In the last SIGTARP report, they had numerous ongoing investigation on criminality, surrounding the entire financial sector. The 100% AIG payout was "implied" and of course no one can disclose or comment on ongoing investigations....I'd like to see criminal charges happen. I'd like to see some of these financial institutions dismantled and the money given back to the people.
I am so pissed, so sick of theft by means of high fallutin' gobbledygook while the entire globe, the U.S. economy and esp. long term employment, is being turned into a globe of serfs...we're getting from the IMF that people should "adjust" to the "new normal" and to be "competitive" one must "reduce wages" and "social safety nets" and "devalue their currency".
William Jennings Bryan spoke about a somewhat similar problem in 1896.
It seems to be by design that the workers should suffer for the benefit of monetary policy of the wealthy.
James I appreciate your concise and decriptive analysis of The Big Short! Nice to have an honest look that explores and gives insight too!
Sincerely,
Steven Sutherland
Courage To Win
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/CourageToWin.html
I think corporations are twisting this rage all up and down to make people believe in policies which will take 'em down the toilet.
And the "left" (whose left is this?) is busy doing things like claiming, well, unless you give insurance companies a wind fall, you won't get health care and I have seen even worse, where economics literally turned upside down to advance a special interest political agenda.
I think at least I, and I suspect most other EP readers, would benefit from any article you might write more fully explaining your disagreements with Lewis' conclusions. Especially since I have not read the book, and am unlikely, given the pinch I'm in, to buy it.
essential services are heavily unionized. Look at the union percentages on any of these areas and this has nothing to do with demonizing anyone. Remember, this is an economics site, and I'm looking at the big picture on overall GDP multipliers and bang for the buck on government expenditures.
Just reducing the unemployment rolls, while a great goal, is not the ultimate power of Keynesian stimulus, it is to boost up GDP not only through temporary gov. expenditures, but also investment, not just C, or consumption per the GDP equation.
EP is an economics site, so from a macro economic viewpoint is all that I am referring to. That is the point of this site, to discuss data, statistics, bills, legislation, policy from a macro economic view as well as financial analysis view.
I am fairly pro union, demonstrated over and over again in posts on this site, but that is not going to have me put blinders on the fact these bills target union jobs.
This is targeting essential services in gov't. I would imagine teachers, firefighters, police and certain state and city employees are essential.
I know people like to demonize certain unions but the bottom line is that these are jobs. If we don't want to save state and city jobs because we don't like unions - give me a break - there are still a lot of gov't jobs not unionized and that just means more and more people on unemployment.
"Union heavy"? I don't see any where in the text of the bill that money should go to "union" only workers. In fact, I haven't seen in ARRA that money should only go to only "union workers". The only reference to union is that workers hired under program have to comply with existing collective bargaining agreements.
If we can save and/or create jobs - union or otherwise - that is what will help the economy.
Need the bill #, title and then after that, of course what kind of disaster it turns into, if it was passed.
Ex. what kind of "local community organizers"....that is very suspicious to me, but I think giving some major incentive, tax credit, even a kick back if private employers hire someone and do meaningful on the job training and keep that person at least 3 years would be effective. Corporations used to do and provide on the job training routinely, including all the way to PhDs in some cases and now they dump all training and skills obtainment onto the individual, which is beyond belief costly and often doesn't even result in the right kind of jobs skills.
So devil in details and I will also note, I see very "union heavy" agendas in these Stimulus bills, not that it's that awful but most of the U.S. workforce is not a union member and they are getting very neglected, then in terms of overall GDP multipliers, that too is being ignored, again due to union political clout fighting for there members and we have no lobbyists simply fighting for jobs for all, which make the most sense long term on a national economic/macro economic view.
That is NOT an anti-union statement here, union jobs are better than no jobs, but it's not often the most bang for the buck.
of neoliberal economic ideology and campaign dollars. Neoliberal ideology favors corporations, Wall Street and higher income households and those are the ones that contribute to political parties so it's not surprising to see very little difference between D's and R's.
I strongly believe that It Doesn't Have to be This Way. It truly doesn't. The only limitations to full employment are political not economics. But there is no doubt that government spending should be focused on productive outcomes which can deliver benefits now and into the future.
It is shameful that an Administration (particularly a Democratic one) is willing to say with a straight face that high unemployment will be with us for awhile.
I know it helps states and cities with those damn social service and government workers. But those workers have families, pay taxes, have mortgages/rent and contribute to the economy.
try to promote Jobs bills, policy, trade policy, financial reform and other efforts which are not only truly Stimulative, but also tight as a drum to be in the national interest and we'll get a real bang for the buck.
Personally, because I do up all of these economic indicators, it's not because I'm data crazy (although I will confess to a love of statistics), it's because I see that output gap, it's causes and we are so royally screwed here.
But just spending to spend, well, theft doesn't really increase real GDP, either does making sure China has the new emerging alternative energies manufacturing sector locked (or Germany or France for that matter)....
So, it's not just spending, it's right spending which can be stimulative....
Stimulating Halliburton is not stimulating the economy. Making sure Goldman Sachs has record profits simply by planing the spread on the Fed free loan money and U.S. treasuries isn't Stimulative.
We have a One trillion dollar output gap. The biggest effects of the poorly designed 2009 stimulus are fading. The current jobs bill is weak. Where is the increased output going to come from? Business investment, consumer spending, Net exports?
I had a thought last night and had an epiphany, to understand where the tea parties are coming from, on the "stop taxing us" mantra.
Then, I thought about the billions going to no-bid Iraq contractors, the billions going to the Banksters, who continue on with their mega bonuses and now using taxpayer cheap Fed funds,stopping any reforms and especially stopping anything on derivatives..to the health care disaster, where the choices are presented to insurance company mega giveaway or nothing, and then the Stimulus itself, where we have billions going offshore, stimulating China, stimulating Germany....
They have one huge legitimate point here, our money isn't being used for the public good and national interest, more of a bargaining chip to give away to the global financial elites who lobby and have "friends of pals" with "strong connections" inside government and Congress to get it for them.
This stuff infuriates me and I'm a huge believer in mixed governments, strong social structures, New Deal programs, Keynesian economics.
But what is one going to do when spending should be relabeled corrupt giveaway, or picking the pockets of America in a large part?
The list of corruption, billions lost, ridiculous, never done contracts, U.S. taxpayer funds going offshore, propped up financial institutions pocketing billions that subtracts from the overall economic health of the nation, .....
I could fill this entire comment form with examples.
The government shouts reform everyday. The only meddling the government should do in private business is upholding contracts. The millions of pages put out by congress is impossible to be effective or reasonable. We are a free people!
EU has significant problems particularly because its only a monetary union and nothing else.
The "unsustainable fiscal policies" he talks about relates to EU countries. In the U.S. the deficit is a result of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment kicking in and a dramatic drop in tax revenue. I would argue we need more and better government spending to address mass unemployment.
In the last SIGTARP report, they had numerous ongoing investigation on criminality, surrounding the entire financial sector. The 100% AIG payout was "implied" and of course no one can disclose or comment on ongoing investigations....I'd like to see criminal charges happen. I'd like to see some of these financial institutions dismantled and the money given back to the people.
I am so pissed, so sick of theft by means of high fallutin' gobbledygook while the entire globe, the U.S. economy and esp. long term employment, is being turned into a globe of serfs...we're getting from the IMF that people should "adjust" to the "new normal" and to be "competitive" one must "reduce wages" and "social safety nets" and "devalue their currency".
William Jennings Bryan spoke about a somewhat similar problem in 1896.
It seems to be by design that the workers should suffer for the benefit of monetary policy of the wealthy.
James I appreciate your concise and decriptive analysis of The Big Short! Nice to have an honest look that explores and gives insight too!
Sincerely,
Steven Sutherland
Courage To Win
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/CourageToWin.html
I think corporations are twisting this rage all up and down to make people believe in policies which will take 'em down the toilet.
And the "left" (whose left is this?) is busy doing things like claiming, well, unless you give insurance companies a wind fall, you won't get health care and I have seen even worse, where economics literally turned upside down to advance a special interest political agenda.
on Vanity Fair. It is very, very readable: Betting on the Blind Side
I think at least I, and I suspect most other EP readers, would benefit from any article you might write more fully explaining your disagreements with Lewis' conclusions. Especially since I have not read the book, and am unlikely, given the pinch I'm in, to buy it.
essential services are heavily unionized. Look at the union percentages on any of these areas and this has nothing to do with demonizing anyone. Remember, this is an economics site, and I'm looking at the big picture on overall GDP multipliers and bang for the buck on government expenditures.
Just reducing the unemployment rolls, while a great goal, is not the ultimate power of Keynesian stimulus, it is to boost up GDP not only through temporary gov. expenditures, but also investment, not just C, or consumption per the GDP equation.
Here are the largest unions from 2003 data.
EP is an economics site, so from a macro economic viewpoint is all that I am referring to. That is the point of this site, to discuss data, statistics, bills, legislation, policy from a macro economic view as well as financial analysis view.
I am fairly pro union, demonstrated over and over again in posts on this site, but that is not going to have me put blinders on the fact these bills target union jobs.
This is targeting essential services in gov't. I would imagine teachers, firefighters, police and certain state and city employees are essential.
I know people like to demonize certain unions but the bottom line is that these are jobs. If we don't want to save state and city jobs because we don't like unions - give me a break - there are still a lot of gov't jobs not unionized and that just means more and more people on unemployment.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Teachers, firefighters, police and federal employees, state, are heavily unionized.
Here is the text of the bill
"Union heavy"? I don't see any where in the text of the bill that money should go to "union" only workers. In fact, I haven't seen in ARRA that money should only go to only "union workers". The only reference to union is that workers hired under program have to comply with existing collective bargaining agreements.
If we can save and/or create jobs - union or otherwise - that is what will help the economy.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Need the bill #, title and then after that, of course what kind of disaster it turns into, if it was passed.
Ex. what kind of "local community organizers"....that is very suspicious to me, but I think giving some major incentive, tax credit, even a kick back if private employers hire someone and do meaningful on the job training and keep that person at least 3 years would be effective. Corporations used to do and provide on the job training routinely, including all the way to PhDs in some cases and now they dump all training and skills obtainment onto the individual, which is beyond belief costly and often doesn't even result in the right kind of jobs skills.
So devil in details and I will also note, I see very "union heavy" agendas in these Stimulus bills, not that it's that awful but most of the U.S. workforce is not a union member and they are getting very neglected, then in terms of overall GDP multipliers, that too is being ignored, again due to union political clout fighting for there members and we have no lobbyists simply fighting for jobs for all, which make the most sense long term on a national economic/macro economic view.
That is NOT an anti-union statement here, union jobs are better than no jobs, but it's not often the most bang for the buck.
of neoliberal economic ideology and campaign dollars. Neoliberal ideology favors corporations, Wall Street and higher income households and those are the ones that contribute to political parties so it's not surprising to see very little difference between D's and R's.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I strongly believe that It Doesn't Have to be This Way. It truly doesn't. The only limitations to full employment are political not economics. But there is no doubt that government spending should be focused on productive outcomes which can deliver benefits now and into the future.
It is shameful that an Administration (particularly a Democratic one) is willing to say with a straight face that high unemployment will be with us for awhile.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Local Jobs for America Act. This is a lot more aggressive than the Jobs Bill and much more direct.
I know it helps states and cities with those damn social service and government workers. But those workers have families, pay taxes, have mortgages/rent and contribute to the economy.
Now if we can get a direct jobs program.
EPI Applauds Local Jobs for America Act
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
try to promote Jobs bills, policy, trade policy, financial reform and other efforts which are not only truly Stimulative, but also tight as a drum to be in the national interest and we'll get a real bang for the buck.
Personally, because I do up all of these economic indicators, it's not because I'm data crazy (although I will confess to a love of statistics), it's because I see that output gap, it's causes and we are so royally screwed here.
But just spending to spend, well, theft doesn't really increase real GDP, either does making sure China has the new emerging alternative energies manufacturing sector locked (or Germany or France for that matter)....
So, it's not just spending, it's right spending which can be stimulative....
Stimulating Halliburton is not stimulating the economy. Making sure Goldman Sachs has record profits simply by planing the spread on the Fed free loan money and U.S. treasuries isn't Stimulative.
We have a One trillion dollar output gap. The biggest effects of the poorly designed 2009 stimulus are fading. The current jobs bill is weak. Where is the increased output going to come from? Business investment, consumer spending, Net exports?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I had a thought last night and had an epiphany, to understand where the tea parties are coming from, on the "stop taxing us" mantra.
Then, I thought about the billions going to no-bid Iraq contractors, the billions going to the Banksters, who continue on with their mega bonuses and now using taxpayer cheap Fed funds,stopping any reforms and especially stopping anything on derivatives..to the health care disaster, where the choices are presented to insurance company mega giveaway or nothing, and then the Stimulus itself, where we have billions going offshore, stimulating China, stimulating Germany....
They have one huge legitimate point here, our money isn't being used for the public good and national interest, more of a bargaining chip to give away to the global financial elites who lobby and have "friends of pals" with "strong connections" inside government and Congress to get it for them.
This stuff infuriates me and I'm a huge believer in mixed governments, strong social structures, New Deal programs, Keynesian economics.
But what is one going to do when spending should be relabeled corrupt giveaway, or picking the pockets of America in a large part?
The list of corruption, billions lost, ridiculous, never done contracts, U.S. taxpayer funds going offshore, propped up financial institutions pocketing billions that subtracts from the overall economic health of the nation, .....
I could fill this entire comment form with examples.
The government shouts reform everyday. The only meddling the government should do in private business is upholding contracts. The millions of pages put out by congress is impossible to be effective or reasonable. We are a free people!
Clearly, the world cannot sustain so many debt-financed billionaires.
EU has significant problems particularly because its only a monetary union and nothing else.
The "unsustainable fiscal policies" he talks about relates to EU countries. In the U.S. the deficit is a result of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment kicking in and a dramatic drop in tax revenue. I would argue we need more and better government spending to address mass unemployment.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
From the numbers, I'm really not surprised and thought about this immediately when they just approved the TARP blank check.
Pages