You would think that Ireland should have seen its economic disaster coming early. There were plenty of prophetic examples from other parts of the world by the time Ireland adopted American style capitalism. New Zealand may have been one of the earliest examples. It adopted the Reagan-Thatcher conservative economic ideology in the early 1980s, ideology that is cited as the primary cause for New Zealand's economic collapse in this report(pdf). If you read this report, you'll see that New Zealand followed the typical GOP conservative, libertarian approach to economic and fiscal governing. And, it did New Zealand in. Even Britain, just across the Irish Sea, had experienced an economic meltdown in the 1980s because of Thatcher's follow-Reagan economic plan; small government, privatization of government services, low corporate tax, anything-goes market, voodoo economics. And, of course, there is Japan's 1990s economic collapse because it followed American style capitalism, although it didn't adopt the whole hog, but only the hindquarters, such as deep corporate tax cuts. That was enough to do its economy in. It turns out that in every country, including our own, where the American style GOP, libertarian capitalism is adopted, it fails. Here is when I stick my tongue firmly in my cheek and facetiously say, "Imagine that!" Poppy "read my lips - no tax increase" Bush was right. It is voodoo economics.
So, what's happening to Ireland. For one thing, Ireland's workforce is on the move again. I guess we can go all the way back to the Potato Famine to see that when things get to a point where people can't live, they leave where they're living for another, and hopefully, better place. Ireland seems to have that particular situation recur in its history over and over. And, it's a damn shame. It was only a few years ago that everyone, even Thomas Friedman, thought Ireland was the poster-country of prosperity, as in this column. Friedman said Ireland's booming economy in 2005 proved that Germany's more moderate and labor-favoring approach was wrong. In fact, Friedman says that Ireland's Irish-British model is "the way of the future." Some future! Now, in 2010, i.e., "the future," Ireland is nearly bankrupt while Germany is healthy and is one of the countries bailing Ireland out.
My Irish immigrant friend also passed this little blogger gem, "Ireland Then and Now," by Jonathan Chait, which suggests that Ireland's economic and fiscal policies caused the mess, which is true, except the article contradicts itself so much that's it boggles the mind. Chait starts his article saying, "It was not long ago that Ireland was every American conservative's beau ideal of a European state. Low taxes, low regulation, it was the perfect case study in the success of free market policies..." and "How has Ireland become a "Celtic tiger" (a la Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, the earlier "tiger" economies in Asia)? Simple: By clinging for dear life to the coattails of the American economy. The Irish have basically set themselves up as a free enterprise zone for U.S. companies wanting a base in Europe, rolling out a business-friendly red carpet." Yep. That's what Ireland did.
What's really ironic is the references Mr. Chait uses to document "why" Ireland is falling. From 2003 through 2007, Chait cites Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation reports, both conservative organizations, that gloat about Ireland deregulating and lowering corporate taxes (from 50% to 12.5%), attracting American companies and the "greenback," privatizing government services, and generally releasing the free-market dogs. Ireland, Cato and Heritage said, "was the model free-market state." It all was going along gloriously until Ireland hit the Great Recession wall, and then everything went to hell.
So, what did Ireland do? It did the opposite of what President Obama encouraged at the G-20 Conference in 2009. Obama encouraged "stimulus," but Ireland chose deficit reduction, following the Reagan-Supply-Side economic model of free markets, deregulation, let 'em fail, policies of the GOP Republicans in America. It tightened its belt, laid people off, eliminated government jobs and services. Even then, as late as June 2010, the Cato Institute was bragging about Ireland's 2009-2010 policies at the same time as it was deriding Obama's "stimulus" policies. But, the belt tightening didn't work. It created a worse condition, as most economists predicted when they said that the economy "needed stimulus" to get the economy moving before deficit reduction.
Ireland is now accepting bailouts from its European Union members so it can survive. And, Cato and Heritage are now turning on themselves, since reading on in Chait's blog shows that now that Ireland is deeply in trouble, Cato and Heritage are blaming Ireland's government big-government and big-spending for the problem even when its government followed the fiscal and economic policies that Cato and Heritage were bragging about only a few years before.
But, the EU bailout is not helping Ireland's people NOW. They need work NOW, not next year. They're leaving Ireland, as this Washington Post article notes. So, Ireland, following the grand Republican scheme is broken and broke and evacuating the sinking ship.
