Bush once called “a voodoo economic policy.” Conservative logic has long held that tax cuts for the wealthy work miracles by stimulating economic activity. The argument goes: Not only do tax cuts create growth throughout the economy — thus boosting the fortunes of working people — but they also bolster state revenues and allow for balanced budgets, since people end up paying taxes on higher incomes.

Debating the merits of this philosophy with then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Republican presidential primaries, Bush argued, “It just isn’t gonna work.” He was right. It didn’t work then: Budget deficits soared during the Reagan years. As tea party governors are learning, it isn’t working now either.

In Kansas, Brownback lowered tax rates for top earners by 26 percent. Now the state faces a $334 million budget deficit. Kansas’ public services are so emaciated that the State Supreme Court ruled the funding of the school system unconstitutional. Economic growth has stalled and the state’s employment growth currently ranks 34th in the nation.

“Brownback’s recent promise of 100,000 new private sector jobs in his next four years seems to be unrealistic,” Kansas City Star columnist Yael T. Abouhalkah, wrote in January. “That’s because the state would need to create 2,100 jobs a month while it’s been averaging close to 1,300 a month for his first four years in office.”

Wisconsin is experiencing similar woes from supply-side tax cuts and union busting. In 2013 the Federal Reserve ranked Wisconsin 49th in economic outlook and 44th in private-sector job growth. Wages fell 2.2 percent that year. Wisconsin is now raiding public employees’ retirement funds to make up for a budgetary shortfall of nearly $280 million. By contrast, neighboring Minnesota raised taxes on top earners in 2013 and nowhas one of the fastest growing economies in the nation. The state raised its minimum wage and balanced its budget without resorting to financial accounting games.

Good governance
The conservative tactic of attacking government during an election rarely translates into good governance. There’s a reason why anti-government rhetoric remains vague and abstract: The public is often horrified to see highways and bridges deteriorate, public schools close and fire departments face crippling cutbacks.

Formerly insurgent anti-government governors are now recognizing this fact. Unfortunately, despite their scrambles to raise revenue, many are not going about this task responsibly. Rather than reversing the tax cuts for their top donors, they are implementing regressive measures that draw most heavily from middle-class families. For example, Snyder’s ballot initiative to increase infrastructure spending will be paid for with a sales-tax increase. This puts a heavy burden on families of modest means, who spend most of their incomes paying for basic necessities at retail stores.

Brownback is taking a page from Walker’s political playbook. Instead of asking his business friends to help address the state’s fiscal crisis, he is raiding a pot of money accumulated by middle-class workers. As in Wisconsin, Kansas’ tattered state budget is being mended with funds previously set aside for civil servants’ pension plans. Compensation that public employees have put into the system for decades is being drained to pay for top-bracket tax cuts.

That these governors now want to put their states on more stable financial grounds indicates that they are sobering up from their tea party bacchanalia. But gutting essential public services will only compound the economic woes of their constituents. Efforts to address budget troubles by using voodoo economics will only impose new burdens on the working families that are already hit hard by the lackluster economies these leaders created.

Amy B. Dean is a fellow of the Century Foundation and a principal of ABD Ventures, a consulting firm that works to develop innovative strategies for organizations devoted to social change. She is a co-author, with David Reynolds, of “A New New Deal: How Regional Activism Will Reshape the American Labor Movement.”
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/top-earning-americans-had-shockingly-good-2012.html

OLIGARCHY. It's not just for rich Russians, it's the New American Way!

Read in, and discover how the ultra rich don't pay taxes! How multinational corporations convert tax debt into profit! How the richest Americans can defer and delay their tax debts indefinitely!

Am I the only one who sees this as utterly unsustainable?
In your opinion, what is the largest obstacle to progress?
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
In your opinion, what is the largest obstacle to progress?
I think the ship could right itself and solve the rest of the problems if we get money out of politics- with TEETH; a constitutional amendment that equates excess monetary influence in politics or to political candidates with treason; limit maximum contributions to $100 from living, breathing, registered voters only.

Once wealthy donors are unable to influence politics to the exclusion of all others, politicians will once again respond to the needs of the average American.

Until this happens, all manner of evil things will ensue, up to and including utterly fascist behavior like we see today.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
No, you aren't the only one who sees this situation as unsustainable although it probably feels that way. There is a lot of unrest in this country but its not organized or very well directed. I think this unrest is the genesis of the tea party on the right and the occupy movement on the left. As a people, we are searching for an answer but I don't think either movement is going to achieve critical mass. The donor class are still in charge.

Worse, I see troubling parallels between the global situation of today and that which existed in the 1930s, right before WWII. Only this time everyone has nukes and precision munitions.
To me the situation seems more like the 1920's, the last time that we had such a large disparity between the prosperity of the wealthy and everybody else. People let the situation develop then and now, I think, because we are continually being fed propaganda that says we can all get rich and enough people believe it. The odds of becoming rich due to individual effort as opposed to an inheritance is not zero but statistical data shows less upward movement in this country now than we've seen in a long time.

