Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Status
Not open for further replies.
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so i guess they gave the millions of dollars all to the one guy who voted no, and not a single dollar to the 23 others who voted yes?

sure, why not. it's a cult, whatever we say is right now.
Click to expand...
You're the cultist; Democrats have a super majority in California but they can't put together a plan for single payer? So much for all the lip service. They just don't want to do it, full stop.

Instead, they'd much rather make excuses and keep taking money from the donor class.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/california-scheming-democrats-betray-single-payer-again/

No amount of your name calling and other drivel is going to convince me and millions of others the fix isn't in. The Democrats' main reason to exist anymore is to stop the progressive movement from doing anything.

We live in the Age of Corporate Ascendancy and unless you have nine figures to the left of the decimal in your portfolio, you're not in the club.

That isn't paranoia, that's the plain and simple truth.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You're the cultist; Democrats have a super majority in California but they can't put together a plan for single payer? So much for all the lip service. They just don't want to do it, full stop.

Instead, they'd much rather make excuses and keep taking money from the donor class.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/california-scheming-democrats-betray-single-payer-again/

No amount of your name calling and other drivel is going to convince me and millions of others the fix isn't in. The Democrats' main reason to exist anymore is to stop the progressive movement from doing anything.

We live in the Age of Corporate Ascendancy and unless you have nine figures to the left of the decimal in your portfolio, you're not in the club.

That isn't paranoia, that's the plain and simple truth.
Click to expand...
NO CULT, NO CULT. YOU'RE THE CULT! NO CULT
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You're the cultist; Democrats have a super majority in California but they can't put together a plan for single payer? So much for all the lip service. They just don't want to do it, full stop.

Instead, they'd much rather make excuses and keep taking money from the donor class.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/california-scheming-democrats-betray-single-payer-again/

No amount of your name calling and other drivel is going to convince me and millions of others the fix isn't in. The Democrats' main reason to exist anymore is to stop the progressive movement from doing anything.

We live in the Age of Corporate Ascendancy and unless you have nine figures to the left of the decimal in your portfolio, you're not in the club.

That isn't paranoia, that's the plain and simple truth.
Click to expand...
You post and believe stuff from ridiculous sources.

"Counter punch", seriously?

Fake news, homie.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
You post and believe stuff from ridiculous sources.

"Counter punch", seriously?

Fake news, homie.
Click to expand...
You don't like to content of the article, so you dismiss it as 'fake news', just like a Trump supporter

Why don't you address a few points? It can't be that hard if it's 'fake news', right?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You don't like to content of the article, so you dismiss it as 'fake news', just like a Trump supporter

Why don't you address a few points? It can't be that hard if it's 'fake news', right?
Click to expand...
I don't click links to fake news covered, bullshit, template built websites with multiples pages for a single article and "click here for more (advertisements)" links.

Post a reputable link and people might take you seriously, otherwise stick it up your tape opened ass.
 
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
J.F Kennedy
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
ANC said:
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
J.F Kennedy
Click to expand...
Yeah, well look what happened to HIM.

Secrecy has run rampant in America, hand in glove with military, surveillance, covert ops and corporate power.

Today, America's Government is completely beyond the control of the American people, its oversight or any other measure of accountability.
 
Last edited:
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
"No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers-- I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

J.F Kennedy

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/JFK-SecrecyAndSecretSocietiesAndMIcomplex.mp3

 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
4 strong points from the above article. While it was discussing the British economy, the American economy is very similar in terms of income inequality, if not even more extreme;

The broad outlines of policy reform are clear:

  1. Monetary policy needs to revert to its more traditional role with a much reduced level of dependence on QE. Savers need to be offered higher real rates of interest and credit needs to be brought under more effective control. Banks and other financial intermediaries need to be effectively regulated and their stability should be the focus of the monetary authorities. Where QE is continued it should be used to serve the interests of the country and not the rich few, and this would mean using monetary expansion for financing public investment in a sustainable way – both social and economic investment.
  2. Fiscal policy needs to be given a much greater weight and needs to become much more progressive in terms of tax structure. The current regressive nature of the tax system needs to be reversed with much greater reliance on income taxes and much less on indirect taxes. Corporate taxes need to be increased and loopholes closed so that the effective tax rate is moved closer to historical levels. In particular corporate taxes should be based on where revenue is received rather than on profits so as to make it much more difficult for companies to avoid taxation. Wealth taxes need to be made more effective and loopholes closed especially in relation to the passing of wealth between generations which is presently a major avenue for processes of inequality to persist and deepen over time.
  3. Political reform is essential so that the role of money and corporate power is removed from the political process. This has become even more critical now that it is evident that social media such as Facebook have been infiltrated by organisations that manipulate data and information in the interests of the rich and powerful. Political systems have become corrupted and urgently need reform.
  4. Wages are too low and this threatens economic stability. It is critical that real wages be increased in part through changes in wage policy in respect of public sector employees where there has been wage restraint, and in part through policies to strengthen organisations representing the interests of labour. The insecurity of work especially in the so called ‘gig’ economy needs to be addressed via regulations which require workers to be treated as employees and not as self-employed. The weakening of the bargaining power of unions should be reversed through public policy since this is an effective way to raise wages and reduce the dependence of workers on debt and fiscal transfers from government. The shift in the shares of national income to capital has to be reversed so that employment incomes can be raised and with it increased consumer expenditure. Economic growth nearer to long term trends is essential if employment and income levels are to be restored.
Will the above reforms happen? Time will tell, but the clock is ticking. If structural reforms are not undertaken by government then we will all reap the consequences – and these will not be pleasant.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Dylan Ratigan was my favorite news commentator on MSNBC until he said too much about the banks and got fired. Here he is on the Jimmy Dore Show;

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top