Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
- Status
ANC
Well-Known Member
I would not try too hard, I don't think many can return sane from that path. It is like when they opened the Ark in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
America's economy is hurting; you don't see it on TV because the media reports on the wealth generation by the top 10%, but the other 90% of us are struggling and slowly sinking.
Meanwhile the banksters are creating so much debt in an effort to keep the American economy from sliding off the cliff that the only way to balance the books will be inflation, whether we like it or not.
When this bad news hits the economy, there will be massive job losses and other hardship.
This will feed the fascist fires, just like German hyperinflation did during the Weimar Republic era just before the Nazi Party gained power.
We already have by far the world's biggest military, the largest stockpile of nukes, human history's biggest military budget and many powerful interests urging us to continue and expand our course of imperialism around the world.
Halfway through 2017, the United States has already conducted military operations including covert ops in 137 of the world's 196 countries.
Things will get worse before they get better. There is a strong Progressive Movement in America today that represents the will of the People but it's not well organized and there is a long history of the CIA, FBI, NSA and other Federal Government agencies actively suppressing and disrupting legitimate citizen initiatives. In addition, the right wing will see this as a direct threat to their interests and can be counted upon to react strongly, by any means necessary both fair and foul.
I do not want to see violence, I do not want to see civil war, and I want to see Americans resolve their differences peacefully. However, I think the time for nonviolent options is slipping away as those on the extreme right see that the use of force will continue to pay dividends for their cause.
In other words, I fear that blood in American streets and the Fascist takeover of our 'free country' is all but inevitable. The enemy is those who would use the vast power of our Federal Government AGAINST the rest of the people, not necessarily the Federal Government itself. A subtle difference rendered meaningless when those beating and killing innocent civilians in the streets and in their homes are wearing uniforms issued by Federal Government agencies.
This is an existential threat to everything America stands for. If you, dear reader, aren't scared, it's only because you don't see what's happening.
Meanwhile the banksters are creating so much debt in an effort to keep the American economy from sliding off the cliff that the only way to balance the books will be inflation, whether we like it or not.
When this bad news hits the economy, there will be massive job losses and other hardship.
This will feed the fascist fires, just like German hyperinflation did during the Weimar Republic era just before the Nazi Party gained power.
We already have by far the world's biggest military, the largest stockpile of nukes, human history's biggest military budget and many powerful interests urging us to continue and expand our course of imperialism around the world.
Halfway through 2017, the United States has already conducted military operations including covert ops in 137 of the world's 196 countries.
Things will get worse before they get better. There is a strong Progressive Movement in America today that represents the will of the People but it's not well organized and there is a long history of the CIA, FBI, NSA and other Federal Government agencies actively suppressing and disrupting legitimate citizen initiatives. In addition, the right wing will see this as a direct threat to their interests and can be counted upon to react strongly, by any means necessary both fair and foul.
I do not want to see violence, I do not want to see civil war, and I want to see Americans resolve their differences peacefully. However, I think the time for nonviolent options is slipping away as those on the extreme right see that the use of force will continue to pay dividends for their cause.
In other words, I fear that blood in American streets and the Fascist takeover of our 'free country' is all but inevitable. The enemy is those who would use the vast power of our Federal Government AGAINST the rest of the people, not necessarily the Federal Government itself. A subtle difference rendered meaningless when those beating and killing innocent civilians in the streets and in their homes are wearing uniforms issued by Federal Government agencies.
This is an existential threat to everything America stands for. If you, dear reader, aren't scared, it's only because you don't see what's happening.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
https://newrepublic.com/article/143004/rise-thought-leader-how-superrich-funded-new-class-intellectual
"Thought Leader"
Highly educated propagandists?
Intellectual terrorists?
Certainly apologists and explainers for the super rich...
From the article;
"The influx of plutocrat money has done much more than produce a handful of hollow thinkers. The institutions that enable intellectuals to conduct meaningful research are also being radically remade by their new sponsors. Over the past few decades, as funding from government sources and philanthropic organizations has dried up, think tanks have tried to make up the deficits by courting donations from corporations, foreign governments, and politically minded elites. These donors, however, are less interested in supporting intellectually prestigious, nonpartisan work than they are in manufacturing political support for their preferred ideas. In other words, they want a return on their investment."
Thoughts?
"Thought Leader"
Highly educated propagandists?
Intellectual terrorists?
Certainly apologists and explainers for the super rich...
From the article;
"The influx of plutocrat money has done much more than produce a handful of hollow thinkers. The institutions that enable intellectuals to conduct meaningful research are also being radically remade by their new sponsors. Over the past few decades, as funding from government sources and philanthropic organizations has dried up, think tanks have tried to make up the deficits by courting donations from corporations, foreign governments, and politically minded elites. These donors, however, are less interested in supporting intellectually prestigious, nonpartisan work than they are in manufacturing political support for their preferred ideas. In other words, they want a return on their investment."
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Overblown.
The same can be said for many areas of this society. The article takes a narrow view on what causes dumb behaviors. To paraphrase; "behaviors, such as corporate leaders jumping on a bandwagon filled with cliches and tailored stories to inspire them and cause really stupid actions like creating creation focused workers or some such nonsense are all because thought leaders."
I don't believe the leaders in this country are any more capable than the vast majority. I think that most were born into the leadership class and didn't earn their way, consequently practically all are about average in ability. I think the reason we have fewer intellectuals is because society has failed to let the best and brightest rise to the top. Also, a really large number of people are easily hooked on conspiracy theories.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
To those without a solid education these people can certainly seem possessive of special knowledge or insight and can wield more influence over their thinking.
It's also undeniable that lots of slick marketing can make bad idea a lot more popular.
Spending the money to do both would be influential to the average opinion held by a mixed society such as ours.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
https://baselinescenario.com/2017/06/15/telling-a-better-story-a-new-economic-vision-for-the-democratic-party/
The Democratic Party is a complete failure. It's failing everyone it claims to represent.
They must take their fair share of the blame for exploding income inequality, because they did little to stop it.
Most likely because they were too busy lining up to greedily feast at the same trough, and damn their working class constituents.
The Democratic Party is a complete failure. It's failing everyone it claims to represent.
They must take their fair share of the blame for exploding income inequality, because they did little to stop it.
Most likely because they were too busy lining up to greedily feast at the same trough, and damn their working class constituents.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That was a really well written article
"But there are two problems with this approach. The first is that it is economism lite. While Republicans say, “Free markets solve all problems,” Democrats respond, “Free markets solve most problems, but markets sometimes fail, so sometimes they need to be judiciously regulated to produce efficient outcomes.” This may be more accurate, but it undermines Democrats’ appeal to people who have not benefited from overall economic growth—because they have the wrong skills, live in the wrong place, got sick at the wrong time, or otherwise got unlucky."
"To be clear, the failure of overall economic growth to benefit the middle and working classes is not solely or even primarily the Democrats’ fault. The villain in that story is the Republican conservatives who weakened unions, undermined the social safety net, and slashed taxes on the rich. Globalization and competition from low-wage countries were another factor. But since the onslaught of the conservative revolution, Democrats have played defense by claiming the space once occupied by moderate Republicans. Recall the pivot to deficit reduction in 1993, welfare reform in 1996, the capital gains tax cut of 1997, the commitment to free trade agreements from NAFTA to TPP, and the bipartisan commitment to financial deregulation that helped produce the devastating financial crisis of 2008."
"There were positives in Obama’s economic record: The recession would have been worse without the stimulus, millions of people got health coverage, and the Dodd-Frank Act included some steps in the right direction. Taken as a whole, however, Obama governed as what we called a moderate Republican only a few decades ago, and the only vision one can distill from his actions is that of prudently harnessing market forces to generate growth."
"What the Democratic Party needs is an economic message that: addresses the real problems that many Americans face on a daily basis (instead of callously insisting that “America is already great”); and resonates with their very real frustrations and anxieties. Both politically and as policy, the idea that the rising tide of economic efficiency and growth would lift all boats has failed. It is time for something new."
"At this moment in history, however, what a rich country like the United States needs is not more stuff. We need to share the stuff we have in a more fair, more morally acceptable way. In 1980, the bottom 90% of households owned 32.9% of all household wealth and took home 69.9% of national income; by 2012, those figures had fallen to 22.8% and 59.0%, respectively (see Saez and Zucman, Appendix Tables B1, B25). In other words, if we could restore the 1980 wealth and income distribution, the bottom 90% of households would enjoy a 44% increase in net worth and an 18% increase in income—an improvement in living standards that would take decades to achieve in our current economic system."
"In summary, we Democrats should base our economic vision on the principle of fairness, rather than insisting that we are better architects of economic efficiency than the Republicans. Orienting ourselves around fairness is better politics, because it offers a differentiated message that is more likely to appeal to people left behind by the past four decades of economic “progress.” It is better policy, because ordinary families will be better served by a more fair distribution of the fruits and risks created by our economy than by squeezing out a few extra tenths of a percentage point of output growth."
I'll get to the last 3rd of that article after lunch, these are some of the points I'd like to talk about
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
That's why I posted the article.That was a really well written article
"But there are two problems with this approach. The first is that it is economism lite. While Republicans say, “Free markets solve all problems,” Democrats respond, “Free markets solve most problems, but markets sometimes fail, so sometimes they need to be judiciously regulated to produce efficient outcomes.” This may be more accurate, but it undermines Democrats’ appeal to people who have not benefited from overall economic growth—because they have the wrong skills, live in the wrong place, got sick at the wrong time, or otherwise got unlucky."
"To be clear, the failure of overall economic growth to benefit the middle and working classes is not solely or even primarily the Democrats’ fault. The villain in that story is the Republican conservatives who weakened unions, undermined the social safety net, and slashed taxes on the rich. Globalization and competition from low-wage countries were another factor. But since the onslaught of the conservative revolution, Democrats have played defense by claiming the space once occupied by moderate Republicans. Recall the pivot to deficit reduction in 1993, welfare reform in 1996, the capital gains tax cut of 1997, the commitment to free trade agreements from NAFTA to TPP, and the bipartisan commitment to financial deregulation that helped produce the devastating financial crisis of 2008."
"There were positives in Obama’s economic record: The recession would have been worse without the stimulus, millions of people got health coverage, and the Dodd-Frank Act included some steps in the right direction. Taken as a whole, however, Obama governed as what we called a moderate Republican only a few decades ago, and the only vision one can distill from his actions is that of prudently harnessing market forces to generate growth."
"What the Democratic Party needs is an economic message that: addresses the real problems that many Americans face on a daily basis (instead of callously insisting that “America is already great”); and resonates with their very real frustrations and anxieties. Both politically and as policy, the idea that the rising tide of economic efficiency and growth would lift all boats has failed. It is time for something new."
"At this moment in history, however, what a rich country like the United States needs is not more stuff. We need to share the stuff we have in a more fair, more morally acceptable way. In 1980, the bottom 90% of households owned 32.9% of all household wealth and took home 69.9% of national income; by 2012, those figures had fallen to 22.8% and 59.0%, respectively (see Saez and Zucman, Appendix Tables B1, B25). In other words, if we could restore the 1980 wealth and income distribution, the bottom 90% of households would enjoy a 44% increase in net worth and an 18% increase in income—an improvement in living standards that would take decades to achieve in our current economic system."
"In summary, we Democrats should base our economic vision on the principle of fairness, rather than insisting that we are better architects of economic efficiency than the Republicans. Orienting ourselves around fairness is better politics, because it offers a differentiated message that is more likely to appeal to people left behind by the past four decades of economic “progress.” It is better policy, because ordinary families will be better served by a more fair distribution of the fruits and risks created by our economy than by squeezing out a few extra tenths of a percentage point of output growth."
I'll get to the last 3rd of that article after lunch, these are some of the points I'd like to talk about
The Democrats occupy the space once held by moderate Republicans because that's where their donors want them.
The REAL left is a scary place for oligarchs.
They better think real hard about what they've done to the other 99%, because the rest of us aren't going to put up with being fucked over forever.
CriticalCheeze
Well-Known Member
67%*l
32% of imbeciles still support Numb-nuts, therefore i don't think they've gotten the hint yet lol...
32% of imbeciles still support Numb-nuts, therefore i don't think they've gotten the hint yet lol...
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
jonsnow399
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It's a blog and aggregator site that pulls articles from lots of sources. Not all of the articles are on point and a few fail the decency test. But just because they don't always say what you want to hear is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Readers should approach everything on the net with critical thinking skills engaged, the MSM are certainly not exceptions to that rule.
The Democratic Party has a serious credibility problem. So does the MSM. This country is going right down the fascist drain unless we fix Citizens United and the runaway police/surveillance state.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i can think of a much bigger problem we are facing right now, with a much bigger credibility problem.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Trump and Pence have higher approval ratings than the Democratic party
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
maybe it has something to do with whiny, lily-white, crybaby bitches like you spreading conspiracy theories and outright lies about the DNC? ya know, the same conspiracy theories and lies that trump and his cronies are pumping out?
hard to tell whose side you are on these days, what with all the duct taping assholes open and shitting all over the only party that can, will, and has made progress on issues that are important to us.
- Status