@BahrainiScribe I think that debate would be moot: Greenspan's views are flatly discredited by facts such as the debt to GDP ratio as published in the Historical Tables Section 7 in every budget since 1940: supply side econ is a fraud like "scientific marxism" or APR financ. It never could pay its way in the world and it will never be able to simply because capitalism needs supply and demand to be in balance and any system that's on the side of 1 or the other is going to end up out of balance!
NAOMI KLEIN.................OWNED. I like how when Greenspan explained how capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and her response was to shuffle for some more info in her papers while he's just simply kicking back drinking a whiskey and saying inside his mind..........."rookie"
The fundamental problem is that Naomi Klein is not that smart. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having mediocre intelligence. Difficulties arise, however, when a person with mediocre intelligence doesn't understand his limitations and tries to become an authority on intellectual topics. The result is not pretty.
@educheny LOL! the fundamental problem with you right wingers is that you have your collective heads up your collective butts so far that you can't even see what's obvious: your world view has bankrupted the world the last 30 years. It doesn't work, never did never will: it's like communism, an authoritarian utopia. Greenspan is a trained monkey for the oligarchs: a mandarin for hire, no special intellect there. If Friedman was alive, Stiglitz and Krugman would kick his ass any time.
@szatmar666 Is this how you promote brotherhood and friendship towards people of different political affiliations? As an aside, I don't consider myself a right winger--I consider myself a neoliberal or a classical liberal.
@educheny The category you give yourself doesn't matter: what your side stands for is a patriarchal society reminiscent of a family in which daddy drives home with the $700k Lamborghini and pays for it for a while by piling on credit a card debt and then turns around and blames the disastrous family finances on fictitious "waste" in the kids lunch money and pretends there is no Lamborghini parked in the drive way. It's not only immoral but it's INSANE! Lamborghini = supply side econ.
@szatmar666 I'm not even going to respond to your goofy analogy. Let me just point out that, in the last decade, free markets have taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China, India, and other developing countries. No other economic system has done as much good for more people.
@educheny That's China: a communist technocracy led by a mechanical engineer from Tsinghua and a geologist. Their banking system is owned by the government: it was never a "free market" system. Under Greenspan the USA deregulated the banking system to a point where Jamie Diamon makes a 1000X more money as an investor speculating then a CEO of JP Morgan Chase working 4 a wage. That's not a free market: a free market is the balance between supply and demand: "supply side" is not that by def!
@szatmar666 Read the Wikipedia article entitled "Economy of the People's Republic of China". It states that the economic reforms that liberalized many markets in China is the cause of China's boom.
Lastly, it's ridiculous to say that supply-side economists don't believe in a "balance between supply and demand". According to Wikipedia, supply-side economists believe that "economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services."
@educheny Again: you are ill informed. China has not adopted 1 letter of Greenspan's laissez faire supply side dogmas. China is building high speed rail and infrastructure while boneheaded republicans return federal funding for such projects. If you think the Chinese are copying the right wing US economic nonsense from the Greenspan era you are deluded. Supply side economists believe that the only way to stimulate the econ regardless of specifics is on the supply side, which makes no sense!
@szatmar666 You're thinking in black and white. Obviously China does not have a laissez-faire economy. However, that does not negate the fact that they have liberalized many of their markets and there is now a large private sector in China. And no one says that the ONLY way to stimulate an economy is on the supply-side. Nonetheless, motivating people and eliminating barriers for production makes perfect sense because without production there can be no consumption.
@educheny the US had a private sector waaay before Greenspan came along, to say that supply side reaganimics = "free market capitalism" is the ultimate lie perpetrated by cons today. None of the conservative policies since Reagan "make sense" since there is not 1 year since then that a conservative pres gave a budget to Congress and the GDP grew faster than the debt as a result. In contrast EVERY year 1946-1981 regardless of republican or democratic spending priorities the OPPOSITE was true!
@szatmar666 Supply-side economics says that we should lower barriers to production. Free market capitalism means that the markets are free without constraints. Those are very similar concepts. And I agree that in recent years the federal deficits have been too high--but that has nothing to do with free market capitalism.
@educheny 13 of the $14 trillion national debt was created under Greenspan. The private sector debt is 3X higher: $45 trillion, or 300% of GDP. All created AFTER 1981. Productivity skyrocketed and so did profits. In the meantime wages were depressed and real inflation adjusted wages grew less than 1% in 30 years. How is that "free market economics"?! I thought if you are 30% more productive in a free market you get 30% higher pay.
@madashelldude Greenspan had nothing to do with the U.S. debt. The congress and president is responsible for fiscal policy--not the Federal Reserve. Looking at real wages is misleading because a larger percentage of worker compensation is now non-pecuniary. I don't have the figure in front of me, but I can assure you that total real compensation is much greater than 1% for the last 30 years. Also, FYI, real GDP does not take population into account. What's more useful is real GDP per capita.
@educheny that's just propaganda and fancy accounting, fact remains that the average worker cannot spend the dollars put toward their grotesquely inflated healthcare services to buy consumer goods and thus there is no real demand in the US economy left. The last 30 years wage increases were substituted by plastic, consumer debt & ENRON accounting which is why the economy retained a semblance of a free market system. U take away the private sector debt and what you have is supply w no demand.
@szatmar666 Total compensation should be used instead of wages because the non-pecuniary costs have to be paid for by employers and they represent real resources. I don't know what the hell you mean by "supply w no demand". People are still buying things--that's demand!
@educheny In a free market productivity and wages are always overlapping curves. Since 1981 that's not true in the US. What you are describing with "non-pecuniary costs" is Enron language, akin to "scientific marxism": it's intellectualizing and justifying naked fraud and stealing income from workers.
You are either not honest enough or not knowledgeable to have a discussion about economics and that's understandable, I never had an honest debate back in eastern europe with communists either.
@szatmar666 "Non-pecuniary compensation" just means non-wage employee benefits. This includes medical insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, pensions, vacation days, sick days, unemployment benefits, etc. If you include the cost of all these benefits to wages, then American workers are significantly better off than they were 30 years ago.
@educheny I understand what it means: it's the list of "benefits" that are part of the social contract since the New Deal and are part of the regulatory framework such as labor laws that make capitalism work in a modern welfare state and no econ theory about labor and wages EVER counted as part of wages. This funny accounting is like counting hamburger assembly as manufacturing to cook unemployment stats.If you shoot this nugget in a EU/JP freshmen econ class they will laugh you out of the room!
@szatmar666 Some of the employer-paid non-wage benefits exist because of tax advantages. For example, employer-controlled medical insurance is paid with pre-tax dollars--thus giving a strong incentive to sustain the existing employer-controlled medical insurance system.
Total compensation (which includes non-wage benefits) is used in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The ECI is a very important, and widely used metric. It's not an accounting gimmick.
@educheny The employer based medical insurance system is a massive fraud perpetrated against American wage earner: it's a way to transfer an ever increasing part of their earnings to wall street. It's part of the same scam the Greenspan commission came up with when they established the regressive FICA taxes. All of these should be payed for by progressive income taxation mostly on financial income and other earnings that don't involve labor such as rent income, inheritance, estate taxes etc.
@madashelldude I don't like the employer-based medical insurance system either. I think medical insurance should follow the individual--not the employer. However, you are clearly getting carried away with your hyperbole. And I don't agree with your prescription.
@educheny The USA is turning itself into old europe where the aristocratic elite didn't pay taxes at all and yet they were the only ones entitled to political decision making. It's a morally and economically bankrupted system with about the same credibility as communism had in the late 70s and probably about as close to total collapse.
@madashelldude High-income individuals in the U.S. are paying disproportionately more taxes than the rest of us. The top 5% of earners pay about 60% of the federal income taxes.
@educheny "High-income individuals in the U.S. are paying disproportionately more taxes " you are clearly ignorant of what we call " the real world" or how real capitalism should work. what's sad is that when people like you ended up in breadlines in communist countries they could still rationalize it: propaganda is an amazing thing.
@szatmar666 Where's your evidence? My rule is never to believe a claim unless there is evidence behind it. The data that I've seen from both government sources as well as third party sources say that high-income individuals pay disproportionately more taxes. In fact, just in my own life, I recall paying more taxes during years when my income was higher. And I've talked to others who say the same thing. Again, where's the evidence?
@educheny I doubt you have such a rule because you state an obviously false claim that "High-income individuals in the U.S. are paying disproportionately more taxes " which is not supported by facts. Nominal tax rates might look like "disproportionately higher" but EFFECTIVE rates are minuscule, 0 or in some cases negative. There is an excellent compendium of verifiable well documented scams the rich play with the tax code in 2 books written by David Cay Johnston. Again: watch?v=OCGdwL6xJ08
@madashelldude Look at the reports from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (which is a favorite source on the left). You'll see that high-income individuals pay more in absolute amount as well as percentage of income. I think these reports understate the disproportionate nature of taxes in the U.S. since they include FICA taxes--which I don't believe should be included.
@educheny High income individuals should be the only ones paying taxes to begin with. Read Adam Smith: he favored income taxation on rent income ie. income that doesn't involve labor. Taxing financial speculation and inherited wealth are great examples. I am not for going back to a 19th century notion of free markets and I accept that wages are taxed but what I am saying is that the current tax code is rigged w plenty of evidence to that effect, whether or not u chose 2 ignore them or not.
@madashelldude Taxation on rent income will hit most poor and many middle-class families since the rents will simply go up to compensate. Thus taxation on rent income would be EXTREMELY regressive. Furthermore, taxing financial speculation (i.e., stocks and bonds) would affect everyone! Companies would charge more for products and services because of decreased capital investment from stock taxation and higher interest rates from bond taxation. The result would be regressive taxation as well.
@educheny By rent I simply meant income that's generated without labor. Before 1981 no one could make 1000X in investments what he made in wages, today investment taxes are 1/2 of corporate taxes: that's criminal!
Adam Smith was talking about the Irish potato famine: landlords were causing it by charging too much rent on farmers land. Of course this argument that businesses will simply pass costs down to customers is bogus: only monopolies can do that and monopolies are ripe for break up.
@madashelldude There is overwhelming evidence that increased taxation is passed on to customers. For instance, why are interest rates on municipal bonds so much less than treasury and corporate bonds? It's because municipal bonds are exempt from federal taxes. Thus the federal government and corporations must pay more to borrow money because investors pass on their increased tax burden (relative to municipal bonds) to the recipients. And there are countless other examples.
@educheny that's not because of free markets: that's lack of good regulations and a fraudulent financial market set up after teh 1980s. It was not the case in the 50s and 60s.
@madashelldude "That's not because of free markets". Of course it is. No one is forcing investors to invest in municipal bonds instead of treasuries or vice versa. Investors preferentially choose municipal bonds because of their tax advantages--which lowers the interest rates on municipal bonds. Then, once an equilibrium is reached, municipal bonds and treasuries will become equally desirable because the market has fully compensated for the tax advantages of the municipal bonds.
@educheny Not when FED rates are 0%! there is no "equilibrium" of any kind in a market where interest rates are 0%, no one can compete against free helicopter money.
@madashelldude What are you talking about? Interest rates are not at 0%. The Fed Fund rate is currently at .14%--but that is only for overnight borrowing between banks. Short-term bonds (~1 year maturity) are currently yielding around 1%, intermediary bonds (~6 year maturity) are currently yielding around 2-3.5%, and long-term bonds (~20 year maturity) are currently yielding around 4-5%.
@educheny BTW I am not "left or right" I am just someone who knows how to add 2+2. If you want a civilized country you have to learn that 1/2 of every well oiled capitalist market economy will belong to the public. This includes infrastructure, education and parts of the insurance industry such as health and financial insurance of last resort. There are economic reasons why you can't do certain things with the next quarterly profit in mind: the most important investments are long term.
@madashelldude I agree with you that public infrastructure is important. However, well-run businesses think long-term as well. Many of them have plans that go out a decade or more.
@educheny No business can guarantee customers, ie. future income the way a country can guarantee future taxpayers. That's a fundamental difference between the private sector and the public sector. This is also econ 101 conservatives just love to ignore.
@madashelldude I never said there was no difference between the private and public sectors. You're putting words in my mouth. What I said was: "Well-run businesses think long-term as well. Many of them have plans that go out a decade or more."
@educheny It talks about ways the rich game the tax codes using tax loopholes put in since 1981. It's not the video, it's the SUBSTANCE of what Johnston is talking about that's well documented. If ask about sports stadiums and eminent domain for example that info is from the US Congress Committee on Oversight and Gov Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy: "Public Financing for Construction and Operation of Sports Stadiums ..." March 29, 2007. sec.org has the filings of corporations, etc.
@educheny Greenspan has EVERYTHING to do with the US debt. FED policies of cheap credit and fighting "wage inflation" is what caused consumer debt, the financialization of the US economy and thus partly the lower tax collection ie the national debt as well. Beside, the private sector debt is 3X more serious than the federal debt and it has to do with FED policies that suck capital out of Main Street and pump it into Wall Street: u can't compete against 1% FED rates, ie free money as a worker!
@szatmar666 I'm sorry, but even if interests rates are low, the congress and the president do not have to increase the federal debt. They still have a choice. As an aside, the 20-year treasury bond rate has averaged 7-8% and the fed funds rate has averaged 4-5% since 1981. And I agree that the private sector debt is too high (much of which is tied up in home mortgages). Consumers share much of the blame for that situation.
Naomi Klein has got the facts on her side. Greenspan is fairly good at DODGING Klein's questions, but if you know the facts you know she is in the right.
- She cites government contracts as an example of crony capitalism
- She rightly states that Allende was overthrown
- He dodged her question about economic shortfall's with respect to ending social security
capitalism has been nothing but exploitation around the world. now multinationals are buying up farmland and resources in poor countries. what little economic value these small fixed countries had is been cornered and gamed by the imf and world bank. and similar entities. consolidated wealth is not a good thing.
@tomitstube there are 2 forms of capitalism: 1 based on financial racketeering and resource monopolies and one based on innovation and consumerism. The lines are blurred sometimes but there is a clear distinction between good guys and bad guys in capitalism. I grew up in a communist country so I am not sure there is an alternative to capitalism, but I prefer the form they have in Norway instead of the one in the US.
@madashelldude ~ what the u.s, has right now is plutocracy. it's the result of thirty years of privatization, deregulation, and a wage stagnation that dumps good paying jobs by outsourcing them to places that nave no rights and little recourse to justice.
capitalism is driven by greed and resource exploitation. it pollutes the planet, it squashes millions into poverty and high unemployment, and it consolidates wealth to a very small percentage of people. it is no longer sustainable as is.
my guess is Stiglitz Akerloff, Krugman or an other liberal Nobel prize winner economists wouldn't impress you either. How about instaed of comparing apples and oranges you look at facts for a change?! like i dunno...the COMPLETE COLLAPSE of the neo liberal model?!
Greenspan's intellect? What intellect? He was the architect of one the worst economic disaster since the great depression and you are calling this guy an intellect?
@snopro54 why dont you try to point out why? you are so wrong, Klein exposes him for the FRAUD he is. He evades her questions, plays stupid, pleads the fifth, and at the begning, blames American schools! Ridiculous! I invite you to try and back this statement up
it means ignoring the dollar based exchange rate mechanism which heavily skews the value of natural resources and labor to favor dollar investors against workers and citizens of less developed countries. Import substitution just means domestic industrial development while keeping dependency on foreign finance and technology and exposure to the skewed dollar based exchange rate mechanism to a minimum until they build up their own industrial base. (in short = not opening up the banking system)
I had too many discussions with half educated self professed conservatives who had no clue what they were talking about. To engage with them is an exercise in futility. First of all I grew up in a communist country, and I happen to be familiar with Marxism up close and personal, but I also lived in 3 different countries and I'm fluent in 3 languages. If you look up Stiglitz: "Whither Socialism" and Galbraith: "Created Unequal" we can talk about socialism, ow you sound ill prepared to me.
Milton Friedman and the 21st century?! He got his nobel prize in 1976 for his work in the late 50s & early 60s on monetary history and consumption analysis. He retired academia in 1977, joined the Hoover institute and became a political pundit, haven't produced anything of consequence in econ since then. Look up his list of major papers and then look up the list of econ Nobel prizes in the last 10-20 years.
who do you think pays me for educating you in contemporary economics in little 500 character boxes?! If you were really interested you would look it up. Read Stiglitz, Krugman or James Galbraith. Or if you don't read get a passport and visit Scandinavia.
Vodka,as I said before: stick to drinking. Throwing around ad hominem nonsense is a great way to acknowledge intellectual inferiority. U shouldn't give up so easy and let everybody believe that conservatives can't make a coherent argument or can't have a relevant point on a specific subject matter ;)
Alan Greenspan was right that in 30 years USA w'd soffer about populism, protectionism and socialism ( what now they don't call socialism but mix economy) and Naomi Klein is one of the first wolfs dressing as a cheep to get power from the people by populism promises.
why do ignorant people in the US who never been to Europe or Japan never visited communist Eastern Europe, don't speak foreign languages and in general are complete morons on economics, always talk about "socialism" as if they knew WTF they are talking about.
The Forms of Free market system you and anyone else aspire too seeks only to create a secioty based on false Negative Liberty. This ideology leads to a secioty with out any meaning nothing to live for but for individualism gratification and indulgences. What Naomi is talking about is creating a fair and Social Justice in our secioty. What she and everyone else wants is True Social Democracy not a government that only cators for the few. What you and the minority wants us to have is Plutocracy.
You soonerg212 you are just another wolf, do a favor for the whole humanity go get a job, go to a university and get a degree i know its hard, i know in a free capitalist society the competition is very hard, but at least you make the living by your own merits and not using the government subsities (money taken by force from the taxpayers).
I can see now that you know nothing of what you talk about. Insults,falshood and propaganda won't get you any where. You guys are out. Period. If all you care about is yourself,well I can't help you.The fact still is that Inequality has increased in the likes that has not been seen since the 1920's. That is the fact and that is a Sin. Boy how the Sin suits your Username. Listen you no longer have the American people support when it comes to the Free Markets and get use to Democracy it's here now
Comments from conservatives reveal a great deal of sexual repression. I noticed cons are getting a hardon from Sarah Palin too cause they are all mesmerized by her naughty teacher image which reminds me of cheap 1980s porn flicks, even tho I never heard her say anything intelligent...EVER! so it's not about her ideas. I think the whole conservative movement is a revolt of frustrated compulsive masturbators, men who just don't get laid enough: the whole movement is a revenge on the world 4 that!
@szatmar666 Many people comment on her looks and sex because there is nothing else interesting about her (at least from these videos). Her ideas are trite and vacuous. She has a juvenile mentality (reminiscent of Lisa Simpson, but worse). She is wholly lacking in understanding of economics. And despite her ignorance, she still displays an arrogant, self-confident demeanor to the world.
@educheny "trite and vacuuous", kinda like your comment. It amazes me how much you cons can project: you make empty ad hominem remarks without ever detecting the irony in bashing someone for not understanding economics while you yourself have no argument of any substance regarding economics or anything of she actually said.
@szatmar666 I can provide lots of arguments against what she said (or implied). I was just summarizing for you. And as somebody who knows something about economics, I can assure you that she is quite ignorant on the subject. And, as I said before, I consider myself a neoliberal--not a conservative.
Don't get off your vodka mate, you might start thinking. BTW, u rightwingers in the USA are dumber than the commies were where I grew up: u can't even tell whats going on with all the info in front of u. At least the commies had an excuse: they were not allowed to travel or have any access to facts. you have all the facts available 2 u 2 compute the exact amount your elites r stealing from u but in your infinite laziness u just swallow right wing propaganda from the TV like it was beer.
