The Economic Populist
Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
Most Popular
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 183456 reads
Wow! 243,000 New Jobs Created in January
- 49836 reads
CPI for November 2009
- 14580 reads
New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures
- 949482 reads
User login
Recent comments
Poll
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 183456 reads
Wow! 243,000 New Jobs Created in January
- 49836 reads
CPI for November 2009
- 14580 reads
New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures
- 949482 reads
The Golden Rule
- 1826119 reads
Will the NY Attorney General Bring Doomsday Charges Against Wall Street? If So, How Long Will He Survive?
- 1215985 reads
New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures
- 949078 reads
How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth?
- 361599 reads
VAT or Value Added Tax is Getting a Look in D.C.
- 345165 reads
U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression
- 320765 reads
The war on the middle class
- 314778 reads
House discusses 401k/IRA confiscation
- 313912 reads
Tax Cuts for the Rich Do Not Generate Jobs
- 279572 reads
.
It way past time for the American people to start putting representatives into the U.S. House from parties other than the tried-and-untrue Worse Party and Worser Party.
Suppose that neither major party could form a majority in the House, would that be bad for the economy, for jobs, for change? I think not.
"Our government"
.... they are going to win in 2012, unless people begin to vote for candidates who announce in other than the two major parties. With the exceptions of Libertarian Party, Green Party and Socialist Party, the various alternative parties before and since Ross Perot's Reform Party have tended to be dysfunctional caricatures rather than actual political parties opposing both the major parties.
People should be forming a New Reform Party or a Tariff Party, but that isn't happening. The "Tea Party" was hugely successful tapping into the desire of the American people for a true populist choice, but the "Tea Party" -- originally formed at the grass roots by protectionists -- was co-opted as early as the beginning of 2009 by the RNC (that have never seen a fast-track 'free' trade agreement they didn't like).
It would be like a B-12 shot with a double Americano for this country to produce a viable New Reform Party or a Tariff Party, coming out to do battle with the political elites, including the media masters. However, if the choices are Green, Libertarian and Socialist ... fine! Better to "waste" a vote or a campaign dollar on one of those than to waste a vote or a campaign dollar on any candidate of the tried-and-untrue political elites.
"higher levels of corruption (and even state-sponsored kleptocracy)"
Does that bring to mind any country other than China?
The entire sentence reads, as follows:
"Too much centralization, and too much state control invariably leads in the long term to economic sclerosis and higher levels of corruption (and even state-sponsored kleptocracy)."
Now suppose that we consider the nature of the corporatist state, where MNCs and the state become indistinguishable ... might "too much centralization and too much corporate state control invariably lead to economic sclerosis and higher levels of corruption (and even state-sponsored kleptocracy"?
NO doubt about it. If we did, from just even the polling, trade would have been reformed ages ago. That is desired across the political spectrum.
We now have absurd extreme at civil war with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce I guess.
These special interests are literally destroying the United States at this point. I think most of America is waking up to this fact, but they often don't understand enough to figure out what we need to do to get our nation back.
Media of course spins it to fiction so that doesn't help the situation.
Totally agree. BUT the GOP extremists are at least a clear and known danger......... we see them for the extremists and corporate lackeys they are. Osellout is in many ways a greater danger - a stealth lackey who says one thing in order to sneak thru a non-progressive agenda.
The winner is Wall St and the wealthy who have set up the perfect Good cop - Bad cop routine.
While I think this site focuses in on Obama because frankly we probably "lean left", lest we not forget the pure economic insanity spewed by the likes of Eric Cantor, Mike Pence and other cloaked corrupt conservatives.
Remember, they think that the entire social safety net should be dismantled. No social security, no Medicare and no Medicaid, nothing.
They have no problems walking over the dead bodies all the while screaming abortion is wrong. Don't forget those crazies.
Between pushing Unfair Trade Agreements, stealth Social Security - Medicare - Medicaid cuts via the manufactured Debt Ceiling "crisis", pushing extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, and raising "campaign" funds from Wall St, the poor guy doesn't have enough time to work on his golf game
The graphic says it all. That's how I feel, our government is shooting at us with AK-47's economically, can't hit a moving target, thinking they are going to win the 2012 election while they sink the boat. They are scum!
You might also check out Trade Reform's post how globalism destroyed jobs.
