Posts Tagged ‘Economics’
Posted in corruption, Economics, Economics, recession, income redistribution, Politics, Uncategorized, tagged Class warfare, distribution, Economics, Income, politics, poverty, redistribution on Jam3000000amSun, 03 Mar 2013 08:32:28 +000013 10, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in corruption, Economics, recession, income redistribution, the Rigged Game, tagged 2012, Economics, Republican Party on Jam1000000amThu, 03 Jan 2013 11:57:36 +000013 10, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in corruption, Economics, Economics, recession, income redistribution, Politics, Recessions, the Rigged Game, wealth redistribution, tagged Alan Krueger, Barack Obama, Ben bernake, CEO, Democratic Party, earl blumenauer, Economics, Federal Reserve, Free trade, Goldman Sachs, income redistribution, John Boehner, leadership, mitt romney, morgan stanley, Pay, Rand Paul, Republcian party, Ron Wyden, the Rigged Game, Trans Pacific free trade agreement on Jpm9000000pmMon, 17 Sep 2012 15:28:28 +000012 10, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Number one is real simple. I predicted it in my book, The Rigged Game: Corporate America and a People Betrayed, that income inequality is growing in the United States. President Obama, Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, the Democratic party leadership, Mitt Romney and the Republican party leadership, know this. They all have the same plan regardless of who wins the upcoming presidential election. They plan to make sure income inequality continues to grow by redistributing income and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent.
Currently, the 1 percent receive about 30 percent of all income in the US, up from about 7-8 percent in 1980. That means the 99 percent have less money to purchase stuff with, which is why the economy is mired in this Great Recession, jobs are scarce, and the economy is tilting on the edge of an economic abyss that will make our current situation look like the good old days.
There is one key difference between the two; Republicans want to redistribute income to the 1 percent faster than the Democrats. Big Deal. The end result is the same; the economic disenfranchisement of the 99 percent. It will soon be banana republic time in the United States. Political disenfranchisement has already occurred.
“The middle class is shrinking. According to Prof. Alan Krueger, Chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, ‘the shift in income inequality over the last three decades is the equivalent of moving $1.1 trillion of income from the 99 percent to the top 1 percent every single year.’” There’s a reason for this. That’s because $1.1 trillion of income has been redistributed every year on average from the 99 to the 1 percent via free trade treaties, deregulation and privatization scams.
Posted in corruption, culture, Economics, Economics, recession, income redistribution, Mitt Romney, the Rigged Game, wealth redistribution, tagged 1 percent, 99 percent, corporations, Economics, income redistribution, Labor, mitt romney, national income, share, supply side, Tax cuts, The Rich on Jam8000000amThu, 02 Aug 2012 10:47:04 +000012 10, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Parasite Wall Street Mitt Romney says the US jobs numbers are catastrophic, horrible and even worse, and the US needs to cut taxes for corporations and the rich, as well as bust unions, to solve the problem. Then we’d open the floodgates to millions of jobs. That’s pure bull crap, and Wall Street Mitt knows it.
Right now US corporations are sitting on $1.7 trillion in the US and over $5 trillion worldwide. Apple Inc. is sitting on $117 billion. Why isn’t supply-side economics working? There’s only one answer. It never has. It was always a lie to deceive the 99 percent. So giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich will only allow them to purchase more political power with which to suck the rest of us dryer, thereby depressing the economy and jobs markets further. Then the 1 percent will use their financial muscle to legislatively steal more from the 99 percent and stick their ill gotten gains in their own pockets. That’s why Wall Street Mitt’s call for more tax cuts for corporations and the rich will only lead to more disaster for the 99 percent.
That’s precisely why labor’s share of total national income has sunk to its lowest level since records have been kept. That’s the real issue and the real economic point that needs to be made. Demand is weak because the middle and poor classes have been legislatively sucked financially dry by the parasites of the 1 percent.
Click the link below for the rest of the story.