My family and I were born in the USSR too. And I'm not a right winger, I'm pro individual freedom. This Klein chick doesn't even say exactly what she's in favor of and what are her principles. She's just spewing off some rhetoric as if corporations and profit are synonymous with evil.
She understands nothing about economics and takes the wealth of the west for granted. Has she ever asked how the people of western countries became so wealthy?
"Every economy that exists has elements of crony capitalism" That is an inevitable outcome... it is not the dominant force this this country...." HUH? 115000 no-bid private contracts - Halliburton's rip-offs, DYN CORP's rip offs, isn't the DOMINANT FORCE of our economy? Alan Greenspan got his teeth kicked in here. What a lying sack of shit.
the problem exactly. industrial activity, ie. the real economy is much more efficient in creating and distributing prosperity. investing or gambling on the stock market is for the privileged and susceptible to market manipulation. haliburton and monsanto are 2 companies that wouldn't survive 5 minutes in a free market without the conservative nanny state diverting huge resources from taxpayers to farm subsidies and no bid defense contracts. this is no capitalism, it's mercantile monopolism.
read, "The Disturbing "Rise" of Global Income Inequality" by, Xavier Sala-i-Martin (economist at Columbia University) his figures show an interesting trend...much of scholarship today disagrees with her out dated arguments.
his main argument that inequality is driven mainly by the income increase of 1.2 bn Chinese is bogus if you look at US domestic picture. In the US taxes are the major factor and Greenspan's loose monetary policies are a secondary: David Cay Johnston describes how the rich avoid taxes using the conservative "free market" mantra and Hudson describes how the global financial system is rigged to drive that inequality globally. China is made possible by offshore tax shelters for western corpors.
well, if you are such an astute reader you should perhaps read more technical economic literature, like Joe Stiglitz, David Cay Johnston, James K Galbraith, Robert Reich, Michael Hudson etc. Klein is an activist and she brings the issues to the masses. she is not required to hash out the technical details.
She is required to not make a fool of herself by challenging someone so above her IRT economics. Also she is not factoring in that Greenspan had access to information that she was not priviledged enough to account for in making his decisions. She also needs to realize that Greenspan's tenure brought great growth to the US economy, so him being blamed for everything is a bit suspect. Seems like people are using him as a scapegoat these days...
what's your point?! Before the conservative movement and the Nixon-Reagan revolution the US was #1 in every aspect that Scandinavian countries are #1 today from income equality to social justice. Today the USA is the #1 jailer and the #1 in income disparity with the worst social mobility in the western world, ie. only 30% of those born in poverty make it into middle class. In Denmark that's 60%. this is the failure of libertarian laissez faire capitalism not capitalism in general.
Klein's repeatedly tries to take Greenspan to task for non-Federal Reserve activities. She repeatedly cites the way things were before and after he took office, assuming a causal relationship between his policies and things like CEO salaries and no-bid contracts! That's embarassingly poor reasoning.
There is a direct causal relationship between the 2002 accounting scandal, the subsequent historically low interest rates and the current housing crisis. In 2002 we saw 1 market maker (Enron) go down but none of the major buyers and sellers were audited or investigated. Instead we saw a flood of cheep liquidity flowing into the pockets of JP Morgan execs who were major culprits in the off balance sheet financing scam of ENRON, just like they are in the CDO market today.Now that's moral hazard!
If Greenspan was a Confederate in the Civil war he would be arguing that his side treated the slaves more humanely and would try and point out all the "good" things they did for the slaves. Greenspan is obviously charismatic in arguing his point, but with more and more people supplying more and more people with info like this, we can make big change. Thanks!!!!!
He means, Klein is trying to win a game of "gotcha" with Greenspan, but she does not succeed. He is smarter, but more importantly, if there are "goods" to be had on Greenspan (and there very well might be), she doesn't have them. Klein is very smart, but economics at this level is insanely complex and does not lend itself to simplistic fingerpointing.
YANKEES: hypocrites, murderers, liars, terrorists, patrons of dictatorships, sackers of petroleum, first importer of drugs of the planet, ex-"friends" of Osama and Hussein, etc... Thank you for the teachings of "freedom" and "democracy" in Latin America: Pinochet and an enormous list of students of the School of Assassins from Panama are very grateful with their teachings.
Greenspan is being attacked by the Pacifica crew and holds up just fine. This was a pretty good discussion, but Klein is not getting the point ... of course if she did she would not sell any books. Greenspan points out that Capitalism is the system that makes the best use of human nature ... for better or for worse.
I think you don't get what the "Pacifica crew" is saying. There is capitalism in Sweden and Japan too. But they don't invade unarmed nations and then loot their revenues deposited in their Central Bank wo the head of the bank even knowing about it even though there are ongoing investigations and everybody read about it in the newspapers. BS just takes you so far, even if you call the BS "Greenspan-talk" it's just BS.
Sweden and Japan outsource their violence to the US, and that is a good thing. It is a stabilizing influence to have one country with overwhelming power as "leader of the democratic pack" so to speak.
Fancy Pentagon speak. Makes no sense. This propaganda assumes you can only do business via violence which is not the case. Sweden would be well thank you very much if the US elite did not decide to invade Iraq. To say that they need the US to defend them is ignoring the fact that they defeated the Soviet Union in 1939-40 in Finland in the "Winter War", so they need no defending: thanks a lot, but no thanks! ;)
Yes, and that's why we had the system set up by the USA after WW2. Which is exactly the rule of law that's being harmed by this war and republicans are trying to dismantle since Nixon got out of Breton Woods and Reagan started to fund pirate wars with a fiat currency basically forcing the rest of the world out of the system. That's why you have the EU, the euro and the ICC: the rest of the world is trying to plug the holes US conservatives are punching in the international system.
Wonders never cease ... that is actually a very astute comment ... thanks ... now, can you back that up, point to any sources on this, why would the Republicans be trying to do this, and all Republicans, or some smaller subset?
it's a small subset called the "Project for the New American Century". Econ aspects of this are analyzed in detail and proven to be unsustainable by Soros in 1998:"The Crisis of Global Capitalism" - he describes why countries started opting out of the system in the 90s. Since then many recognized it, like Kevin Phillips former Nixon campaign strategist (1968) and Chalmers Johnson. First it was described by Michael Hudson econ prof at UMKC in his 1972 book "Super Imperialism".
no ... you are wrong about the neocons ... this is not a neocon thing, before the neocons it was the neoliberals, they have nothing to do with what you are talking about, they are global democrats as opposed to isolationists. I read PNAC and if you did to instead of comments about it you would see it makes sense
I read it. Most neocons served in right wing govs going back to Ford and Nixon: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams etc. On the other hand you should read the books and then we can talk. Super Imperialism can be downloaded for free. Also check out michael-hudson DOT com.
Strictly speaking you are right that it's not just the "neocons". but that's not the point. There are even democrats in this what I call "imperial hubris" or "going alone" policies which believes we can achieve a lot more with sticks than carrots, and thus systematically undermines the very fabric of international system that made America what it is today.
The problem is the American people. They are lazy and stupid ... listen to Greenspan talk about the failure of the schools. It goes down to the society and the family. In the 60's and 70's it became fashionable for women to have have children out of wedlock and go on welfare, this segment has expanded and caused problems for everyone else.
that's a lazy and stupid answer. besides: Nixon never asked the american people if they agree with the idea to bankrupt the treasury in Vietnam and then declare bankruptcy by getting off the gold standard. did the supreme court ask the american people before they appointed Bush?! is the FCC asking the american people before they create rules that concentrate all media in the hands of defense contractors and Rupert Murdoch?!
Yeah, you are one of these gold standard fanatics. I agree about the media but that is a different fight than throwing it all in together and blaming the neocons for everything.
Yeah, you are one of these "don't read don't know shit but sure have an opinion" fanatics ..still waiting for you addressing the points in any of the sources I provided at your request ;)
I am not advocating going back to the gold standard but i am also not advocating corrupt republicans destroying the dollar's reserve status just to drown gov in debt so they can say that social programs are just beyond the capacity of our budget so we need to "privatize them" ie. loot the commons.
You should be careful going out on a limb like that, I read a lot, I just read different things from what you read and draw different opinions. The last two things I read on US economics/capitalism was "SuperCapitalism" by Robert Reich, and "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. Both are interesting, but Klein's viewpoint is major league scare tactics to appeal to the left anti-American bunch. I am not anti-American, I'm pro-American.
I wasn't making a remark on how well read you are IN GENERAL. I was making a specific observation about your way of debating. I was stating that the repubs are destroying the same international system that made America great. then you made a snide little comment requesting sources which is fine, I did provide. now you are accusing me of some gold standard lunacy because you misunderstand what I was saying: Hudson mentions 1971 as a turning point in the 1st few pages of his book.
With the decline of mainstream media maybe people are reject what they see on the news today and that has given to the rise of non-traditional news sources such as the internet. But again that is a market solution and not a government regulated one.
Is there such a thing as public wealth? I think corporation regulation should be on not how big or how powerful but on how they act. Just because your small does not mean that your playing by the rules and just because your big does not mean that your breaking them.
I think that the assumption that corporate wealth is spread out through the millions of share holders so call corporate greed funds 401k and retirements finances charitable foundations and even Democracy Now.
I am not blind to the fact that many corporations exert negative influence on business and the economy. But that just further evidence breaking many of the links between business and government.
If the government is judge and arbitrator between parties and a competitor of other private business, This represents a huge conflict of interest and limits government's ability to arbitrate fairly.
I agree that the confluence of business and gov is a major part of this. The agenda mainly hidden behind "deregulation" made it possible by a systematic undermining of regulatory agencies and corporate cops such as the SEC, EPA FDA etc to milk taxpayer monies for personal gain on behalf of a few private corporations & individuals. Free market is euphemism for "free from cops" who would ow guard the public wealth.
What Japanese have better engineers than Americans? I beg to differ out of the top 20 Universities world wide only 2 Cambridge and one in Japan are not from the US. The Japanese university doesn't even make the top 10.
Europe which has a economy roughly the size of the US spends more on university education and gets less results. For all of its funding and wealth few European Universities can compete with the top 50 to 100 US Universities.
That's highly speculative and inaccurate characterization. I on the other hand was simply referring to Japanese car engineering beating Ford and other US automakers on all markets and that's an undisputed fact today. They do that while providing job security for life and good pensions and benefits while US car makers are blaming those very same benefits 4 their shrinking market share.
Bush when he came into power pushed for 1 billion dollars worth of aids drugs to Africa.
What do we hear in the media Clinton is a rock star in africa and Bush is a villain. I am not saying that everything Bush did was peachy but european news organization blantently push one side of the argument regardless of the facts.
But why does the US have the lead to begin with? Many European universities are centuries older then their American counterparts.
The gospel of wealth and alumni giving and private giving in general is strong entrenched in the American psyche. European government funds the universities but do not allow universities compete with each other for students professors etc. Their goal is standard education. They achieved their goal its standard not excellent.
I don't understand why democracies must have high punitive tax rates in order to be called a democracy.
Sweden for example had low marginal tax rates but slowly raised them over the years until they hit their zenith in the 1970's. It should be no surprise that out of the major corporations in Sweden only one corporation was established after 1970. High costs regulation and high taxes provide high barriers to entry into the marketplace.
Japanese car manufacturers have a lot flexibility shifting workers to different jobs or removing the jobs altogether. There are Lexus factory in japan that is filled with robots.
In Japan and EU labor unions are a lot bigger and you have much greater job security than the USA. The JAW for ex is right now fighting to keep Japanese auto production above 10 million/yr. The UAW can't even talk about stuff like that, they have no power to keep jobs in the USA whatsoever. I can bet anything that GM will move production to Mexico in a decade screwing the American middle class.
As for Ford Motor company I don't think its the engineers or the lobyists to blame. It the fact that labor unions require certain product lines to be kept long after they are obsolete.
But its not just organized labor that is the problem because the German and Japanese automakers have thrived while American automakers have suffered. It is the structure of the labor unions.
Democracy Now is against public dollars they are right in saying that public dollars represent a conflict of interest. To receive money from the very individuals that your are trying to police?
Democracy now is funded by the ford foundation which is the charitable arm of the Ford Motor company. If funding equals control then the Democracy Now is control by the executives at the ford motor company. Because the foundation assets are mostly stock of the ford motor company when the company sells more SUV's the more Democracy now recieves.
that's very sad. programs like this should be funded by gov like bbc or cbc. of course the company would also sell more suvs if they hired more engineers instead of lobbyists and squander their profits on mediocre management..look at the japs: paying their people gov healthcare and still managing to beat americans ...but that's unfair because the japs have real engineers thanks to their public education system ;)
According to their website they reject public funding as well because and i quote directly from the website " And U.S. "public" media outlets accept funding from major corporations, as well as from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Every Corporation for Public Broadcasting board member is appointed by the White House and confirmed by the Senate.
i agree that the CPB is a joke. again, laws need to be in place to prohibit political interference like they have in Europe and canada. According to Reporters wo borders the US ranks 53rd in terms of freedom of press in this regard. As a hungarian myself I can make direct comparison between a truly free press like you have in Hungary or Finland and what you have in the USA: night and day.
google: "rfs worst violators of press freedom" and the 1st link takes you to the study.
But who makes the laws? Lawmakers lobbyists. To say that the US does not have a diversity of ideas with millions of bloggers news websites local and indepedent news organizations. To say that laws and regulations will keep people from political arm twisting is a bit naive.
For example news media in Europe is in a sad shape. The news media in France pushed the idea that Sadam was going to remain in power and France was shocked when it did not happen.
Ok, you have a point. Let me refine by example. In Hungary there is this single mom and investigative journalist Kármán Irén who was beaten real bad last June for discovering links between criminal oil companies, the hungarian police force and the political system that goes all the way to the top in all major parties. She was allowed to be on all mainstream TV/radio shows.
On the other hand you have Greg Palast an american reporter with much milder stories of US corruption and he can't even get on mainstream media, he has to work for BBC. Or just this month the biggest story in US was the missing $9bn iraqi reconstruction money and the gov complicity in the stealing through shady Bahamas securities firms, a story by investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele. How many mainstream news outlets carried this story?! None!
BBC is mainstream media. You bring up one example of corruption but I would disagree that mainstream has turned a blind eye to corruption. We do have a publicly fund news media PBS. So the solution can't just be publicly funded news media because to a lesser extent we already have it.
Again, you just ignore what I said before: the US is ranked #57 in the world in freedom of the press, sorry, but I have infinite # of examples, you have stuff happen every single day around the world and the US, do you want me to list them all over here?! the US media never reports important facts about other countries for ex, hence US citizens are ill informed about the world and believe children's tales about free markets and democracy while in reality they live in a cleptocracy.
Well you have ignored the fact that according to Freedom House US ranks number one in freedom of the press. I think its wrong to assume again that just because its big it doesn't mean that acting in a wrongful or illegal way.
I am sorry but what is "important" is subject to interpretation your values and views. Governments create a conflict of interests Public choice via Markets again are better equipped to determine what is important necessary.
How are the so call robber barons any different? They funded the arts and the sciences the ford foundation even funded democracy now which is corporate funding of anticorporate speech.
To me I would rather have a renaissance which was a time of great inequality. The Medici's where the bankers/hedge fund managers of their day. They funded the arts raised the standard of living of those around them. Through the funding of art and science trade and commerce.
If you were living back then you would have taxed them out of existence destroying the driving force of the renaissance.
Modern economic growth occurred not when the rights collective were superseded the rights of the individual. They prospepred when government secured the individual rights of private property and equity. When the individual rights were placed above that of the collective rights.
I am sorry but a 90 percent tax increase would be feudalism. Giving Lords and Kings the ability to tax everybody. During the middle ages trade and skills ground to a halt because every lord had to collect his tax.
Guilds and Unions and collectivization are not a new idea. They date back to as early as 3800 bc in India. Yet they did not have modern economic growth.
I would love to see Stiglitz and Greenspan debate policy in the political economy (USA or global issues).
BahrainiScribe 8 months ago
@BahrainiScribe I think that debate would be moot: Greenspan's views are flatly discredited by facts such as the debt to GDP ratio as published in the Historical Tables Section 7 in every budget since 1940: supply side econ is a fraud like "scientific marxism" or APR financ. It never could pay its way in the world and it will never be able to simply because capitalism needs supply and demand to be in balance and any system that's on the side of 1 or the other is going to end up out of balance!
madashelldude 6 months ago
NAOMI KLEIN.................OWNED. I like how when Greenspan explained how capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and her response was to shuffle for some more info in her papers while he's just simply kicking back drinking a whiskey and saying inside his mind..........."rookie"
commanderfreaky 8 months ago
Stupid dumb cunt!!!! DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
pureperil 9 months ago
The fundamental problem is that Naomi Klein is not that smart. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having mediocre intelligence. Difficulties arise, however, when a person with mediocre intelligence doesn't understand his limitations and tries to become an authority on intellectual topics. The result is not pretty.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny LOL! the fundamental problem with you right wingers is that you have your collective heads up your collective butts so far that you can't even see what's obvious: your world view has bankrupted the world the last 30 years. It doesn't work, never did never will: it's like communism, an authoritarian utopia. Greenspan is a trained monkey for the oligarchs: a mandarin for hire, no special intellect there. If Friedman was alive, Stiglitz and Krugman would kick his ass any time.
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 Is this how you promote brotherhood and friendship towards people of different political affiliations? As an aside, I don't consider myself a right winger--I consider myself a neoliberal or a classical liberal.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny The category you give yourself doesn't matter: what your side stands for is a patriarchal society reminiscent of a family in which daddy drives home with the $700k Lamborghini and pays for it for a while by piling on credit a card debt and then turns around and blames the disastrous family finances on fictitious "waste" in the kids lunch money and pretends there is no Lamborghini parked in the drive way. It's not only immoral but it's INSANE! Lamborghini = supply side econ.
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 I'm not even going to respond to your goofy analogy. Let me just point out that, in the last decade, free markets have taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China, India, and other developing countries. No other economic system has done as much good for more people.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny That's China: a communist technocracy led by a mechanical engineer from Tsinghua and a geologist. Their banking system is owned by the government: it was never a "free market" system. Under Greenspan the USA deregulated the banking system to a point where Jamie Diamon makes a 1000X more money as an investor speculating then a CEO of JP Morgan Chase working 4 a wage. That's not a free market: a free market is the balance between supply and demand: "supply side" is not that by def!
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 Read the Wikipedia article entitled "Economy of the People's Republic of China". It states that the economic reforms that liberalized many markets in China is the cause of China's boom.
Lastly, it's ridiculous to say that supply-side economists don't believe in a "balance between supply and demand". According to Wikipedia, supply-side economists believe that "economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services."
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny Again: you are ill informed. China has not adopted 1 letter of Greenspan's laissez faire supply side dogmas. China is building high speed rail and infrastructure while boneheaded republicans return federal funding for such projects. If you think the Chinese are copying the right wing US economic nonsense from the Greenspan era you are deluded. Supply side economists believe that the only way to stimulate the econ regardless of specifics is on the supply side, which makes no sense!
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 You're thinking in black and white. Obviously China does not have a laissez-faire economy. However, that does not negate the fact that they have liberalized many of their markets and there is now a large private sector in China. And no one says that the ONLY way to stimulate an economy is on the supply-side. Nonetheless, motivating people and eliminating barriers for production makes perfect sense because without production there can be no consumption.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny the US had a private sector waaay before Greenspan came along, to say that supply side reaganimics = "free market capitalism" is the ultimate lie perpetrated by cons today. None of the conservative policies since Reagan "make sense" since there is not 1 year since then that a conservative pres gave a budget to Congress and the GDP grew faster than the debt as a result. In contrast EVERY year 1946-1981 regardless of republican or democratic spending priorities the OPPOSITE was true!
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 Supply-side economics says that we should lower barriers to production. Free market capitalism means that the markets are free without constraints. Those are very similar concepts. And I agree that in recent years the federal deficits have been too high--but that has nothing to do with free market capitalism.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny 13 of the $14 trillion national debt was created under Greenspan. The private sector debt is 3X higher: $45 trillion, or 300% of GDP. All created AFTER 1981. Productivity skyrocketed and so did profits. In the meantime wages were depressed and real inflation adjusted wages grew less than 1% in 30 years. How is that "free market economics"?! I thought if you are 30% more productive in a free market you get 30% higher pay.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude Greenspan had nothing to do with the U.S. debt. The congress and president is responsible for fiscal policy--not the Federal Reserve. Looking at real wages is misleading because a larger percentage of worker compensation is now non-pecuniary. I don't have the figure in front of me, but I can assure you that total real compensation is much greater than 1% for the last 30 years. Also, FYI, real GDP does not take population into account. What's more useful is real GDP per capita.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny that's just propaganda and fancy accounting, fact remains that the average worker cannot spend the dollars put toward their grotesquely inflated healthcare services to buy consumer goods and thus there is no real demand in the US economy left. The last 30 years wage increases were substituted by plastic, consumer debt & ENRON accounting which is why the economy retained a semblance of a free market system. U take away the private sector debt and what you have is supply w no demand.
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 Total compensation should be used instead of wages because the non-pecuniary costs have to be paid for by employers and they represent real resources. I don't know what the hell you mean by "supply w no demand". People are still buying things--that's demand!
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny In a free market productivity and wages are always overlapping curves. Since 1981 that's not true in the US. What you are describing with "non-pecuniary costs" is Enron language, akin to "scientific marxism": it's intellectualizing and justifying naked fraud and stealing income from workers.
You are either not honest enough or not knowledgeable to have a discussion about economics and that's understandable, I never had an honest debate back in eastern europe with communists either.
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 "Non-pecuniary compensation" just means non-wage employee benefits. This includes medical insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, pensions, vacation days, sick days, unemployment benefits, etc. If you include the cost of all these benefits to wages, then American workers are significantly better off than they were 30 years ago.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny I understand what it means: it's the list of "benefits" that are part of the social contract since the New Deal and are part of the regulatory framework such as labor laws that make capitalism work in a modern welfare state and no econ theory about labor and wages EVER counted as part of wages. This funny accounting is like counting hamburger assembly as manufacturing to cook unemployment stats.If you shoot this nugget in a EU/JP freshmen econ class they will laugh you out of the room!
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 Some of the employer-paid non-wage benefits exist because of tax advantages. For example, employer-controlled medical insurance is paid with pre-tax dollars--thus giving a strong incentive to sustain the existing employer-controlled medical insurance system.
Total compensation (which includes non-wage benefits) is used in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The ECI is a very important, and widely used metric. It's not an accounting gimmick.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny The employer based medical insurance system is a massive fraud perpetrated against American wage earner: it's a way to transfer an ever increasing part of their earnings to wall street. It's part of the same scam the Greenspan commission came up with when they established the regressive FICA taxes. All of these should be payed for by progressive income taxation mostly on financial income and other earnings that don't involve labor such as rent income, inheritance, estate taxes etc.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude I don't like the employer-based medical insurance system either. I think medical insurance should follow the individual--not the employer. However, you are clearly getting carried away with your hyperbole. And I don't agree with your prescription.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny The USA is turning itself into old europe where the aristocratic elite didn't pay taxes at all and yet they were the only ones entitled to political decision making. It's a morally and economically bankrupted system with about the same credibility as communism had in the late 70s and probably about as close to total collapse.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude High-income individuals in the U.S. are paying disproportionately more taxes than the rest of us. The top 5% of earners pay about 60% of the federal income taxes.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny "High-income individuals in the U.S. are paying disproportionately more taxes " you are clearly ignorant of what we call " the real world" or how real capitalism should work. what's sad is that when people like you ended up in breadlines in communist countries they could still rationalize it: propaganda is an amazing thing.
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 If the commies had Fox News and talk radio they would still be in power ;)
madashelldude 10 months ago
@szatmar666 Where's your evidence? My rule is never to believe a claim unless there is evidence behind it. The data that I've seen from both government sources as well as third party sources say that high-income individuals pay disproportionately more taxes. In fact, just in my own life, I recall paying more taxes during years when my income was higher. And I've talked to others who say the same thing. Again, where's the evidence?
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny I doubt you have such a rule because you state an obviously false claim that "High-income individuals in the U.S. are paying disproportionately more taxes " which is not supported by facts. Nominal tax rates might look like "disproportionately higher" but EFFECTIVE rates are minuscule, 0 or in some cases negative. There is an excellent compendium of verifiable well documented scams the rich play with the tax code in 2 books written by David Cay Johnston. Again: watch?v=OCGdwL6xJ08
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude Look at the reports from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (which is a favorite source on the left). You'll see that high-income individuals pay more in absolute amount as well as percentage of income. I think these reports understate the disproportionate nature of taxes in the U.S. since they include FICA taxes--which I don't believe should be included.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny High income individuals should be the only ones paying taxes to begin with. Read Adam Smith: he favored income taxation on rent income ie. income that doesn't involve labor. Taxing financial speculation and inherited wealth are great examples. I am not for going back to a 19th century notion of free markets and I accept that wages are taxed but what I am saying is that the current tax code is rigged w plenty of evidence to that effect, whether or not u chose 2 ignore them or not.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude Taxation on rent income will hit most poor and many middle-class families since the rents will simply go up to compensate. Thus taxation on rent income would be EXTREMELY regressive. Furthermore, taxing financial speculation (i.e., stocks and bonds) would affect everyone! Companies would charge more for products and services because of decreased capital investment from stock taxation and higher interest rates from bond taxation. The result would be regressive taxation as well.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny By rent I simply meant income that's generated without labor. Before 1981 no one could make 1000X in investments what he made in wages, today investment taxes are 1/2 of corporate taxes: that's criminal!
Adam Smith was talking about the Irish potato famine: landlords were causing it by charging too much rent on farmers land. Of course this argument that businesses will simply pass costs down to customers is bogus: only monopolies can do that and monopolies are ripe for break up.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude There is overwhelming evidence that increased taxation is passed on to customers. For instance, why are interest rates on municipal bonds so much less than treasury and corporate bonds? It's because municipal bonds are exempt from federal taxes. Thus the federal government and corporations must pay more to borrow money because investors pass on their increased tax burden (relative to municipal bonds) to the recipients. And there are countless other examples.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny that's not because of free markets: that's lack of good regulations and a fraudulent financial market set up after teh 1980s. It was not the case in the 50s and 60s.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude "That's not because of free markets". Of course it is. No one is forcing investors to invest in municipal bonds instead of treasuries or vice versa. Investors preferentially choose municipal bonds because of their tax advantages--which lowers the interest rates on municipal bonds. Then, once an equilibrium is reached, municipal bonds and treasuries will become equally desirable because the market has fully compensated for the tax advantages of the municipal bonds.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny Not when FED rates are 0%! there is no "equilibrium" of any kind in a market where interest rates are 0%, no one can compete against free helicopter money.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude What are you talking about? Interest rates are not at 0%. The Fed Fund rate is currently at .14%--but that is only for overnight borrowing between banks. Short-term bonds (~1 year maturity) are currently yielding around 1%, intermediary bonds (~6 year maturity) are currently yielding around 2-3.5%, and long-term bonds (~20 year maturity) are currently yielding around 4-5%.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny BTW I am not "left or right" I am just someone who knows how to add 2+2. If you want a civilized country you have to learn that 1/2 of every well oiled capitalist market economy will belong to the public. This includes infrastructure, education and parts of the insurance industry such as health and financial insurance of last resort. There are economic reasons why you can't do certain things with the next quarterly profit in mind: the most important investments are long term.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude I agree with you that public infrastructure is important. However, well-run businesses think long-term as well. Many of them have plans that go out a decade or more.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny No business can guarantee customers, ie. future income the way a country can guarantee future taxpayers. That's a fundamental difference between the private sector and the public sector. This is also econ 101 conservatives just love to ignore.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude I never said there was no difference between the private and public sectors. You're putting words in my mouth. What I said was: "Well-run businesses think long-term as well. Many of them have plans that go out a decade or more."
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny "High-income individuals in the U.S. are paying disproportionately more taxes" - nonsense.
watch?v=OCGdwL6xJ08
madashelldude 10 months ago
@madashelldude This video doesn't talk about high-income taxes at all.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny It talks about ways the rich game the tax codes using tax loopholes put in since 1981. It's not the video, it's the SUBSTANCE of what Johnston is talking about that's well documented. If ask about sports stadiums and eminent domain for example that info is from the US Congress Committee on Oversight and Gov Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy: "Public Financing for Construction and Operation of Sports Stadiums ..." March 29, 2007. sec.org has the filings of corporations, etc.
madashelldude 10 months ago
@educheny Greenspan has EVERYTHING to do with the US debt. FED policies of cheap credit and fighting "wage inflation" is what caused consumer debt, the financialization of the US economy and thus partly the lower tax collection ie the national debt as well. Beside, the private sector debt is 3X more serious than the federal debt and it has to do with FED policies that suck capital out of Main Street and pump it into Wall Street: u can't compete against 1% FED rates, ie free money as a worker!