The ultimate question from this report is who is the economy for? Corporations and quarterly profits, even GDP, or is it for citizens of the nation. The two are seriously diverging in the United States.
I appreciate this kind of information. Please count me in as a new fan of this blog. Thanks...
Here's who the Federal Reserve is blaming for the current housing crisis:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-is-to-blame-for-america...
Hint - it's not the bank's aggressive lending practices.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you are thinking because the U.S. prints it's own money why not print some to pay bond holders, each $ has a value associated with it and each $ is itself an promissory note.
A new law to stop the insane practice of not considering the unemployed for job openings would be great, but it needs to come with enforcement measures too. We already have laws on the books for age discrimination that are violated every day because there is no enforcement and the onus is on the peon job applicant to prove discrimination.
Since all that most businesses care about is money, the Federal government should offer economic incentives to employers to hire the unemployed. This would give the unemployed new hope, confidence, and the dignity and pride of having a job and earning a living.
When somebody is down, you don't kick sand in their face, you help them out. That's the least we should expect from our government.
Has anyone noticed?
Those who do not have jobs are unhappy. Those who have jobs are also unhappy.
For many it is a 9am - 5pm period of stress, increased blood pressure & greying hair
(see Obama).
Our society has become rotten to the core. The unholy nexus of the Government - Corporates - Media is poisoning the world.
I say let it all burn. In nature we have volcanoes that destroy vegetation & animal
life every once in a while. It is good for the ecosystem. There is a chance for something new & uncorrupted to emerge from the ashes.
Of course single payer will lower costs. Ask yourself what value does a private health insurance company add? It's not healthcare, that's done by doctors and nurses in clinics and hospitals. Insurance companies merely collect money and pay the bills, while taking 20 to 33% off the top.
Leave the WTO without first putting a protectionist policy (Across-the-Board) tariff in place? Make no sense to me.
But I wouldn't worry about the WTO imposing fines or whatever. The WTO is a paper tiger.
Once the American public takes charge and forces Washington to enact an Across-the-Board tariff, the WTO becomes a non-issue. 'Fast-track' trade "agreements" are unconstitutional anyway.
Milton Friedman and Barack Obama are both Nobel lauteates, winning large money prizes along with their awards.
Q. What is the difference between Milton Friedman and Barack Obama?
A. Friedman kept his Nobel money for himself.
In this video, Milton Friedman presents a straw-man argument for the virtues of greed.
Smugly ensconced in his Nobel laureatehood, Friedman grants humanity this choice: unregulated global finance capitalism versus Stalinism-Naziism. Thank you, Mr. Great Nobelist, but NO THANKS. No intelligent person could ever take this straw-man argument seriously, no matter how smug and self-satisfied Friedman is with his pedantic sophistry.
It's a false argument: Friedman notes that greed has been involved in every society. Well, yes, and violence has been involved in every society, but even the most wild-eyed anti-government libertarian would never proclaim that violence should not be subject to regulation! Friedman is guilty of gross fallacies of logic, including non sequitur and strawman argument.
Concentrations of power and wealth certainly occur in every society and it would be silly to suggest that power and wealth must be shared equally among all citizens. But does it follow that concentrations of wealth and power should not be subject to regulatory downsizing? That's the conclusion that would logically be drawn from Friedman's stated philosophy!
Pompous ass
... as long as they are acting with greedy intentions.
After all, Nobelist Milton Friedman has assured us that, as long as greed is unrestrained and incentivized, the results will contribute to real increases in the wealth of our globalized economy!
... riding the wild bull in the precious metals markets ... somebody with insider connection to the 'leaders' in Congress?
What? Could information be worth money to men with money, computers and fast connections? Would any member of Congress do such a thing? Surely it would have to be reported ....
Yeah I listened to the President's speech tonight. Tuned in to NPR to hear it. I'd say it was short and maybe the best speech he's ever made. No one has ever said that Obama can't speechify.
After Obama wrapped it up, I didn't stay tuned for the spin and all. I can only take so much.
Numerian notes that "hardly any politicians tell us the truth – that the middle class and poor are tapped out." Well, Obama at least was strongly hinting at that reality.
Problem is, sometimes these politicians say one thing and then ... well, you know ...
(Even if I had teevee, I would only listen to such things, never watch, because I am aware that if you watch, your brain opens up more and tends to accept whatever okeydoke the talking heads want to feed you ... there's a message in the visuals, intended to distract.)
Pages