Posted in auto bailout, Economics, Economics, recession, the Rigged Game, tagged 2012, Economics, House of Representatives, obama, Paul Krugman, Republicans on Jam6000000amTue, 05 Jun 2012 11:32:10 +000012 10, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
The Republican Party leadership continues to argue that the best way to spur the economy to great heights is to “cut spending and cut taxes on the rich.” By now, everybody but a large number of foolish and ignorant Republican party members know this isn’t true. Here’s something most people don’t know.
The Obama administration, largely because they’re Wall Street puppets and due to Republican party obstructionism in the House of Representatives, have been following this course. Click below to read the complete story.
There is something not mentioned in the link below. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have one common goal; make the affluent richer by soaking the rest of us dry. To that end both parties have been extraordinarily successful!
Posted in corruption, Economics, Economics, recession, the Rigged Game, tagged Al Gore, capitalism, collapse, decline, Economics, mutual funds on Jam2000000amThu, 16 Feb 2012 10:51:52 +000012 10, 2010 | 1 Comment »
The corporate economic system is not sustainable. The US is in the midst of a long term, slow motion economic collapse. For the vast majority of people the system may get marginally better in the short term, especially in the months before an important election, but in the long term things are getting worse. The government will continue to enact policies that redistribute income from working people to the rich. But some people are beginning to realize this, or at least they say so.
To receive a free copy, leave a way for me to communicate with you like an email address, home address, or telephone number. Whatever makes you feel most comfortable. I’ll also send you some other alternative, realistic, non-Foxnews, non-Koch Brothers, non-Bush, non-Mankiw economics that I can photocopy for you. These are from reliable sources, such as Nobel prize winners, like Gunnar Myrdal.
Campus — November 2, 2011 2:23 am
By Harvard Talks Politics
The following letter was sent to Greg Mankiw by the organizers of today’s Economics 10 walkout.
Wednesday November 2, 2011
Dear Professor Mankiw—
Today, we are walking out of your class, Economics 10, in order to express our discontent with the bias inherent in this introductory economics course. We are deeply concerned about the way that this bias affects students, the University, and our greater society.
As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits and diverse disciplines, which range from Economics, to Government, to Environmental Sciences and Public Policy, and beyond. Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.
A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.
Care in presenting an unbiased perspective on economics is particularly important for an introductory course of 700 students that nominally provides a sound foundation for further study in economics. Many Harvard students do not have the ability to opt out of Economics 10. This class is required for Economics and Environmental Science and Public Policy concentrators, while Social Studies concentrators must take an introductory economics course—and the only other eligible class, Professor Steven Margolin’s class Critical Perspectives on Economics, is only offered every other year (and not this year). Many other students simply desire an analytic understanding of economics as part of a quality liberal arts education. Furthermore, Economics 10 makes it difficult for subsequent economics courses to teach effectively as it offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding on which other courses can expand. Students should not be expected to avoid this class—or the whole discipline of economics—as a method of expressing discontent.
Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and in shaping public policy around the world. If Harvard fails to equip its students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their actions are likely to harm the global financial system. The last five years of economic turmoil have been proof enough of this.
We are walking out today to join a Boston-wide march protesting the corporatization of higher education as part of the global Occupy movement. Since the biased nature of Economics 10 contributes to and symbolizes the increasing economic inequality in America, we are walking out of your class today both to protest your inadequate discussion of basic economic theory and to lend our support to a movement that is changing American discourse on economic injustice. Professor Mankiw, we ask that you take our concerns and our walk-out seriously.
Concerned students of Economics 10
Posted in "John Hively", Economics, Economics, recession, Politics, Recessions, the Rigged Game, Uncategorized, tagged Economics, Greg Mankiw, Harvard on Jpm11000000pmThu, 03 Nov 2011 12:34:09 +000011 10, 2010 | 1 Comment »
Harvard students who participated in a walk-out of economics professor Greg Mankiw’s class on Wednesday issued an open letter accusing Mankiw of pushing a biased view of economics that perpetuates inequality.
“As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory,” the students wrote. “Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.”
The students also wrote that because Harvard routinely churns out future world leaders in government and business, the school had to be especially cautious to provide students with a fair, solid education.