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 I'm sorry, but even if interests rates are low, the congress and the president do not have to increase the federal debt. They still have a choice. As an aside, the 20-year treasury bond rate has averaged 7-8% and the fed funds rate has averaged 4-5% since 1981. And I agree that the private sector debt is too high (much of which is tied up in home mortgages). Consumers share much of the blame for that situation.
educheny 10 months ago
Thanks for the upload.
Naomi Klein has got the facts on her side. Greenspan is fairly good at DODGING Klein's questions, but if you know the facts you know she is in the right.
- She cites government contracts as an example of crony capitalism
- She rightly states that Allende was overthrown
- He dodged her question about economic shortfall's with respect to ending social security
Anyways, very informative... Thanks!
AudioForAnarchists 1 year ago
capitalism has been nothing but exploitation around the world. now multinationals are buying up farmland and resources in poor countries. what little economic value these small fixed countries had is been cornered and gamed by the imf and world bank. and similar entities. consolidated wealth is not a good thing.
capitalism is a fucking racket.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube there are 2 forms of capitalism: 1 based on financial racketeering and resource monopolies and one based on innovation and consumerism. The lines are blurred sometimes but there is a clear distinction between good guys and bad guys in capitalism. I grew up in a communist country so I am not sure there is an alternative to capitalism, but I prefer the form they have in Norway instead of the one in the US.
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude ~ what the u.s, has right now is plutocracy. it's the result of thirty years of privatization, deregulation, and a wage stagnation that dumps good paying jobs by outsourcing them to places that nave no rights and little recourse to justice.
capitalism is driven by greed and resource exploitation. it pollutes the planet, it squashes millions into poverty and high unemployment, and it consolidates wealth to a very small percentage of people. it is no longer sustainable as is.
tomitstube 1 year ago
i know one system that worked miracles and i want that system implemented in my country ASAP
that system raised a nation from ashes to world's power in less than 5 years
that system didn't focus on fiat money, but on labor power. Private property was there, people were happy and prosperous.
That system was implemented in germany 1930's, from a man named Hitler.
Kikes like greenspan couldnt stand success and used england to create a war called WW2.
FUCK YOU HYPOCRITE WORM GREENSPAN.
bananito3 1 year ago
alan greespan speaks a lot without saying anything
excuses excuses
he is the typical kike
a coward demagogue that wants to find a cheap exit, aiming from time to time to the average american stupidity.
FUCK the KIKES at the FED and ISRAEL.
bananito3 1 year ago
Everything Naomi Klein says is factually true
direwolf661 2 years ago
Klein is completely unimpressive. She does not hold candle to Greenspan's intellect.
snopro54 2 years ago
my guess is Stiglitz Akerloff, Krugman or an other liberal Nobel prize winner economists wouldn't impress you either. How about instaed of comparing apples and oranges you look at facts for a change?! like i dunno...the COMPLETE COLLAPSE of the neo liberal model?!
madashelldude 2 years ago
Greenspan's intellect? What intellect? He was the architect of one the worst economic disaster since the great depression and you are calling this guy an intellect?
jaymoore299 2 years ago
@jaymoore299
to the eyes of the average american this demagogue(greenspan) looks like an intellectual.
but he is just a coward cheap swindler.
bananito3 1 year ago
@snopro54 why dont you try to point out why? you are so wrong, Klein exposes him for the FRAUD he is. He evades her questions, plays stupid, pleads the fifth, and at the begning, blames American schools! Ridiculous! I invite you to try and back this statement up
direwolf661 2 years ago
what's the real meaning of import substitution?
vanchrenz 2 years ago
it means ignoring the dollar based exchange rate mechanism which heavily skews the value of natural resources and labor to favor dollar investors against workers and citizens of less developed countries. Import substitution just means domestic industrial development while keeping dependency on foreign finance and technology and exposure to the skewed dollar based exchange rate mechanism to a minimum until they build up their own industrial base. (in short = not opening up the banking system)
madashelldude 2 years ago
you didn´t answer any of my questions, and i am waiting for a answer.
another thing that i thought you are way out touch is the transcribe the part of the coup in chile.
do you really think that chile would be better today if allende transformed chile in a communist country????
fefe74e 2 years ago
I had too many discussions with half educated self professed conservatives who had no clue what they were talking about. To engage with them is an exercise in futility. First of all I grew up in a communist country, and I happen to be familiar with Marxism up close and personal, but I also lived in 3 different countries and I'm fluent in 3 languages. If you look up Stiglitz: "Whither Socialism" and Galbraith: "Created Unequal" we can talk about socialism, ow you sound ill prepared to me.
madashelldude 2 years ago
Milton Friedman and the 21st century?! He got his nobel prize in 1976 for his work in the late 50s & early 60s on monetary history and consumption analysis. He retired academia in 1977, joined the Hoover institute and became a political pundit, haven't produced anything of consequence in econ since then. Look up his list of major papers and then look up the list of econ Nobel prizes in the last 10-20 years.
madashelldude 2 years ago
i already read. So you are in favour of big governement, high taxes, massive welfare state and socialized medicine?
Please don´t compare Scandinavia with the U.S. It´s just stupid.
i recomend to you read Milton Friedman to how a economy should be in the 21° century.
fefe74e 2 years ago
Oh ,you did, what exactly did you read from them?!
madashelldude 2 years ago
so explain to me what mixed economics realy means
fefe74e 2 years ago
who do you think pays me for educating you in contemporary economics in little 500 character boxes?! If you were really interested you would look it up. Read Stiglitz, Krugman or James Galbraith. Or if you don't read get a passport and visit Scandinavia.
madashelldude 2 years ago
All modern economies are mixed economies, with eh exeption of Cuba and North Korea.
You have just listed the names of three radical left Keynesians
Invirtuo 2 years ago
mixed economics is a euphemism to socialist measures
fefe74e 2 years ago
"socialism" is a euphemism for "I don't know WTF I am talking about"
madashelldude 2 years ago
Alan Greenspan has good ideas on education
Eldel15 2 years ago
Klein is an intellectual lightweight. Nothing but demagoguery and lies.
Vodka2389 2 years ago
Vodka,as I said before: stick to drinking. Throwing around ad hominem nonsense is a great way to acknowledge intellectual inferiority. U shouldn't give up so easy and let everybody believe that conservatives can't make a coherent argument or can't have a relevant point on a specific subject matter ;)
madashelldude 2 years ago
Alan Greenspan was right that in 30 years USA w'd soffer about populism, protectionism and socialism ( what now they don't call socialism but mix economy) and Naomi Klein is one of the first wolfs dressing as a cheep to get power from the people by populism promises.
sincity147 3 years ago
why do ignorant people in the US who never been to Europe or Japan never visited communist Eastern Europe, don't speak foreign languages and in general are complete morons on economics, always talk about "socialism" as if they knew WTF they are talking about.
szatmar666 3 years ago
The Forms of Free market system you and anyone else aspire too seeks only to create a secioty based on false Negative Liberty. This ideology leads to a secioty with out any meaning nothing to live for but for individualism gratification and indulgences. What Naomi is talking about is creating a fair and Social Justice in our secioty. What she and everyone else wants is True Social Democracy not a government that only cators for the few. What you and the minority wants us to have is Plutocracy.
Soonerg212 3 years ago
You soonerg212 you are just another wolf, do a favor for the whole humanity go get a job, go to a university and get a degree i know its hard, i know in a free capitalist society the competition is very hard, but at least you make the living by your own merits and not using the government subsities (money taken by force from the taxpayers).
sincity147 3 years ago
I can see now that you know nothing of what you talk about. Insults,falshood and propaganda won't get you any where. You guys are out. Period. If all you care about is yourself,well I can't help you.The fact still is that Inequality has increased in the likes that has not been seen since the 1920's. That is the fact and that is a Sin. Boy how the Sin suits your Username. Listen you no longer have the American people support when it comes to the Free Markets and get use to Democracy it's here now
Soonerg212 3 years ago
You say " Greenspan's tenure brought great growth " now you have it TOTAL COLAPSE IF THE ECONOMY CAUSE BY Greenspans Policy.
and more bad news are comming in 2009 You will see more.
One days americans will be gardeners and baby sitters for the China
PolishAmericanDC 3 years ago
naomi klein just need a good hard dicking.
mets48854 3 years ago
Comments from conservatives reveal a great deal of sexual repression. I noticed cons are getting a hardon from Sarah Palin too cause they are all mesmerized by her naughty teacher image which reminds me of cheap 1980s porn flicks, even tho I never heard her say anything intelligent...EVER! so it's not about her ideas. I think the whole conservative movement is a revolt of frustrated compulsive masturbators, men who just don't get laid enough: the whole movement is a revenge on the world 4 that!
szatmar666 3 years ago 9
@szatmar666 Many people comment on her looks and sex because there is nothing else interesting about her (at least from these videos). Her ideas are trite and vacuous. She has a juvenile mentality (reminiscent of Lisa Simpson, but worse). She is wholly lacking in understanding of economics. And despite her ignorance, she still displays an arrogant, self-confident demeanor to the world.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny "trite and vacuuous", kinda like your comment. It amazes me how much you cons can project: you make empty ad hominem remarks without ever detecting the irony in bashing someone for not understanding economics while you yourself have no argument of any substance regarding economics or anything of she actually said.
szatmar666 10 months ago
@szatmar666 I can provide lots of arguments against what she said (or implied). I was just summarizing for you. And as somebody who knows something about economics, I can assure you that she is quite ignorant on the subject. And, as I said before, I consider myself a neoliberal--not a conservative.
educheny 10 months ago
@educheny provide just 1 (one!) as "somebody who knows something" LOL! the arrogance of you people is astounding!
madashelldude 9 months ago
This dyke has no business discussing economics. She's just some journalist who's attracted a bunch of leftists morons.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
Don't get off your vodka mate, you might start thinking. BTW, u rightwingers in the USA are dumber than the commies were where I grew up: u can't even tell whats going on with all the info in front of u. At least the commies had an excuse: they were not allowed to travel or have any access to facts. you have all the facts available 2 u 2 compute the exact amount your elites r stealing from u but in your infinite laziness u just swallow right wing propaganda from the TV like it was beer.
szatmar666 3 years ago 2
My family and I were born in the USSR too. And I'm not a right winger, I'm pro individual freedom. This Klein chick doesn't even say exactly what she's in favor of and what are her principles. She's just spewing off some rhetoric as if corporations and profit are synonymous with evil.
She understands nothing about economics and takes the wealth of the west for granted. Has she ever asked how the people of western countries became so wealthy?
Vodka2389 3 years ago
The western countries became wealthy by the same way most great wealth is created. Rip everyone off every way you can.
vivahst 3 years ago
I get ur point... Klein is out of her league here. They would need more high profile opponent to Greenspan... Maybe, Chomsky, Zinn, Pilger...
Perussaataja 3 years ago
Yeah, our wealth has nothing to do with the exploitation of Africa and the 3rd world!
mizzzzzzzzo 3 years ago
agree 100%
Perussaataja 3 years ago
Chomsky vs. Greenspan... Wow. I'd pay to see that.
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
naomi klein gets her ass handed to her
fishmongerfunk 3 years ago 3
don't think so
1samothrace77 3 years ago
she is way out of her depths and he calls her on her bullshit utopian, self-satisfied views.
fishmongerfunk 3 years ago 5
"Every economy that exists has elements of crony capitalism" That is an inevitable outcome... it is not the dominant force this this country...." HUH? 115000 no-bid private contracts - Halliburton's rip-offs, DYN CORP's rip offs, isn't the DOMINANT FORCE of our economy? Alan Greenspan got his teeth kicked in here. What a lying sack of shit.
bestinhouse 3 years ago
I wonder how my Monsanto and Haliburton stock are doing...
kcwoodfield 3 years ago
the problem exactly. industrial activity, ie. the real economy is much more efficient in creating and distributing prosperity. investing or gambling on the stock market is for the privileged and susceptible to market manipulation. haliburton and monsanto are 2 companies that wouldn't survive 5 minutes in a free market without the conservative nanny state diverting huge resources from taxpayers to farm subsidies and no bid defense contracts. this is no capitalism, it's mercantile monopolism.
madashelldude 3 years ago
while you keep coming up with cute words i'm gonna go golfing
kcwoodfield 3 years ago
read, "The Disturbing "Rise" of Global Income Inequality" by, Xavier Sala-i-Martin (economist at Columbia University) his figures show an interesting trend...much of scholarship today disagrees with her out dated arguments.
kcwoodfield 3 years ago
his main argument that inequality is driven mainly by the income increase of 1.2 bn Chinese is bogus if you look at US domestic picture. In the US taxes are the major factor and Greenspan's loose monetary policies are a secondary: David Cay Johnston describes how the rich avoid taxes using the conservative "free market" mantra and Hudson describes how the global financial system is rigged to drive that inequality globally. China is made possible by offshore tax shelters for western corpors.
madashelldude 3 years ago
His main argument is not bad, but he discusses it in the realm of economics, something you obviously don't understand.
GoBogi 3 years ago
i have read No Logo, Fences and Windows, and The Shock Doctrine and they are all a gross oversimplification of free trade and globalization etc...
kcwoodfield 3 years ago
well, if you are such an astute reader you should perhaps read more technical economic literature, like Joe Stiglitz, David Cay Johnston, James K Galbraith, Robert Reich, Michael Hudson etc. Klein is an activist and she brings the issues to the masses. she is not required to hash out the technical details.
madashelldude 3 years ago
She is required to not make a fool of herself by challenging someone so above her IRT economics. Also she is not factoring in that Greenspan had access to information that she was not priviledged enough to account for in making his decisions. She also needs to realize that Greenspan's tenure brought great growth to the US economy, so him being blamed for everything is a bit suspect. Seems like people are using him as a scapegoat these days...
GoBogi 3 years ago
5:14 and what economic model do you propose Naomi Klein?
kcwoodfield 3 years ago
She said it many times, she writes about it in her books: a mixed Scandinavian style economy is most well suited for democracy.
madashelldude 3 years ago
this isn't a Scandinavian country...
kcwoodfield 3 years ago
what's your point?! Before the conservative movement and the Nixon-Reagan revolution the US was #1 in every aspect that Scandinavian countries are #1 today from income equality to social justice. Today the USA is the #1 jailer and the #1 in income disparity with the worst social mobility in the western world, ie. only 30% of those born in poverty make it into middle class. In Denmark that's 60%. this is the failure of libertarian laissez faire capitalism not capitalism in general.
madashelldude 3 years ago
Klein's repeatedly tries to take Greenspan to task for non-Federal Reserve activities. She repeatedly cites the way things were before and after he took office, assuming a causal relationship between his policies and things like CEO salaries and no-bid contracts! That's embarassingly poor reasoning.
etsneroj 3 years ago
There is a direct causal relationship between the 2002 accounting scandal, the subsequent historically low interest rates and the current housing crisis. In 2002 we saw 1 market maker (Enron) go down but none of the major buyers and sellers were audited or investigated. Instead we saw a flood of cheep liquidity flowing into the pockets of JP Morgan execs who were major culprits in the off balance sheet financing scam of ENRON, just like they are in the CDO market today.Now that's moral hazard!
szatmar666 3 years ago
If Greenspan was a Confederate in the Civil war he would be arguing that his side treated the slaves more humanely and would try and point out all the "good" things they did for the slaves. Greenspan is obviously charismatic in arguing his point, but with more and more people supplying more and more people with info like this, we can make big change. Thanks!!!!!
juancaralb 3 years ago
Klein is very weak in this interview. Greenspan clearly on top.
TphaRoock 4 years ago
this is not a nature movie about reproduction or some sportscasting?! wtf are you talking about?!
madashelldude 4 years ago
He means, Klein is trying to win a game of "gotcha" with Greenspan, but she does not succeed. He is smarter, but more importantly, if there are "goods" to be had on Greenspan (and there very well might be), she doesn't have them. Klein is very smart, but economics at this level is insanely complex and does not lend itself to simplistic fingerpointing.
etsneroj 3 years ago
YANKEES: hypocrites, murderers, liars, terrorists, patrons of dictatorships, sackers of petroleum, first importer of drugs of the planet, ex-"friends" of Osama and Hussein, etc... Thank you for the teachings of "freedom" and "democracy" in Latin America: Pinochet and an enormous list of students of the School of Assassins from Panama are very grateful with their teachings.
binomio12345 4 years ago
DId he say he wanted to increase skilled labor to drive DOWN wages? Driving down wages? Is he serious? What would this do to our standard of living?
dreamsofmineus 4 years ago
Greenspan is being attacked by the Pacifica crew and holds up just fine. This was a pretty good discussion, but Klein is not getting the point ... of course if she did she would not sell any books. Greenspan points out that Capitalism is the system that makes the best use of human nature ... for better or for worse.
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
I think you don't get what the "Pacifica crew" is saying. There is capitalism in Sweden and Japan too. But they don't invade unarmed nations and then loot their revenues deposited in their Central Bank wo the head of the bank even knowing about it even though there are ongoing investigations and everybody read about it in the newspapers. BS just takes you so far, even if you call the BS "Greenspan-talk" it's just BS.
madashelldude 4 years ago
Sweden and Japan outsource their violence to the US, and that is a good thing. It is a stabilizing influence to have one country with overwhelming power as "leader of the democratic pack" so to speak.
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
Fancy Pentagon speak. Makes no sense. This propaganda assumes you can only do business via violence which is not the case. Sweden would be well thank you very much if the US elite did not decide to invade Iraq. To say that they need the US to defend them is ignoring the fact that they defeated the Soviet Union in 1939-40 in Finland in the "Winter War", so they need no defending: thanks a lot, but no thanks! ;)
madashelldude 4 years ago
>> This propaganda assumes you can only
>> do business via violence
bull, no one said only, if someone is determined to be violent or break the rules someone else needs to police them, or all hell breaks loose.
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
Yes, and that's why we had the system set up by the USA after WW2. Which is exactly the rule of law that's being harmed by this war and republicans are trying to dismantle since Nixon got out of Breton Woods and Reagan started to fund pirate wars with a fiat currency basically forcing the rest of the world out of the system. That's why you have the EU, the euro and the ICC: the rest of the world is trying to plug the holes US conservatives are punching in the international system.
szatmar666 4 years ago
Wonders never cease ... that is actually a very astute comment ... thanks ... now, can you back that up, point to any sources on this, why would the Republicans be trying to do this, and all Republicans, or some smaller subset?
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
it's a small subset called the "Project for the New American Century". Econ aspects of this are analyzed in detail and proven to be unsustainable by Soros in 1998:"The Crisis of Global Capitalism" - he describes why countries started opting out of the system in the 90s. Since then many recognized it, like Kevin Phillips former Nixon campaign strategist (1968) and Chalmers Johnson. First it was described by Michael Hudson econ prof at UMKC in his 1972 book "Super Imperialism".
szatmar666 4 years ago
no ... you are wrong about the neocons ... this is not a neocon thing, before the neocons it was the neoliberals, they have nothing to do with what you are talking about, they are global democrats as opposed to isolationists. I read PNAC and if you did to instead of comments about it you would see it makes sense
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
I read it. Most neocons served in right wing govs going back to Ford and Nixon: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams etc. On the other hand you should read the books and then we can talk. Super Imperialism can be downloaded for free. Also check out michael-hudson DOT com.
szatmar666 4 years ago
Strictly speaking you are right that it's not just the "neocons". but that's not the point. There are even democrats in this what I call "imperial hubris" or "going alone" policies which believes we can achieve a lot more with sticks than carrots, and thus systematically undermines the very fabric of international system that made America what it is today.
szatmar666 4 years ago
The problem is the American people. They are lazy and stupid ... listen to Greenspan talk about the failure of the schools. It goes down to the society and the family. In the 60's and 70's it became fashionable for women to have have children out of wedlock and go on welfare, this segment has expanded and caused problems for everyone else.