After our November 2nd Republican Coup d'etat, we're next. Stand by for heavy rolls. Perhaps Barney Frank's take on the the Republican's perspective on unemployment says it best. Thanks to my Irish buddy, I have this quote:
“The Republicans are joining the Central Bank of China in criticizing [Fed Chairman] Ben Bernanke ” Mr. Frank said Monday during an interview on Bloomberg Television. “This is really distressing to me.” ... Mr. Frank said complaints about currency manipulation from Chinese central bankers “is like being called silly by the Three Stooges. And then to have Republican leaders in Congress agree with those complaints is bizarre,” Mr. Frank said. “The Republicans are arguing that the Fed should not even be concerned about unemployment.”
Dave
Showing posts with label Economic Equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic Equality. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
How it Happened
Richard Wolf, Economics Professor, has an excellent description of the melt down, and the reason it happened.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Why We Can't Vote Republican and Why We Can't Depend on Charity and Why We MUST VOTE.
It's all about ideology, and it's personal. The reason it's personal is because of all of the people I know, both friends, family and associates, I know only two or three who might be, I say "might" because I don't personally know whether they are or not, considered in the top twenty percent who own eighty percent of America's wealth. They certainly appear wealthy, or at least they act like it. Nearly everyone else I know is just like me, smack dab in the middle class, and some are perhaps in the lower percentile of the middle class. A few I know are dirt poor. Those that I know in the middle class have more hope for either continuing to have enough to stay where they're at, or climb the ladder to the upper class. I've noticed, however, that those who are poor have no hope, and it breaks my heart. Government help for them has run its course; they've had their so-called job training, but have no job; they've reached the end of welfare; they have no money for further education; they've lost their mobility; they've lost their driver's license because they can't afford the car, insurance, renewal fee or the court cost to get their license back; and they've been rejected by every employer they've applied to. Charity, to them, means a few dollars every month or so, but nothing to sustain them until they get back on their feet. Charity is fickle. It's good for some, for a short time, but not for most. They have no hope and no place to turn. They've dropped off the edge of the Earth. They are unknown and unheard.
I'm not saying that all of my perceived wealthy friends are Republicans. Some hold very similar views to mine. But others do not. Once at a family reunion several years ago, I heard an extended family member, who believed in the Republican ideology, complain bitterly about welfare. He said, vehemently, "it's forced charity!" He resented paying taxes that were eventually used to pay welfare to the poor. It was the same complain that in President Reagan's Administration lead to limiting welfare because of the imaginary "Welfare Mom" who, they claimed, was cheating, and so welfare was reduced. Those unfortunate poor on welfare who were not cheating, the great majority, got less and hope diminished. The number of poor increased. It was the same complaint that in the mid-1990s lead Newt Gingrich, then the Speaker of the House, to pass legislation to limit welfare, and the freedom of welfare recipients to spend the money the way they saw fit, in a "work for welfare" scheme that ended the welfare payments after five years. And, those that the scheme did not benefit after five years on welfare, and who may have still had a chance while they received welfare, lost all hope of ever climbing out of the deep, deep hole circumstance, luck, and/or the American Capitalistic "system" put them in. They dropped out of sight and mind. So, even after two experiments with welfare, the ranks of the poor continued to increase. The complaint, however, hasn't changed. It is still the most often repeated complaint, in some form or another, by Republicans today. It's "Forced Charity!" It is resented by Republicans. And, right along with that complaint follows the second complaint, "they're spending the money we give them on junk!", or on Las Vegas, or on games, or on something that is not really "necessary," as, of course, defined by Republicans. So, just like the hope that disappears, and always will for those invisible poor, the complaints continue and is never resolved until Welfare itself is completely eliminated. What do we do then? Let the poor starve? But, Welfare increased in spite of all efforts to reduce it, because the number of poor increased. More and more of the middle class migrated to poverty and filled the ranks of poor and welfare recipients. Today, one in seven American's are in poverty. That should frighten you because while that migration was happening, more and more of America's wealth migrated to the top twenty percentile of American's. Deregulated "Trickle Down" didn't work, and it never will. You and I could be next to join the ranks of the poor, unless by some miracle, against all reasonable odds, we elevate our condition to the wealthy. What welfare, call it safety net, is next? Social Security? Medicare? You're retirement fund? They are all targets of fraudulent Republican ideology.
There is another reason, but perhaps not the last, that I take personal offence toward Republican ideology. I gave a large portion of my life for the ideals that were the ideals of my youth, mostly Christian ideals of helping the poor, giving, treating my fellow man fairly, and the American ideals of freedom, liberty, truth and justice. It all appears to have been wasted time. And, even though the greater majority of Christians in America seem to be following the Republican ideology, I don't see a single Christian or American value expressed in Republican policies or ideals. All I see is resentment, injustice, half-truths and lies, unfair treatment, selfishness and greed, intolerance and false gospel. One person who I know who has been taken by Republican ideology mentioned that they "continue to pray the prayer of Jabez every day" for their own benefit. That prayer, mentioned once in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10, two sentences in the entire Bible, is the basis of the so-called Gospel of Prosperity making the church rounds recently. I was appalled. Oh, they are wealthy, so I guess it could be said that the prayer worked. But, I wonder. Did the wealth come before the prayer? Or the prayer before the wealth? How much of saying they pray that prayer is self aggrandizement, pride in front of friends, showing off the favors from God? Are "they" the "chosen?" Is it "Look at me, I'm Blessed?" I also wonder that if that particular prayer is answered, what payment is expected in return? To those that much is given, much is expected. I suspect that, one way or another, that payment will be made whether they payee wants it or not. Is payment to sustain a society not worthy? Is only Charity worthy? If it is only Charity that is worthy, are we not required, then, to give a constant stream of charity to sustain the poor? I would say that when society is just, fair and equal, then payment to the society is required in the form of taxes because that is the only consistent way to sustain those in poverty. It is even required when all government efforts are to make its society just, fair and equal. I don't see anyplace where today's Republicans are supporting the causes of justice, fairness and equality, even though they go to great extent to say the do. They have blocked every effort to support the poor, and the unemployed for that matter. To some that follow Republican ideals, the payment will be a fall from grace, to others it will be a fall from revolution. I wonder if they will be surprised when it happens. When the ranks of the poor increase to the point where a country cannot sustain itself, revolution is inevitable. That happens when so few have so much.
I haven't heard our current situation, that of the precarious edge to America's downfall being so close, expressed as well as I've heard Robert Reich express it. For that reason, I've added his blog to the list of my favorite blogs. I don't know if he is a religious person, atheist, or somewhere in between, or if he believes in another religion. But, he speaks the truth. That should be good enough for anyone. Read his blog. Listen to him speak. Educate yourselves before it's too late.
Dave
I'm not saying that all of my perceived wealthy friends are Republicans. Some hold very similar views to mine. But others do not. Once at a family reunion several years ago, I heard an extended family member, who believed in the Republican ideology, complain bitterly about welfare. He said, vehemently, "it's forced charity!" He resented paying taxes that were eventually used to pay welfare to the poor. It was the same complain that in President Reagan's Administration lead to limiting welfare because of the imaginary "Welfare Mom" who, they claimed, was cheating, and so welfare was reduced. Those unfortunate poor on welfare who were not cheating, the great majority, got less and hope diminished. The number of poor increased. It was the same complaint that in the mid-1990s lead Newt Gingrich, then the Speaker of the House, to pass legislation to limit welfare, and the freedom of welfare recipients to spend the money the way they saw fit, in a "work for welfare" scheme that ended the welfare payments after five years. And, those that the scheme did not benefit after five years on welfare, and who may have still had a chance while they received welfare, lost all hope of ever climbing out of the deep, deep hole circumstance, luck, and/or the American Capitalistic "system" put them in. They dropped out of sight and mind. So, even after two experiments with welfare, the ranks of the poor continued to increase. The complaint, however, hasn't changed. It is still the most often repeated complaint, in some form or another, by Republicans today. It's "Forced Charity!" It is resented by Republicans. And, right along with that complaint follows the second complaint, "they're spending the money we give them on junk!", or on Las Vegas, or on games, or on something that is not really "necessary," as, of course, defined by Republicans. So, just like the hope that disappears, and always will for those invisible poor, the complaints continue and is never resolved until Welfare itself is completely eliminated. What do we do then? Let the poor starve? But, Welfare increased in spite of all efforts to reduce it, because the number of poor increased. More and more of the middle class migrated to poverty and filled the ranks of poor and welfare recipients. Today, one in seven American's are in poverty. That should frighten you because while that migration was happening, more and more of America's wealth migrated to the top twenty percentile of American's. Deregulated "Trickle Down" didn't work, and it never will. You and I could be next to join the ranks of the poor, unless by some miracle, against all reasonable odds, we elevate our condition to the wealthy. What welfare, call it safety net, is next? Social Security? Medicare? You're retirement fund? They are all targets of fraudulent Republican ideology.
There is another reason, but perhaps not the last, that I take personal offence toward Republican ideology. I gave a large portion of my life for the ideals that were the ideals of my youth, mostly Christian ideals of helping the poor, giving, treating my fellow man fairly, and the American ideals of freedom, liberty, truth and justice. It all appears to have been wasted time. And, even though the greater majority of Christians in America seem to be following the Republican ideology, I don't see a single Christian or American value expressed in Republican policies or ideals. All I see is resentment, injustice, half-truths and lies, unfair treatment, selfishness and greed, intolerance and false gospel. One person who I know who has been taken by Republican ideology mentioned that they "continue to pray the prayer of Jabez every day" for their own benefit. That prayer, mentioned once in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10, two sentences in the entire Bible, is the basis of the so-called Gospel of Prosperity making the church rounds recently. I was appalled. Oh, they are wealthy, so I guess it could be said that the prayer worked. But, I wonder. Did the wealth come before the prayer? Or the prayer before the wealth? How much of saying they pray that prayer is self aggrandizement, pride in front of friends, showing off the favors from God? Are "they" the "chosen?" Is it "Look at me, I'm Blessed?" I also wonder that if that particular prayer is answered, what payment is expected in return? To those that much is given, much is expected. I suspect that, one way or another, that payment will be made whether they payee wants it or not. Is payment to sustain a society not worthy? Is only Charity worthy? If it is only Charity that is worthy, are we not required, then, to give a constant stream of charity to sustain the poor? I would say that when society is just, fair and equal, then payment to the society is required in the form of taxes because that is the only consistent way to sustain those in poverty. It is even required when all government efforts are to make its society just, fair and equal. I don't see anyplace where today's Republicans are supporting the causes of justice, fairness and equality, even though they go to great extent to say the do. They have blocked every effort to support the poor, and the unemployed for that matter. To some that follow Republican ideals, the payment will be a fall from grace, to others it will be a fall from revolution. I wonder if they will be surprised when it happens. When the ranks of the poor increase to the point where a country cannot sustain itself, revolution is inevitable. That happens when so few have so much.
I haven't heard our current situation, that of the precarious edge to America's downfall being so close, expressed as well as I've heard Robert Reich express it. For that reason, I've added his blog to the list of my favorite blogs. I don't know if he is a religious person, atheist, or somewhere in between, or if he believes in another religion. But, he speaks the truth. That should be good enough for anyone. Read his blog. Listen to him speak. Educate yourselves before it's too late.
Dave
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Economic Equality - Why The Hell Didn't We See This Story on Prime Time News?
This was a shock. A Study: Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden | Raw Story conducted by the Harvard Business School and Duke University says that a whopping 92% of Americans would prefer the Swedish distribution of wealth over our own! This story was carried by National Public Radio (NPR) today, but it is not on any other single major news source. It's not on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, U.S.A Today, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, New York Times or Washington Post. You really have to ask, "Why?"
Of course, the story is fresh off the presses; it's a 2005 study! And, the alternate news picked it up just last month! We can't expect the major news sources to be prompt. So, we'll have to wait to see if the major media picks it up. But, isn't it obvious why they, the prime time media, haven't so far? It is because the owners of those news corporations, the haves, want to keep the have-nots ignorant of the true wealth distribution in this country. They are afraid they'll lose what they have. They may have to pay another one-percent in taxes. According to the study, "they," the top 20% of the wealthiest own 84% of the wealth in America. Whew! I feel left out!
Ironically, if given a choice, 92% of Americans, including the wealthy, would choose a more equitable distribution. That is like saying to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and all their friends, including Republicans, "shove it." I wish they would.
Here's the study (PDF): http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf.
Sweden, by the way, has a robust capitalistic-style economy, with just as much freedom as we do, so you really don't have to pee in your pants about socialism, although there is a bit of that too, that is if you consider taking care of your citizens socialism. You're more likely to "make it" in Sweden than you are here in America.
Dave
Ironically, if given a choice, 92% of Americans, including the wealthy, would choose a more equitable distribution. That is like saying to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and all their friends, including Republicans, "shove it." I wish they would.
Here's the study (PDF): http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf.
Sweden, by the way, has a robust capitalistic-style economy, with just as much freedom as we do, so you really don't have to pee in your pants about socialism, although there is a bit of that too, that is if you consider taking care of your citizens socialism. You're more likely to "make it" in Sweden than you are here in America.
Dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)