The 1920's were also the time when a nasty ideology was born -- Fascism -- a nasty brew of socialism, nationalism and authoritarianism. It took a worldwide economic depression and complete failure of government to cope with it to persuade the working classes of Europe, specifically Germany and Italy but to some extent in other nations, to put Fascists in charge. Is Radical Islam the new fascism? Are the reactionary right the new fascists? Somehow I can't picture Hillary Clinton as the equivalent of a fascist leader of this era but I look forward to hearing the right wingers on this forum tell me why this is so.:bigjoint:

I'm sorry to say, tystikk that as in the 1930's, I think economic deterioration of the working class in this country is going to get worse before we will overcome our differences and organize against the donor class, assuming democracy survives. I also think that we will not repeat the cataclysm of WWII or launch nuclear war. As in 2008-2010, when the world avoided economic collapse by turning to lessons learned in the 1930's, I think that the people of this era are savvy enough to avoid all out war. Is it possible that international communication via social media going to help us prevent another world war?
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/working-poor-non-working-rich_b_6973822.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

This was from the comments section in response to a Huffington Post article titled 'The Rise of the Working Poor and the Nonworking Rich', it shows in stark terms the results of Republican policies over the past thirty five years;

EMBARRASSED YET?

Since 1980 America has dropped, since we swung back to trickle down Robber Baron from a NEW DEAL Demand economy to less Progressive taxes, the rise of religious fundamentalism such a success in the Islam world(LOL) and 80% DROP in Unions and a Min wage ½ of 1965 in real dollars and the Repubs love of Outsourcing/free trade myth :

#1 in Wages to 16th (in min wages half of 1965 with more than half of Americans making less than that!)

#1 In % getting college degrees to 13th.

#1 to sixth in semiconductor production, a technology we invented. We do lead in semiconductor Plant closings however that cost a billion bucks to build.

#1 Creditor nation to largest DEBTOR Nation (a decline just under Reagan).

#1 in education to 25th, 31st in internet speed, 21st in railroads, 14th electric grid

#1 in infrastructure to 25th (we spent 11% of GDP under Ike on infrastructure now ....2.5%, ...or 1/3 as much as the countries beating us).

#1 in healthcare, now 37th… at twice the cost, only developed country w/o everyone insured.

#1 to 91st In come distribution, between Uganda and the Ivory Coast with less upward mobility that any other developed country.... Hardly exceptional…

#1 in MFG..now we have lost 80% of our private industry, 47 million job outsourced.182K factories closed, 60,000 just under Bush. From trade surpluses to trade deficits larger than all others combined.

#1 In High tech, under Bush we lost 50% of high tech jobs and now import more high tech than we export.

Only developed nation w/o national healthcare for everyone, and yet we pay twice as much per capita to cover only 60% well (much better now under Obamacare, which Repubs ant to kill).

Most of what we export is raw materials, like a 3rd world country. Gasoline our number one export, while we import computers. The EU exports 50% more than us and it’s not raw materials or food, but high value MFG goods...

We have not produced a commercial ship in more than 30 years. The cruise ships are made in the EU, where wages are more than double ours and unionization is 7 times greater (we are 61st in Unionization, only dictatorships and communist countries have lower rates of Unionization, countries with higher wages, GDP per capita and middleclass wealth all in top 20).

We are first in Murders, %population in prison. 91st in income distribution, 51st infant mortality, life expectancy. 6th in Auto production, in per capita ½ of even IRAN. 27th in middleclass wealth!

Are you embarrassed yet?

Or do you remember like I do when most middleclass families had only one parent working, when most things in a store said “Made in USA” and when no one would have voted for President for some one who outsourced jobs to Communist China!

Can’t we go back to what Works, higher unionization, New Deal Demand Capitalism, more progressive taxes, higher Min wage, and back to being a MFG supper power that does not import far more than it exports. It works in the other developed nations. Maybe we could #1 again in some important areas and be exceptional again.

Regards

Viper
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
EMBARRASSED YET?

Viper
Embarrassed? No, but I am mystified why the actions of the GOP are defended by blue collar workers and others in the working class.

I have a brother that is one of these people. When we talk about politics, we pretty much agree about the state of this country and what we want to see improve. But he sees the problem lying in the leadership of the left and liberals in general whereas I see the problem lying in the leadership of the right and our corporate oligarchy. Our goals and desires for this country are the same but we can't agree on how to get there.

On the other hand, my brother told me that he also thinks Obama is going to stage a coup in 2016 and the reason behind this is that Obama is Muslim. After he said this, I changed the subject to the weather.

mystified...
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Embarrassed? No, but I am mystified why the actions of the GOP are defended by blue collar workers and others in the working class.

I have a brother that is one of these people. When we talk about politics, we pretty much agree about the state of this country and what we want to see improve. But he sees the problem lying in the leadership of the left and liberals in general whereas I see the problem lying in the leadership of the right and our corporate oligarchy. Our goals and desires for this country are the same but we can't agree on how to get there.

On the other hand, my brother told me that he also thinks Obama is going to stage a coup in 2016 and the reason behind this is that Obama is Muslim. After he said this, I changed the subject to the weather.

mystified...
Obama doesn't need to stage a coup. The problem is systemic, although Obama is an egotistical dick wadd. The person that replaces Obama will be part of that system.

The "coup" has already happened and is the system itself, not the particular douche bag in the oval office at any given time.
 
Top