Thoughts On The Economy

Earlier today, I had the misfortune of listening to a couple minutes of Fox "News" blather about the economy. They claimed the following:

1. Employment only increases when wealth is created.

2. Democrats are only interested in "spread the wealth", which does not create jobs.

In this note, I will examine these claims and hopefully prove why they are myths that can be disregarded by rational thinkers.

Claim: Employment only increases when wealth is created.

This is a common talking point amongst right wing pundits who never actually created a job. While it is true that often job creation leads to wealth creation amongst the investors who fund the job creation, it isnot necessarily true that wealth must be even in existence for initial job creation. (Think: credit.) Wealth already exists yet job creation is sloooooooow. Corporations are sitting on vast amounts of dough. Meanwhile, they are not in a hurry to create jobs. Wealthy investors are putting their dough overseas, rather than investing in American jobs. 

Wealth alone does not create jobs. As I was taught by my professors at Stephen F. Austin State University, jobs are created when consumer demand rises beyond the existing ability of corporations to create products and services to meet consumer demand. Why would a corporation create jobs, in spite of having dough on hand, if there was no work (production of goods or services) for these new employees to do? In America, the vast members of the consumer class, which far outnumber the wealthy class, belong to the poor and the middle classes. The poor and the middle classes aren't spending enough dough to create the demand required to persuade corporations to hire more employees.

The reason for this lack of demand is simple: there is not enough dough in the hands of consumers for them to spend on additional stuff.There is a finite amount of dough in the economy to go around. This fact is perfectly OK with all the conservatives who complain about the fed creating money (probably because they already have all the dough they need), but it does mean that, as the wealthy class in America earns a bigger and bigger percentage of the available dough, there will be less available for the consumer class to spend.

The cure to this problem relates to claim number 2.

Claim: Democrats are only interested in "spread the wealth".

Democrats are among the people who realize that"spreading the wealth" won't solve anything, as conservatives claim.However, we must spread the income. We must make more of the limited amount of dollars floating in our economy available to the consumer class. Until we"spread the cash" among the consumer class, so they can actually spend on consumer goods, we will not see a robust increase in job growth. Such is Capitalism.

As I've stated before, the quickest way to get cash to the consumer class is via a temporary massive tax cut on middle and lower income levels. Say, no income tax at all on incomes below $60,000 per year. On incomes above $60,000 per year, charge taxes at the levels seen during the Clinton years.This scheme would put thousands of dollars of spendable income in the hands of the consumer class while not penalizing the wealthy class. This would be a temporary tax cut that would disappear as the economy improves. 

Feel free to discuss this stuff. One question you might ask is what would be the effect upon government spending of such a massive tax cut.I have an answer, if you ask the question!

As usual, Fox"News" misplaces the blame for our faltering economy. Until we take the step I've outlined above, we can look forward to continuing economic stagnation.    

~ Stevo 

In Fox "News"land, Christians can be experts on Islam, but not the other way around...

On Friday, Fox News invited renowned religious scholar and prolific author Reza Aslan onto the air, ostensibly to discuss his latest book on Christianity, ‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.’

But instead, host Lauren Green launched into an Islamophobic attack on Aslan’s credentials and expressed incredulity that he, a self-professed Muslim, would be able to write about Christianity in a fair and honest way.

Throughout the nearly 10 minute interview, Green inaccurately sought to portray Aslan as a religiously-motivated agitator with a hidden agenda out to discredit the very religion that he himself once practiced.

Read it here.

The article presents the many qualifications that Reza Aslan has which qualifies him to discuss Christianity. Now if only all the Christians who come onto Fox "News" to cast Islam in a negative light had similar qualifications...

Republican Health Care Panic

...there’s a palpable sense of anxiety, even despair, among conservative pundits and analysts. Better-informed people on the right seem, finally, to be facing up to a horrible truth: Health care reform, President Obama’s signature policy achievement, is probably going to work.

Moar here.

Measles is back. It had help.

Read it here.

How Big Finance Crushes Innovation and Holds Back Our Economy

Whatever happened to innovation in America? President Obama told us that our future depends on it [3]. Across the political spectrum, everyone pretty much agrees that innovation is vital to prosperity.

So why aren’t we getting the job done? Clearly, we’re in desperate need of clean technology that won’t poison us. Our information and communications systems are not up to snuff. Our infrastructure is outdated and crumbling before our eyes. We’re not investing enough in these areas, and it shows. Yet they’re necessary not only for America’s economic health, but for stability and prosperity around the globe.

The U.S. used to be the envy of the world when it came to innovation, making things that dazzled the world and enhanced the lives of millions. But the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a bipartisan think-tank that ranks 36 countries according to innovation-based competitiveness [4], tells us we’re getting pushed aside on the global innovation stage. In 2009, to the surprise of those conducting the study, the U.S. ranked #4 in innovation, behind Finland, Sweden and Singapore. In 2011, the U.S. ranking was unchanged [5]. Worse, the U.S. ranked second to last in terms of progress over the last decade.

Research by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also shows [6] that the U.S. is not making as many cutting-edge products as it used to, and that other countries with strong investment in the foundations of innovation, like education and research and development, and fewer of the things that hinder it, like income inequality, are making greater strides than we are.

Moar here.

Sabotaging Healthcare

Read it here.

Banksters Behaving Badly... Again.

Ohio bank steals woman's possessions by 'mistake,' then refuses to pay up

An Ohio woman returned from vacation to find that all of her belongings had been stolen, taken right out of her house. She knows who did it, but the local police aren't helping her. That's because Katie Barnett's stuff was stolen not by a burglar who slipped in under cover of darkness or a family member who felt it rightly belonged to them, but by a bank.

First National Bank got the wrong house, changing the locks and removing everything from Barnett's home rather than the house across the street. And no one is trying to make things right. When Barnett gave the bank president an estimate of $18,000 for her lost possessions:

“He got very firm with me and said, ‘We’re not paying you retail here, that’s just the way it is,’” Barnett said. “I did not tell them to come in my house and make me an offer. They took my stuff and I want it back.”

The shock of having her house broken into and belongings taken by mistake has now turned into anger.

“Now, I’m just angry,” Barnett said. “It wouldn’t be a big deal if they would step up and say ‘I’m sorry, we will replace your stuff.’ Instead, I’m getting attitude from them. They’re sarcastic when they talk to me. They make it sound like I’m trying to rip the bank off. All I want is my stuff back.”

Right Wing Agenda Exposed

A recent commentary by Cal Thomas exposes the agenda behind Republican obstructionism in the House and Senate. In just a few columns, the elder statesman of hyper-conservatism confirms a suspicion that most progressive observers possess regarding Republicans' behavior in government. The right wing believes that government is bad, and Republicans in government have been busily working to ensure that this is true.

"... a public loss of faith in politics and politicians increases the possibility of government becoming smaller. That could mean less spending, a smaller deficit and ultimately, one hopes, lower taxes."

This is the goal of modern-day Republicanism: small government. The right wing believes that the achievement of this goal would allow their benefactors, the richest of the rich in America, to attain wealth beyond the fabulous levels they have already achieved. 

But one has to question the assumptions in that quote from Thomas's article. 

Just what spending would be less? Republicans always push for higher military spending (which unsurprisingly helps enrich stockholders in the military/industrial complex) while legislating for decreased welfare spending for such things as food stamps (feeding poor children), education spending (ensuring that children grow up with the tools to be successful in life and NOT dependent upon the government), infrastructure spending (to prevent bridge collapses and the like), and unemployment compensation (so families who have been harmed by Republican policies can at least continue to eat). It is quite apparent that government would become smaller by limiting spending beneficial to the majority of Americans while continuing spending on projects that increase the wealth of the richest Americans.

A smaller deficit? Puhlease! Deficit spending has already decreased dramatically under the O'Bama presidency, although you never hear about it in the media. “The CBO projects a $642 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2013, down more than $200 billion from its February estimate and the smallest annual shortfall since 2008. It is the lowest level of deficit spending to date under President Obama, who faced $1 trillion or more in annual deficits during his first term.” (link) Deficits rose because of massive, unfunded spending on two wars on terrah and the public assistance spending necessitated by the economic crash that started under GWB. Deficit spending is going down and would go down quicker if Republicans would stop obstructing in Congress.

Lower taxes? Indeed. Tax rates are already lower than in decades past. Many corporations pay virtually nothing in taxes. The wealthiest Americans pay a lower tax rate than do middle class Americans. Yet that is not enough lessening of the tax burden on wealthy Republican donors! This lower tax mantra does not benefit the average American for the simple reason that in order to get even bigger tax cuts, Republicans would cut programs that help most Americans, such as Medicare, Social Security, unemployment compensation, road and bridge construction and renovation, education, etc. etc. 

I would like to thank Cal Thomas for hinting at the true reason behind the right wing's desire to kill effective, excuse me, big government: the wealthy can do without it, and that's all that matters.

Hey Mom and Dad, what is in that burger?

Hamburger chef Jamie Oliver has just won a battle against one of the largest fast food chains in the world. After Oliver showed how McDonald’s hamburgers are made, the franchise announced it will change its recipe.
According to Oliver, the fatty parts of beef are “washed” in ammonium hydroxide and used in the filling of the burger. Before this process, according to the presenter, the food is deemed unfit for human consumption.

According to the chef and presenter, Jamie Oliver, who has undertaken a war against the fast food industry: “Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold in the cheapest way for dogs, and after this process, is being given to human beings.”

Besides the low quality of the meat, the ammonium hydroxide is harmful to health. Oliver calls it “the pink slime process.”

“Why would any sensible human being put meat filled with ammonia in the mouths of their children?” asked the chef, who wages a war against the fast food industry.

More.

My Thoughts On Zimmy vs. Trayvon

Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law, states in part: "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..."

Definition of stalking, in part: pertaining to the act of pursuing or harassing .

Many people believe that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute gave George Zimmermann the right to lawfully kill Trayvon Martin. They believe the assertion that Zimmy reasonably felt in fear for his life. However, couldn't the same be said for Trayvon?

Parents and minor kiddoes are taught by law enforcement entities that if confronted by a stalker, they should run or fight. I'm a relatively intelligent person, and my intelligence tells me that Trayvon's "creepy-ass cracker" comment to his much-maligned friend, Rachel Jeantel, indicate his fear of the guy who appeared to be stalking him. If Trayvon had survived his senseless shooting, I have no doubt he would have stated his fear of Zimmy as the reason for his fighting. Thus my belief that Trayvon was doing exactly what many, if not most, parents tell their kids to do if approached by an unwanted stranger. Why didn't Trayvon run? Youth perhaps. Does that matter? Considering Zimmy's "These assholes always get away" comment, is it not likely that the outcome would have been the same even if Trayvon had run (and looked totally guilty in Zimmy's mind)?

The weird thing about this trial was that Zimmy claimed the privileges of a defendant under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law while claiming not to do so, and the court quoted parts of the law in the Jury Charge even as it claimed this case didn't revolve around the law.

Of course, Trayvon could also have claimed that he was utilizing the same law to defend himself against a perceived stalker, except, of course, he did not survive the incident in order to put forth his claim. Zimmy did survive. To the winner goes the spoils, I guess.

I do not consider it beyond reasonable doubt that Trayvon felt harassed and endangered by this stranger following him in the dark, in his vehicle. I can imagine the fear Trayvon felt when this unknown person got out of his car and approached him in the dark. I can imagine that Trayvon perceived anger in the approaching stranger, a stranger whose bad attitude was given away by his muttering only a few minutes earlier, "These assholes always get away." And Trayvon's fear of Zimmy lead to his own senseless death.

Zimmy's minor bump on the head and sore nose and Trayvon's death would have been avoided if Zimmy had used his brains and had waited in his auto for the police to arrive. That is what actual neighborhood watch members, as opposed to wannabe cops, are supposed to do. Not only did Zimmy endanger his own thoughtless self,  but he ensured the death of an innocent kid by disregarding the instructions of the authorities.

I can't imaging what parents are going to tell their kids to do if approached by an unknown stranger. Thanks a lot, Zimmy.