John Hively has something for students interested in this issue. Be the first to comment to this post and get a free copy of The Rigged Game: Corporate America and a People Betrayed. Just leave a way for me to get in touch with you. The first Harvard student that comments on this story can get a free copy, as well, even if the first person to comment is also a student at Harvard. –John Hively
President Barack Obama on Monday tapped one of the nation’s top labor economists, Alan Krueger, to become the next chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, a selection that underscores the president’s “urgent mission” to jump-start the economy.
Why is the selection of Krueger important? For one, the president decided he wanted to get reelected. So he selected Krueger because he isn’t known to be a former high level employee of Goldman Sachs or Citibank. The Princeton University professor also has performed legitimate research in the labor market. He discovered, for example, that raising the minimum wage of workers in the restaurant industry increases employment in that industry, most likely because it increases the demand for restaurant products. That is something, of course, that FDR knew way back in 1933. And Obama surely knew it last year and the year before, and a dozen years ago. But back in 2008, Obama instead chose to hire Goldman Sachs hacks as his economic advisers. Now that his job security is in jeopardy with the coming election, now that the only difference between Bush and Obama has been exposed (it takes the Republicans a few days more to get what they want under Obama than under Bush, as they continue to redistribute income from the middle class to the rich with Obama’s blessings) the president has decided to put on some working class window dressing so as to appear that he’s working on behalf of working people, which he isn’t, and which he has never intended to do.
“Alan brings a wealth of experience to the job. He’s one of the nation’s leading economists,” Obama said in White House Rose Garden as he introduced the Princeton economics professor, who from 2009 to 2010 served as the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for economic policy and chief economist. “I have nothing but confidence in Alan as he takes on this important role in my economic team.”
Obama said he expects that Krueger will offer advice that is not driven by partisan politics, especially now that president cannot get any legislation passed without conceding to all of the Republican demands. “We need folks in Washington to make decisions based on what’s best for the country, not what’s best for any political party or special interest,” he said. Like he really expects to do that.
The nomination sets the tone for the administration’s jobs-focused fall, as the White House prepares to announce a major new jobs initiative after Labor Day. There are few prominent labor economists, and the president’s decision to pick one underscores the administration’s aims.
Obama emphasized that reviving the economy is his priority. “Next week, I will be laying out a series of steps that Congress can take immediately to put more money in the pockets of working families, middle-class families,” he said.
The president also pledged the federal government’s continued dedication to providing assistance to those who suffered damage in Hurricane Irene. “It’s going to take time to recover from a storm of this magnitude,” he said, especially in New England, where the storm set off major flooding.
If confirmed, Krueger would be Obama’s third CEA chairman, following Christina Romer and Austan Goolsbee, who left the White House this summer to return to his professorship at the University of Chicago.
Krueger, 50, arrived at Princeton in 1987, after finishing his Ph.D. at Harvard. Jointly appointed in the economics department and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Krueger has examined job growth, the effects of increases in the minimum wage and the long-term unemployed.
He spent a year-and-a-half in his previous Obama administration post, working on stimulus measures including the Cash for Clunkers program, Build America Bonds and the Hire America Act. He also served as chief economist at the Labor Department during part of the Clinton administration.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner praised the selection of Krueger, saying he is “one of the most distinguished” people to serve as assistant secretary for economic policy. “Given his expertise in labor economics, he is precisely the right choice to lead the CEA at this moment in history.”
Geithner weighed in on the pick, a Treasury source told POLITICO.
“We obviously said we were strongly supportive of Alan based on his excellent work as the assistant secretary for economic policy here,” said a source familiar with the conversations between the White House and Treasury.
Krueger’s nomination must be confirmed by the Senate, but he’s already cleared that process once in recent years — for the Treasury post — suggesting that the administration has confidence he’ll be able to easily do so again.
Perhaps the president has finally come to his senses, but since he can’t get anything passed through congress, he probably it won’t hurt his attempts to enrich Wall Street at the expense of working people. However, it’s likely the selection of Krueger will make no difference to working folks. His selection at the worst should do no harm, like the president did when he selected Timothy Geither and Lawrence Summers.