If Hillary Rodham Clinton passes in 2016, which Democrats run? The Fix ranks the tiers. - The Washington Post
So if Hillary doesn't run there's a chance that the Democrats will run an actual liberal for the first time since Lyndon Johnson
Monday, October 28, 2013
More from the Rockefeller Republican in the White House
If it comes to a choice between Social Security cuts and sequestration, then keep sequestration. After all, it's the only program that has been successful at cutting bloated "defense" spending.
Would the White House accept a budget deal without taxes? Maybe!
Once again, we have one side saying 2+2 = 5, and the other side saying
2+2 = 9 . I don't see much virtue in compromise between those positions.
Would the White House accept a budget deal without taxes? Maybe!
Once again, we have one side saying 2+2 = 5, and the other side saying
2+2 = 9 . I don't see much virtue in compromise between those positions.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Gonna be a Mental Toss Flycoon
Vision of Prairie Paradise Troubles Some Montana Ranchers - NYTimes.com
OK, look, I support your idea. I think it's great. Some day I hope to be able to visit. But PLEASE! get a dictionary and look up "misnomer."
“It’s a misnomer that we’re paying top dollar,” said Sean Gerrity, the president of the American Prairie Reserve. “There are some properties we’re interested in, but they’re currently priced at above market value and we can’t go there.”
OK, look, I support your idea. I think it's great. Some day I hope to be able to visit. But PLEASE! get a dictionary and look up "misnomer."
Well DUH!
In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps - NYTimes.com
Inflation has been below the Fed's target rate most of the time for the last decade. That is bad for most Americans. The dollars that bought the house I grew up in, for instance, were greatly devalued over the next 30 years by inflation, making a higher standard of living possible for my family even while paying back the mortgage. But college graduates now face very high interest rates on student loans, while not able to expect increases in pay as they pay these loans back.
The article I cite above says that the Fed may increase the inflation rate, and this is what I have been saying they should do for quite a few years. The trouble is, people are swayed by the crocodile tears shed about those poor people on fixed incomes. (wait! I thought the same people making that argument have eliminated pensions, haven't they?)
They also buy in to the fairy tale that higher corporate profits cause corporations to hire more people. If that were true, then as corporate profits skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, they should have been hiring just about anybody with a pulse. And yet labor force participation rates are falling.
And they also say that inflation gives corporations the opportunity to cut wages. That's certainly true, but it's also true that cutting real wages over the last 35 years or so is what ultimately caused this mess. When things like this are true:
So overall I'm encouraged that it's just possible that the Fed's economists (especially if Yellen is confirmed) may get their collective heads out of the but of 1970s stagflation, even if the major reform needed, a stronger bargaining position for labor, is not part of the package.
Inflation has been below the Fed's target rate most of the time for the last decade. That is bad for most Americans. The dollars that bought the house I grew up in, for instance, were greatly devalued over the next 30 years by inflation, making a higher standard of living possible for my family even while paying back the mortgage. But college graduates now face very high interest rates on student loans, while not able to expect increases in pay as they pay these loans back.
The article I cite above says that the Fed may increase the inflation rate, and this is what I have been saying they should do for quite a few years. The trouble is, people are swayed by the crocodile tears shed about those poor people on fixed incomes. (wait! I thought the same people making that argument have eliminated pensions, haven't they?)
They also buy in to the fairy tale that higher corporate profits cause corporations to hire more people. If that were true, then as corporate profits skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, they should have been hiring just about anybody with a pulse. And yet labor force participation rates are falling.
And they also say that inflation gives corporations the opportunity to cut wages. That's certainly true, but it's also true that cutting real wages over the last 35 years or so is what ultimately caused this mess. When things like this are true:
The typical worker has had stagnating wages for a long time, despite enjoying some wage growth during the economic recovery of the late 1990s. While productivity grew 80% between 1979 and 2009, the hourly wage of the median worker grew by only 10.1%, with all of this wage growth occurring from 1996 to 2002, reflecting the strong economic recovery of the late 1990s.then workers have less to spend, and firms sell less. They may make higher profits by cutting workers' real wages, but those profits do not lead to hiring when nobody's buying.
So overall I'm encouraged that it's just possible that the Fed's economists (especially if Yellen is confirmed) may get their collective heads out of the but of 1970s stagflation, even if the major reform needed, a stronger bargaining position for labor, is not part of the package.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
"The Representative from Texas" has come to be the new intellect-based insult.
Barton vs. Barton in a 'monkey court' | MSNBC
Maybe they read 1984 and really thought the news was being scoured of their past idiocies?
Maybe they read 1984 and really thought the news was being scoured of their past idiocies?
What I've been saying for quite a while
If low tax rates on top earners caused economic growth, why has economic growth fallen since top tax rates were cut?
And the top tax rate reported is not in fact what most of the very rich really pay, since their income is taxed differently than earned income.
Why the 1% should pay tax at 80% | Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty | Comment is free | theguardian.com
I firmly believe that taxing the top earners at a much higher rate gives them an incentive to make sure that their employees are well paid and productive, and not just treat them like "human capital." After all, if the rich pay a very high marginal tax on very high earnings, they have less incentive to grab a very large part of the earnings of a firm, leaving the workers with little.
And the top tax rate reported is not in fact what most of the very rich really pay, since their income is taxed differently than earned income.
Why the 1% should pay tax at 80% | Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty | Comment is free | theguardian.com
I firmly believe that taxing the top earners at a much higher rate gives them an incentive to make sure that their employees are well paid and productive, and not just treat them like "human capital." After all, if the rich pay a very high marginal tax on very high earnings, they have less incentive to grab a very large part of the earnings of a firm, leaving the workers with little.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Drug Widens Immunity to Flu | The Scientist Magazine®
I really, really, reeeealy wish I had taken immunology and developmental biology when I was an undergraduate.
This is just too cool.
Drug Widens Immunity to Flu | The Scientist Magazine®
This is just too cool.
Drug Widens Immunity to Flu | The Scientist Magazine®
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)