I wish to apologize to any of my readers that have left comments in the past. All comments were answered by me and in a fit of “dumbass” I went back sometime ago and deleted all comments. Finally, the brain farts ceased and I realized that I had deleted all past comments.
For this I am sorry, because I relish the comments from readerI enjoy a meaningful echange of points of view. Please accept my apology and it will not happen again.
Another Monday, another quiz. Today’s quiz is going along with what is happening in the real world, economics.
First of all to my participants, I made a screw up and deleted posts and answers to past classrooms, for this I apologize.
Todays question is : This theory in economics states that in every epoch the prevailing mode of economic production explains the form of social and political organization of society. What is the theory called?
Good luck and please slip quietly out when finished.
Yes Irene, we seem to have a deal….and it is not all that dis-similar to the original 4 pages. So it took these people a week to comeback to the original document.
Lawmakers finished writing the bill late Sunday, after which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared it “frozen,” meaning no changes would be made. The bill leaves many mechanics of the operation up to the Treasury. Among these are the crucial issues of how the U.S. government would decide which assets it will buy and how it would decide what to pay for them. The legislation leaves the Treasury 45 days to issue guidelines on those procedures. The bill awaits votes in Congress starting on Monday.
The political fallout from the bailout could be substantial, given the enormous expenditure of taxpayer money. Some polls show wide opposition. But the legislation includes provisions designed to guard against ultimate losses for the government. And it calls on the Treasury, as an owner of mortgage securities, to “encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages” to minimize foreclosures.
Considering that the PEOPLE, you and me, were against the bailout by at least 100 to 1, but yet the people that you voted for to do business as you see fit, decided that Wall Street was far more important than the wishes of the people. You are getting screwed without the kiss. And these slugs will be looking for your votes in November.
Remind me again the advantages to the representative form of government. Apparently I missed something in my 6th grade civics class.
Neo-liberalism specialized in selling an illusion, namely that the unfettered functioning of markets, both commodity markets and financial markets, constituted the best economic arrangement for a society. This illusion had been buried in the 1930s, by the experience of the Great Depression, and by the theoretical endeavors of John Maynard Keynes, a British Liberal and Michael Kalecki, a Polish Marxist. But it was resurrected to serve a specific purpose. This resurrection had nothing to do with any theoretical demonstration of the invalidity of the Keynes-Kalecki propositions. True, the Keynesian prescription for the rescuing of capitalism had turned out to have been problematical, as indeed one would expect with any Liberal panacea for capitalism; but this is not the same as saying that the Keynesian analysis of the ills of capitalism had been proved wrong. The resurrection therefore was a theoretical sleight-of-hand.
Behind this resurrection were financial interests, re-acquiring hegemony in a new incarnation, after the setbacks faced by them during the Depression, war and immediate post-war years. Keynes had called for the “euthanasia of the rentier” and the “socialization of investment.” In his view the basic fault of the market mechanism was that it could not distinguish between “enterprise” and “speculation”, so that the unfettered functioning of markets made the livelihood of the common people dependent on the whims of a bunch of speculators. Capitalism, whose survival he had wanted, could not, in his view, survive if this grievous fault was not rectified through the institutionalization of State intervention in crucial spheres relating to its functioning. Resurgent finance capital, in its new “globalized” garb, starting from the late sixties, took its revenge on Keynes, and decided to put the clock back. It “sold,” or imposed through agencies like the IMF and the World Bank, its free market ideology all around the globe. While Keynes had wanted finance to remain national, so that nation-States could have the autonomy to pursue employment-promoting policies, “globalized” finance forced nation-States to open their doors to its unfettered movements, and justified it by invoking the illusion of an efficient free market.
Is “Voodoo Economics” fianlly dead?
This story was first reported in 2006 on KSLA–Shreveport, LA.
In May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.
A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.
The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to “obey the government” when martial law is declared.
Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, “because the government’s established by the Lord, you know. And, that’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture.”
Phony Christian leaders are brainwashing their congregations to accept the premise that the totalitarian police state is “of the Lord” and that they should get on their knees and lick jackboots while the round-ups take place as citizens are processed into quarantine zones and detention camps by the National Guard and U.S. troops returning from Iraq.
This is a clear precursor for the imminent declaration of a state of emergency, a scenario that President Bush codified in his recent Presidential Decision Directive of May 9th , which states in the event of a “catastrophic event” the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.
The scope of the program is so secretive that even Homeland Security Committee member and Congressman Peter DeFazio was denied access to view the classified portion of the documents.
A question that I have been trying to answer for 40+ years. Along with the one, why are we afraid of the poor? Both questions are difficult to answer. And really difficult to find a starting point to answer the questions. I have started this piece many times and after awhile and much thought I have thrown it away just to start over and over and…….
The poor have been tagged in the past and are still being tagged as lazy, cheap and promiscuous. Labels that are used to try and explain why there is a condition known as POVERTY. Many define poverty, few actually offer any solutions.
In The US there are approximately 35 million people living in poverty. The present economic crisis will no doubt raise those numbers considerably.
Poverty has become a dirty word because of several factors. One of the factors is the perception of poverty and the poor by society. Through many years and many political tap dances the poor have been used as a tool in elections, both pro and con. Thus perceptions are now standard in some political circles. The people have been taught to believe: 1) the poor are extremely disliked, 2) poverty equates to a moral failure, 3) the poor are uneducated, unemployed and on welfare, 4) the poor are a threat to the upper class who believe that we are in control of our lives, 5) the poor cost us money.
But the poor have a place in American society, they do the filthy, dangerous, temporary, undignified, menial jobs, the labor of the poor at low wages frees up the affluent for more important activities, the poor help create jobs which protects society from the poor, such as police, which would be less needed if there were fewer poor, the poor clear the stocks from the selves with day old bread, dent stores, etc.
In recent elections the poor have not been a concern of the candidates, other than a little political rhetoric they were never a problem to be solved. Look at this campaign season, the McCain camp talks about jobs for America, but offer plans like his home plan, or his gas tax holiday, none of which address the poor of the country. He wants to preserve human dignity by overturning Roe, protecting marriage, promoting adoption, but nothing about the dignity of the poor. As usual the Repubs basically ignore the poor and the problems they face.
Now we have the Dem side of the coin. Obama’s plan is to expand the earned credit, raise the minimum wage, increase affordable housing, and strengthen the family unit, and so on. All sounds good in speeches and sound bites; it does not address the core cause of poverty. The social system as well as the political system has created poverty and it must change to end poverty. Change is what is being promised by both candidates, but unfortunately, neither candidate has the answer. Their proposals are merely band-aids for a gunshot wound.
Until there is a serious attempt to end poverty, then the poor will continue to be joked about, pitied, and most notably feared. Yes, I said feared. Why? Because the poor are a reminder that all is not perfect in this country and a lot of work must be done to make it so. But sadly, no one wants to truly end poverty, just to use it for self-serving ends.
That Irene is why poverty is a dirty word.
Advocates for senior citizens and disabled people denounced Republican Presidential nominee John McCain for repeating his call for a Wall Street takeover of Social Security in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
They cited a Sept. 21 interview on CNBC in which McCain reiterated support for President Bush’s privatization scheme, in which workers would put part of their Social Security withholding in private “individual retirement accounts.” McCain told CNBC, “I still believe that young Americans ought to…put some of their money into accounts with their name on it.” He made the comment even though workers with private 401(k) plans are now watching as their retirement nest eggs go up in smoke.
The critics, speaking at an emergency Sept. 19 telephone news conference sponsored by Americans United for Change (AUC), pointed out that tens of millions of seniors and disabled people who depend on monthly Social Security checks would be facing poverty if Bush and the Republican leadership, had succeeded in privatizing the system.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, said the current “turbulence” on Wall Street underlines the importance of Social Security’s ironclad guarantees. “This illustrates the risk” of “relying on private accounts,” Baker said. “Furthermore, the collapse of the housing bubble has destroyed much of the wealth of middle class baby boomers, making them even more dependent than ever on Social Security.”
Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute said, “After the events of this week, to not recognize the folly of privatizing Social Security suggests an imperviousness to evidence that is really quite scary in someone who wants to be president.”
Funk said AUC’s “Bush Legacy” bus, now half-way through its nationwide tour, focuses on the Bush-McCain drive to privatize Social Security. During the 2006 election AUC, which spearheaded the fightback against Social Security privatization, initiated the “Golden Promise Pledge to Protect Social Security and Oppose Privatization.” It was presented to every House and Senate candidate with the demand that they swear they will not support Bush’s drive to destroy Social Security. “The Bush Legacy bus just arrived at the offices of Republican Congressman, Tim Walberg in Battle Creek, Michigan, to ask him to sign the pledge,” Funk said. “Democrats are 100 percent unified in opposition to privatization. The Republicans like to play word games. We’re uncertain where they stand so we are going to confront them: Do you or don’t you support the Bush-McCain privatization scheme?”
JUst think what yoiur Social Security would be worth with the present crisis.
The economic crisis deepens with the failure of WaMu and all the tap dancing by our elected officials is not doing much to quell the fears of the people. Recently, in my writings I have been critical of the bailout, but not so much on Obama. For that I have been accused of being in the tank for Obama.
First of all that accusation is CRAP! I am in the tank for none of the above. But I have been reading and making notes and I will pass on what I have found about Obama and the bailout.
Backing away from one more of his meager campaign promises, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would reconsider his proposal to rescind the Bush administration’s tax cuts for the rich when he takes office if the US economy is in recession.
That Obama is backing away from even the minimal changes to the tax giveaways to the rich calls into question his entire platform and is a powerful indication that his semi-populist appeals to anger over the economic conditions confronting the vast majority of the population are nothing but empty campaign rhetoric.
Under conditions in which millions of American workers are confronting the loss of their jobs as well as their homes, the Democratic candidate failed to explain why an economic crisis would make untenable any increase in the tax rates for the super-rich.
At a hearing Tuesday, Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee assured Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke that they would move quickly to pass legislation authorizing the Bush administration to launch a trillion-dollar-plus bailout of Wall Street.
The hearing was billed by the media as a confrontation between angry and skeptical senators and the top financial regulators in the Bush administration. But it was held in the midst of intense closed-door negotiations between the administration and congressional leaders and repeated assurances from the Democratic and Republican congressional leadership that progress is being made toward rapid passage of the bailout legislation.
Dodd, other Democrats and some Republicans are appealing to Paulson and the Bush administration for marginal amendments to their initial proposal, which they hope can be used to diffuse popular anger and make the bailout appear more “fair.” These include some form of oversight of the treasury secretary, “conflict of interest” provisions regarding the Wall Street firms that will manage the program, language to limit—or give the appearance of limiting—executive pay of companies that offload their financial junk to the government, a requirement that companies hand over stock or stock warrants as collateral, and some form of minimal relief for distressed homeowners.
Obama has basically signed on to this plan with the proper amendments.
In a further demonstration of his subservience to Wall Street, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said that the $700 billion bailout of US financial institutions now moving through Congress would force a delay in additional spending by an incoming Democratic administration.
The new spending Obama has proposed on programs like education, infrastructure and health care is so minimal, compared to the vast social need, that it doesn’t deserve the label “reform.” It is barely a sop. But even this is likely to be withheld initially, and then canceled outright once the cost of the Wall Street bailout mushrooms, as it inevitably will.