Political Roundtable Part XIX

[dckingsfan]

So... my Grandfather was a union organizer and a member of the American Communist Party.

Unions in Europe are political and represent classes. That's why you have a Labour Party in the UK.

Unions in the United States are purely economic. During the industrial revolution there were a lot of industries whose optimal technology enjoyed increasing returns to scale, meaning the optimal size of the factory is pretty large, so you employ a lot of workers, and because you're so large you get monopoly rents. So unions were a way of forcing the owners of the factory to share some of their monopoly rents with the workers. Despite not being political in purpose, the thing about monopoly rents is they very quickly convert into payments to lobbyists to preserve the rent, so you end up becoming political. So unions evolved into political representation for blue collar laborers.

Now we have globalization, which in theory is a very good thing - let China build all the cheap things and we'll build all the high tech things, we'll have a more tech-intensive economy and the country will make more money. And this happened. The problem is, globalization eroded all the monopoly profits that were being shared with the unions. The unions collapsed and all of a sudden blue collar workers didn't have representation any more, or jobs, or prospects for the future. The billionaires fill the vacuum and pass tax laws that seize money from the poor and hand it over to the rich. So all the benefits of globalization go to the billionaires. Not me - I'm pretty fricking wealthy (compared to my parents anyway) but my taxes are going up next year.

So as an economist I look at the political outcome of globalization and I wonder if it was worth being right. Our gini coefficients are the worst among developed countries.

As an economist you'll know more about the details, but from my opinion income equality in the US has less to do with globalization and more to do with the fact the fact that for some reason you insist on giving more money to millionaires and billionaires. If the US had a model similar to other developed countries you'd probably have a higher standard of living than some of these countries. Who would have thought that allowing corporations and billionaires to continue to horde their wealth instead of reinvesting it into the people would be a bad thing?

Its the carveouts... probably the same ones you support?

[dckingsfan]

remember when Republicans were stalwart deficit hawks lol

Yep, there were a few at the federal level - guess we can stick a fork in that one. There used to be Ds that cared about sustainable government - they seem to be gone as well.

Still a few at the state level on both sides - hope they move to the federal level at some point.

[Pointgod]

remember when Republicans were stalwart deficit hawks lol

Let's not forget there have been politicians on the record saying that talking about deficits works when there's a Democrat in power The Republican party openly insults the intelligence of not only their voters but all Americans. I can't blame them because they keep getting voted into power despite tangible proof that Republicans are bad for the economy.

[Pointgod]

So... my Grandfather was a union organizer and a member of the American Communist Party.

Unions in Europe are political and represent classes. That's why you have a Labour Party in the UK.

Unions in the United States are purely economic. During the industrial revolution there were a lot of industries whose optimal technology enjoyed increasing returns to scale, meaning the optimal size of the factory is pretty large, so you employ a lot of workers, and because you're so large you get monopoly rents. So unions were a way of forcing the owners of the factory to share some of their monopoly rents with the workers. Despite not being political in purpose, the thing about monopoly rents is they very quickly convert into payments to lobbyists to preserve the rent, so you end up becoming political. So unions evolved into political representation for blue collar laborers.

Now we have globalization, which in theory is a very good thing - let China build all the cheap things and we'll build all the high tech things, we'll have a more tech-intensive economy and the country will make more money. And this happened. The problem is, globalization eroded all the monopoly profits that were being shared with the unions. The unions collapsed and all of a sudden blue collar workers didn't have representation any more, or jobs, or prospects for the future. The billionaires fill the vacuum and pass tax laws that seize money from the poor and hand it over to the rich. So all the benefits of globalization go to the billionaires. Not me - I'm pretty fricking wealthy (compared to my parents anyway) but my taxes are going up next year.

So as an economist I look at the political outcome of globalization and I wonder if it was worth being right. Our gini coefficients are the worst among developed countries.

As an economist you'll know more about the details, but from my opinion income equality in the US has less to do with globalization and more to do with the fact the fact that for some reason you insist on giving more money to millionaires and billionaires. If the US had a model similar to other developed countries you'd probably have a higher standard of living than some of these countries. Who would have thought that allowing corporations and billionaires to continue to horde their wealth instead of reinvesting it into the people would be a bad thing?

Its the carveouts... probably the same ones you support?

Carveouts make sense in some cases. Ending corporate welfare, tax aversion and significantly increase taxes on high income earners is a good starting point.

[Pointgod]

remember when Republicans were stalwart deficit hawks lol

Yep, there were a few at the federal level - guess we can stick a fork in that one. There used to be Ds that cared about sustainable government - they seem to be gone as well.

Still a few at the state level on both sides - hope they move to the federal level at some point.

Democratic Presidents have actually reduced deficits. And spending for the greater good of society shouldn't be put on the same equivalence giving obscenely wealthy people more money.

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

Wonder why someone would do something like this...

Spoiler:

Haha, this was an easy call, it won’t even be mentioned on the news.

[dckingsfan]

remember when Republicans were stalwart deficit hawks lol

Yep, there were a few at the federal level - guess we can stick a fork in that one. There used to be Ds that cared about sustainable government - they seem to be gone as well.

Still a few at the state level on both sides - hope they move to the federal level at some point.

Democratic Presidents have actually reduced deficits. And spending for the greater good of society shouldn't be put on the same equivalence giving obscenely wealthy people more money.

Which democratic presidents sans Clinton during the tech bubble actually reduced deficits?

And back to the "less evil" argument - which gets us exactly nowhere.

[DCZards]

First, initially there were (IMO) conspiracies and trades. A conspiracy to pay more than those states and localities could afford and the trade off was that the public unions would work for those politicians. After the fact, then unions cried that the pensions were underfunded. Go figure.

No union (or elected officials) intentionally set out (or conspired) to have states and localities create pensions that they could not afford. That may be the end result in far too many cases, but it's foolish to suggest that that was the intent of the union leaders and elected officials who agreed to these pension plans.

As hard as it may be for you to believe or accept; most of these pension plans were designed by well-meaning men and women who believed what they were doing was in the best interest of the state or locality and its workers. I can't figure out why you feel compelled to broadly paint them as somehow being corrupt.

[dckingsfan]

As an economist you'll know more about the details, but from my opinion income equality in the US has less to do with globalization and more to do with the fact the fact that for some reason you insist on giving more money to millionaires and billionaires. If the US had a model similar to other developed countries you'd probably have a higher standard of living than some of these countries. Who would have thought that allowing corporations and billionaires to continue to horde their wealth instead of reinvesting it into the people would be a bad thing?

Its the carveouts... probably the same ones you support?

Carveouts make sense in some cases. Ending corporate welfare, tax aversion and significantly increase taxes on high income earners is a good starting point.

As long as YOU like the carveout - that is exactly how we got to corporate welfare! Carveouts ARE corporate welfare - they allow legal tax evasion by having so many carveouts and such a complex system that the IRS has no chance of enforcing the policies (if they could figure them out).

There is no way to get back to the "good" carveouts. They are far too complex and intertwined. Have you ever sat down with the tax code? Read it... it is worth your time. Even if you only read the first 100 pages of the 70K plus pages.

Keeping the "good" carveouts and want to end corporate welfare is an oxymoron.

[dckingsfan]

First, initially there were (IMO) conspiracies and trades. A conspiracy to pay more than those states and localities could afford and the trade off was that the public unions would work for those politicians. After the fact, then unions cried that the pensions were underfunded. Go figure.

No union (or elected officials) intentionally set out (or conspired) to have states and localities create pensions that they could not afford. That may be the end result in far too many cases, but it's foolish to suggest that that was the intent of the union leaders and elected officials who agreed to these pension plans.

As hard as it may be for you to believe or accept; most of these pension plans were designed by well-meaning men and women who believed what they were doing was in the best interest of the state or locality and its workers. I can't figure out why you feel compelled to broadly paint them as somehow being corrupt.

Sorry, I know that is not the case. There were localities where this happened. And then those programs were copied by others (many of them inadvertent). I will let you do the research on that in SD's hometown.

There was corruption. But more importantly, the entire notion of trading public union support for votes and then supporting those same unions at the bargaining table was/is corrupt.

And for those that just followed the blueprint of being well-meaning You have defined the incompetence of the other party.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Hoping that the teacher protests in West VA, Oklahoma and Kentucky spread to all states that have underfunded their pensions.

Will be interesting to see what they cut. Unlike the federal government they can't print money. Guessing they won't cut Medicaid or let folks out of jail.

Chicago, Puerto Rico ($9,987), New York City ($9,842) and Boston ($7,802) recorded the highest per capita unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities. Wonder if there will be some protests there as well?

[dckingsfan]

Ooops, guess Illinois was actually putting the money in the pot...

http://www.wirepoints.com/illinois-state-pensions-overpromised-not-underfunded-wirepoints-special-report/

[dckingsfan]

And those 2014 tax cuts Oklahoma Rs put in place look pretty stupid right about now... that and cutting fees on new wells? Then once the deficits started coming - they just couldn't go back on the tax cuts.

[Wizardspride]

Congrats America! You are a Banana Republic.

Watch on YouTube

If you're in the DC area WJLA is a Sinclair station.

I have a friend who works there and at Circa which is also Sinclair.

Imagine if you time transported officials of Soviet propaganda and news bureaucrats from the 1960's and made them watch this particular bit from Sinclair stations or CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.

They would be furiously taking notes as this would be an insight into the most advanced propaganda techniques and brainwashing they have ever seen or read about.

Imagine if these techniques were implemented in the 1960's, thats a point of departure there, and the Soviet Union would probably be around today.

If you can convince residents of some of these backwater areas that they live in the greatest country in history, with the richest advanced healthcare and infrastructure, you can convince a Soviet citizen in the 80's that everything is fine.

Judging by the high number of poor whites on Medicaid and food stamps that have bought into the Koch funded Tea Party politics that government is too big and that they need to cut taxes further and cut off the same benefits that they depend on... then
you can convince people that the earth is flat and that its supported on the back of a giant turtle.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Zonkerbl]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

So what you're saying is Craig Murray is an idiot?

[cammac]

In the impending Blue Wave last night there were 3 elections of note!
The most important was the State Supreme Court race in Wisconsin which was easily won by the Democrat. Governor Scott Walker also has two more State races before the midterms and he is very worried.

The other two were in Massachusetts & Rhode Island both State Races which both returned Democrats but with larger margins than Clinton.

[FAH1223]

So what you're saying is Craig Murray is an idiot?

Boris Johnson, really.

Read on Twitter

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

The China-Russia strategic partnership:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter