Economist Michael Hudson is the best at explaining "Classical Economics" vs. Neoclassical or Neoliberal Economics." Classical Economics emerged after the French Revolution which ended the Feudal System of lords and serfs. Classical Economics started with Adam Smith and ended with Karl Marx. Among other things, they argued that government should tax "unearned income" - like rents, and income from investments because it was too much like the income of feudal lords.
The rich so objected that they started Neoclassical Economics (now called Neoliberal), and the first sold-out economist was John Bates Clark (1847-1938), who argued . . . Well, in today's terms, argued that Paris Hilton earns her money. There is still a "John Bates Clark Award in Economics!"
The point here is, the current economic thinking in America is a sham economics invented by the rich for the rich. Worse, the rich have paid to have it taught in most Universities.
Below are 9 myths of Neoliberal Economics. Six are from Mark Blyth of Brown University and three of from Australian economist Steve Keen.
Americans have been tricked into believing:
1. That markets are efficient. (Ever heard of planned obsolescents.)
2. That banks have skin in the game. (They don't, they have "your" skin in the game!)
3. That people have rational expectations. (Tell someone in advertising this and they laugh.)
4. That investors evaluate risk carefully, the way insurance companies use actuaries.
5. That systemic risk is the same as individual risk. (Regulation is about stopping systemic risk, and you know how that has gone.)
6. That too-big-to-fail is not a problem. (And they are still getting bigger)
7. That government budgets are like household budgets, thus government austerity in hard times is a good thing! (This is a "like duh", if you understand "aggregate demand.")
8. That banks do not create money when they make a loan! (Yes, they do!)
9. That money loaned by a bank does not stimulate the economy by creating demand.
This is not a complete list, but the point here is the economics you know was invented by the rich to screw you over. Worst, the absolute worst, with Neoliberalism, you have the belief that the markets should mold the society rather than society molding the markets. That is, all laws, social or economic, must be based on economic thinking!
Waste of time is thus the first and in principle the deadliest of sins. The span of human life is infinitely short and precious to make sure of one's own election (to heaven). Loss of time through sociability, idle talk, luxury, even more sleep than is necessary for health, six to at most eight hours, is worthy of absolute moral condemnation. It does not yet hold, with Franklin, that time is money, but the proposition is true in a certain spiritual sense. It is infinitely valuable because every hour lost is lost to labour for the glory of God. Thus inactive contemplation is also valueless, or even directly reprehensible if it is at the expense of one's daily work. For it is less pleasing to God than the active performance of His will in a "calling." Besides, Sunday is provided for that, and, according to Baxter, it is always those who are not diligent in their "callings" who have no time for God when the occasion demands it.
(End quote)
My emphasis on the word "calling", we have all heard people say things like teaching or nursing is "my calling." This is, of course, directly from religious calling, and if God has called you, you have better do the best you can for fear of damnation. The capitalists took full advantage of this!
In today's world, this has morphed into "God has a plan for . . . well, everyone!" Frankly, aside from removing free will, the world offers no evidence of this. For those who disagree I offer the story of Rabbi Harold Kushner. His son was born with Progeria (where you age and die, of old age, at about 13). People in his synagogue would say, "Well, God has a plan for your son!" The Rabbi found this so absurd he wrote the book "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People!" It is a good read.
Yet, I am still amazed at the role of religion in capitalism, and its current absence.
However, despite H...See MoreThe Republican Party is bankrupt of ideas that might help the American public or the country, and that fact is now clear to all but the most tribal conservatives. The Democrats, the DNC wing, is no better and maybe worse by the looks of the Clintons. Yet, the democratic party has the Progressive Caucus - their only hope.
However, despite Hillary's devastating loss, the Democrats have refused to move away from their Wall Street donors. The point: the democrats are still "hoping" to change their party. The Republicans now know there is no hope. Trump was their candidate of change, and turned out to be just another oligarch - or should I say oligarch lackey, as Trump is not rich enough to be a real oligarch.
Worse, the Republicans in Congress have also made it clear, by way of their legislation and regulations, that any suffering by the average American is of no interest to them.
Gates, who served as Manafort's deputy, is expected to testify against Manafort if his case goes to trial. It's not clear what else he can provide prosecutors, but Gates continued to serve as a senior advisor to the Trump campaign after Manafort stepped down in August 2016, helped organize Trump's inauguration, and had access to the White House as an outside advisor in the early weeks of the administration....
Hopefully when democrats regain control of both houses of congress in the midterm elections, this will be one of the first bills that they send along to the president. Along with the DACA fix, universal health care, cheap prescription drugs, free college, gun control, removing violent gun scenes from movies, and immigration reform.
I hope that all actors, all democrats, all those who hate guns will come out against Big Hollywood for their glamorization of violence. Oh Hollywood has long glorified gun violence and desensitized the public towards it. So when the democrats who did not pass sensible gun control when they had full control of congress, when actors who star in violent movies cry about gun control, realize that their voices are hollow.
I cannot wait for actors to come out against movies that glorify killing... and come out against their outrageous paychecks while the rest of us work for crumbs.
https:...See MoreWhy did the Democrats not take care of this in the health care plan they decided America wanted and needed? I thought there was affordable health care after Obamacare ... the "affordable" health care act.
Oh, wait ... the Dems buddies in big pharma got a break. Why such silence from the left about this failure of Obamacare?
Now the Trump Admin. wants to cut food stamps (SNAP) by 40% with half being a real cut. The other half the government will spend to buy the poor a box of non-perishable foods such as shelf-stable milk, ready-to-eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, and canned foods. Yet, delivery of the box of food will require an infrastructure the government does not currently have.
So why do this? The truth is they are just cutting food assistance to the poor, period! All stop! Also, you can bet that the contents of the box will reflect corporate donations and profits.
Below is a picture of a "Plumpy Nut" bar. It is used in third world countries to give nutrition to starving children. This country has reached the point where we should just provide it free in our schools and more. But we won't! We won't, because "American Arrogance" prevents us from admitting just how much hunger and malnutrition is to be found in the "richest country in the history of mankind!"
Both...See MoreWhat is the Democrat response? They had plenty of time when Obama was in charge to fix this and other problems when they had complete control of the legislative and executive branches. In that time, what did we get? No universal health care, no immigration reform, no fix for hunger, no minimum wage increase ... a whole lot of nothing.
Both sides seem to like to make promises until they have full control. When that happens, they suddenly fall motionless. Why was DACA not legislated instead of an executive order? The Dems didn't want to act. Why do we not have universal health insurance? The Dems didn't want it. Why no immigration reform? Dems just turned their heads.
The answer to this is simple. We do not have two parties! We have one party that pretends to be two, and both are owned by the oligarchs. That said, it should be clear why the Republican controlled Congress is currently screwing us over and the "Dems" are encouraging us to bend over and shut up!
But more to the point, when the post rants on about the "Democrat response" as if the recent Republican tax plan was not a major screw job for the country, it leaves the impression that you are still too tribal to see both sides, or alternately, you do not really believe that statement about "both sides", "promises", and "full control."
Frankly, the mileage the right has gotten out of demonizing the Democrats on being more interested in illegals than American citizens is astounding. Yet, this is just a stupid tactic. The core of their problem is the Democrats; like the Republicans; do not give a crap about this country as a whole.
In the article below, we find this:
(Quote)
But the Democrats, for the most part, run from these things (expanding Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and supporting strong campaign finance laws and affordable college), not on them.
They support social justice issues like immigration because these issues don't threaten their corporate benefactors or their fat cat campaign contributors. This is not to say these kinds of issues aren't important - they are. But until and unless the Democrats take on the oligarchy, and back a specific progressive agenda, they will have little credibility with many voters. As a result, many in the progressive majority will stay home.
(End quote)
It is clear, particularly with the tax cuts, that our current government, all of it, has made the lives of average Americans worse. We should expect more of the same.
America is bigger, and to match what Germany has done, we would have to spend $50 billion every year for that same two decades time period.
This is why we are stupid. In 2017, Congress just increased the military budget by $80 billion when Pres. Trump only asked for $54 billion. The military budget is now over $700 billion per year. It is actually well over a trillion as the cost of nuclear weapons and more are not in the military budget.
This country is doomed to be an economic backwater!
This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, because both parties are sold out to special interest. I am saddened when I hear Americans talk of "those awful democrats" or "those stupid republicans." It is tragic that these people still do not "get it." They still think the problem is the other party.
Long Time Lurker was correct to write, "If we had a congress with enough forward thinking people and a president with an emotional age above 3, we might be able to implement some technology, and other infrastructure working to make things better for people." Our problem is all of Congress, or alternately, the problem is the system and how money has corrupted everything including both parties.
Yet worse, Americans are so averse to paying taxes and are so selfish, in a self-centered way, that we no longer believe in paying taxes to make life better. We are "scared to death" (as opposed to brave) that someone else will get the good from taxes and we will get nothing - except maybe a better society.
Do you need an example? Here is a quote I found regarding Puerto Rico!
(Quote)
More than five months since a devastating hurricane hit the island's shores, some 270 schools are still without power.
Roughly 25,000 students are leaving with that number expected to swell to 54,000 in four years. And that's after an 11-year recession already sent 78,000 students seeking refuge elsewhere.
(End quote)
We should be ashamed, but we are not! It is just another disaster to ignore, because the rest of us were not in it. Sadly, What I wrote in the OP is still true, "This country is doomed to be an economic backwater!"
And about that square in Utah... why has Musk, or some other millionaire, billionaire, corporate jet owner, or winner of life's lottery built that power farm?
TEC, I'm not sure if you've looked at the initial costs for a solar system, but it's about the price of affordable health care. When solar power becomes an affordable option, I will be first in line, just as I would have been for affordable health care if my employer allowed it.
Unfortunately, those with real power in the country are beholden to their corporate masters. Hopefully my "vote the bum out" campaign will take fire, and those in both parties will be shown the door...
However, despite H...See More