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
that's a lazy and stupid answer. besides: Nixon never asked the american people if they agree with the idea to bankrupt the treasury in Vietnam and then declare bankruptcy by getting off the gold standard. did the supreme court ask the american people before they appointed Bush?! is the FCC asking the american people before they create rules that concentrate all media in the hands of defense contractors and Rupert Murdoch?!
szatmar666 4 years ago
Yeah, you are one of these gold standard fanatics. I agree about the media but that is a different fight than throwing it all in together and blaming the neocons for everything.
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
Yeah, you are one of these "don't read don't know shit but sure have an opinion" fanatics ..still waiting for you addressing the points in any of the sources I provided at your request ;)
I am not advocating going back to the gold standard but i am also not advocating corrupt republicans destroying the dollar's reserve status just to drown gov in debt so they can say that social programs are just beyond the capacity of our budget so we need to "privatize them" ie. loot the commons.
szatmar666 4 years ago
You should be careful going out on a limb like that, I read a lot, I just read different things from what you read and draw different opinions. The last two things I read on US economics/capitalism was "SuperCapitalism" by Robert Reich, and "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. Both are interesting, but Klein's viewpoint is major league scare tactics to appeal to the left anti-American bunch. I am not anti-American, I'm pro-American.
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
I wasn't making a remark on how well read you are IN GENERAL. I was making a specific observation about your way of debating. I was stating that the repubs are destroying the same international system that made America great. then you made a snide little comment requesting sources which is fine, I did provide. now you are accusing me of some gold standard lunacy because you misunderstand what I was saying: Hudson mentions 1971 as a turning point in the 1st few pages of his book.
szatmar666 4 years ago
that would be a slight mis characterization of "gold standarders"
laotsu7777 4 years ago
Sweden did nothing for Finland in the winter war. Some individual Sweeds came to help but the gov't of sweden did nothing.
TheFINPERKELE1 1 year ago
With the decline of mainstream media maybe people are reject what they see on the news today and that has given to the rise of non-traditional news sources such as the internet. But again that is a market solution and not a government regulated one.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Is there such a thing as public wealth? I think corporation regulation should be on not how big or how powerful but on how they act. Just because your small does not mean that your playing by the rules and just because your big does not mean that your breaking them.
I think that the assumption that corporate wealth is spread out through the millions of share holders so call corporate greed funds 401k and retirements finances charitable foundations and even Democracy Now.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
I am not blind to the fact that many corporations exert negative influence on business and the economy. But that just further evidence breaking many of the links between business and government.
If the government is judge and arbitrator between parties and a competitor of other private business, This represents a huge conflict of interest and limits government's ability to arbitrate fairly.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
I agree that the confluence of business and gov is a major part of this. The agenda mainly hidden behind "deregulation" made it possible by a systematic undermining of regulatory agencies and corporate cops such as the SEC, EPA FDA etc to milk taxpayer monies for personal gain on behalf of a few private corporations & individuals. Free market is euphemism for "free from cops" who would ow guard the public wealth.
madashelldude 4 years ago
What Japanese have better engineers than Americans? I beg to differ out of the top 20 Universities world wide only 2 Cambridge and one in Japan are not from the US. The Japanese university doesn't even make the top 10.
Europe which has a economy roughly the size of the US spends more on university education and gets less results. For all of its funding and wealth few European Universities can compete with the top 50 to 100 US Universities.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
That's highly speculative and inaccurate characterization. I on the other hand was simply referring to Japanese car engineering beating Ford and other US automakers on all markets and that's an undisputed fact today. They do that while providing job security for life and good pensions and benefits while US car makers are blaming those very same benefits 4 their shrinking market share.
madashelldude 4 years ago
Japan believes in lifetime employment but is flexible in what type of job it is.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Bush when he came into power pushed for 1 billion dollars worth of aids drugs to Africa.
What do we hear in the media Clinton is a rock star in africa and Bush is a villain. I am not saying that everything Bush did was peachy but european news organization blantently push one side of the argument regardless of the facts.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
But why does the US have the lead to begin with? Many European universities are centuries older then their American counterparts.
The gospel of wealth and alumni giving and private giving in general is strong entrenched in the American psyche. European government funds the universities but do not allow universities compete with each other for students professors etc. Their goal is standard education. They achieved their goal its standard not excellent.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Do you really think that George Bush gets a fair deal in the news media?
For example Clinton pushed for 77 million dollars for aids drugs to africa... the entire continent 77 million dollars.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
I don't understand why democracies must have high punitive tax rates in order to be called a democracy.
Sweden for example had low marginal tax rates but slowly raised them over the years until they hit their zenith in the 1970's. It should be no surprise that out of the major corporations in Sweden only one corporation was established after 1970. High costs regulation and high taxes provide high barriers to entry into the marketplace.
Inequality does not represent poverty.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Japanese car manufacturers have a lot flexibility shifting workers to different jobs or removing the jobs altogether. There are Lexus factory in japan that is filled with robots.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
In Japan and EU labor unions are a lot bigger and you have much greater job security than the USA. The JAW for ex is right now fighting to keep Japanese auto production above 10 million/yr. The UAW can't even talk about stuff like that, they have no power to keep jobs in the USA whatsoever. I can bet anything that GM will move production to Mexico in a decade screwing the American middle class.
madashelldude 4 years ago
As for Ford Motor company I don't think its the engineers or the lobyists to blame. It the fact that labor unions require certain product lines to be kept long after they are obsolete.
But its not just organized labor that is the problem because the German and Japanese automakers have thrived while American automakers have suffered. It is the structure of the labor unions.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Democracy Now is against public dollars they are right in saying that public dollars represent a conflict of interest. To receive money from the very individuals that your are trying to police?
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Democracy now is funded by the ford foundation which is the charitable arm of the Ford Motor company. If funding equals control then the Democracy Now is control by the executives at the ford motor company. Because the foundation assets are mostly stock of the ford motor company when the company sells more SUV's the more Democracy now recieves.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
that's very sad. programs like this should be funded by gov like bbc or cbc. of course the company would also sell more suvs if they hired more engineers instead of lobbyists and squander their profits on mediocre management..look at the japs: paying their people gov healthcare and still managing to beat americans ...but that's unfair because the japs have real engineers thanks to their public education system ;)
madashelldude 4 years ago
According to their website they reject public funding as well because and i quote directly from the website " And U.S. "public" media outlets accept funding from major corporations, as well as from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Every Corporation for Public Broadcasting board member is appointed by the White House and confirmed by the Senate.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
i agree that the CPB is a joke. again, laws need to be in place to prohibit political interference like they have in Europe and canada. According to Reporters wo borders the US ranks 53rd in terms of freedom of press in this regard. As a hungarian myself I can make direct comparison between a truly free press like you have in Hungary or Finland and what you have in the USA: night and day.
google: "rfs worst violators of press freedom" and the 1st link takes you to the study.
madashelldude 4 years ago
But who makes the laws? Lawmakers lobbyists. To say that the US does not have a diversity of ideas with millions of bloggers news websites local and indepedent news organizations. To say that laws and regulations will keep people from political arm twisting is a bit naive.
For example news media in Europe is in a sad shape. The news media in France pushed the idea that Sadam was going to remain in power and France was shocked when it did not happen.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Ok, you have a point. Let me refine by example. In Hungary there is this single mom and investigative journalist Kármán Irén who was beaten real bad last June for discovering links between criminal oil companies, the hungarian police force and the political system that goes all the way to the top in all major parties. She was allowed to be on all mainstream TV/radio shows.
madashelldude 4 years ago
On the other hand you have Greg Palast an american reporter with much milder stories of US corruption and he can't even get on mainstream media, he has to work for BBC. Or just this month the biggest story in US was the missing $9bn iraqi reconstruction money and the gov complicity in the stealing through shady Bahamas securities firms, a story by investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele. How many mainstream news outlets carried this story?! None!
madashelldude 4 years ago
BBC is mainstream media. You bring up one example of corruption but I would disagree that mainstream has turned a blind eye to corruption. We do have a publicly fund news media PBS. So the solution can't just be publicly funded news media because to a lesser extent we already have it.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Again, you just ignore what I said before: the US is ranked #57 in the world in freedom of the press, sorry, but I have infinite # of examples, you have stuff happen every single day around the world and the US, do you want me to list them all over here?! the US media never reports important facts about other countries for ex, hence US citizens are ill informed about the world and believe children's tales about free markets and democracy while in reality they live in a cleptocracy.
madashelldude 4 years ago
Well you have ignored the fact that according to Freedom House US ranks number one in freedom of the press. I think its wrong to assume again that just because its big it doesn't mean that acting in a wrongful or illegal way.
I am sorry but what is "important" is subject to interpretation your values and views. Governments create a conflict of interests Public choice via Markets again are better equipped to determine what is important necessary.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
How are the so call robber barons any different? They funded the arts and the sciences the ford foundation even funded democracy now which is corporate funding of anticorporate speech.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
To me I would rather have a renaissance which was a time of great inequality. The Medici's where the bankers/hedge fund managers of their day. They funded the arts raised the standard of living of those around them. Through the funding of art and science trade and commerce.
If you were living back then you would have taxed them out of existence destroying the driving force of the renaissance.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Modern economic growth occurred not when the rights collective were superseded the rights of the individual. They prospepred when government secured the individual rights of private property and equity. When the individual rights were placed above that of the collective rights.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
I am sorry but a 90 percent tax increase would be feudalism. Giving Lords and Kings the ability to tax everybody. During the middle ages trade and skills ground to a halt because every lord had to collect his tax.
Guilds and Unions and collectivization are not a new idea. They date back to as early as 3800 bc in India. Yet they did not have modern economic growth.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago