anonymous asked:

I remember you saying Coolidge was your favorite president policy wise. I agree to a certain extent, but I just wanted to get your opinion on the views that have said his policies caused the stock market crash of '29 and the Great Depression. Did Coolidge's policies exacerbate the uneven distribution of income and buying power? Thus leading to an overproduction of goods for a lack of wealthy consumers?

I would say no. Coolidges’ policies did not contribute to the Great Depression because Coolidge barely had any policies. Coolidge is on one of the few presidents to actually shrink the federal budget, balanced it and reduced our public debt.

Coolidge did reduce the top tax rate and we saw GDP grow at an average of 3.5% per year in his presidency. Not only did he lower top tax rates, but the lowest bracket, which only taxed income between $4,000 and $8,000 (not adjusted for inflation) was lowered to 2%. (X)

Coolidge balanced the budget, reduced taxes, increased revenue or maintained it and reduced the debt while running budget surpluses!

Rather it was too much government action by Hoover and Roosevelt along with action taken by the Federal Reserve that crashed the market in ‘29.
Marco Rubio Advocates Pacific Trade Deal As A Tool To Force China To Stop Economic Manipulation
Marco Rubio appeared on CNBC's Squawk Box to discuss his plan for competing econmically with China in the 21st Century, which he will outline in a major speech later today. "Our relationship with China," says Rubio, "will define what the 21st Century is going to look like." "We shouldn't be doing anything that is counterproductive, starting a currency war, which would harm Americans," he explains. "But we also can't fall into this trap of beleiving that engagement alone and more trade will lead to a change in their behavior." "China is governed by an autocratic communist regime. Very closed off, and they are strategic competitors, without a doubt," he continues. "I beleive we need to not just increase defense spending but our posture in that region, and strengthen our ties." "On the economic front, this week is a case of why we need to finally conclude this trade agreement with our allies in the Asia-pacific region," MARCO RUBIO: This is important, we were going to give this speech anyway. Our relationship with China will, in many ways, define what the 21st Century is going to look like. CNBC HOST: If there was ever -- If you look up "frenemy," they could probably put it in the dictionary it has bee used so much, but that, it really exactly describes what we are with China. It is so essential that we retain good relationships in terms of trade. It is a market we need to sell into, and yet they steal our technology, they own us, they need to keep buying our Treasury [bonds], or yeilds could spike here to where we could barely sustain our debt, to just make hyperbolic statements about cutting off ties or protectionist statements. That doesn't work better than rolling over for the Chinese. MARCO RUBIO: We shouldn't be doing anything that is counterproductive, starting a currency war, which would harm Americans, like increasing taxes on Americans. But we also can't fall into this trap of beleiving that engagement alone and more trade will lead to a change in their behavior. China is governed by an autocratic communist regime. Very closed off, and they are strategic competitors, without a doubt. And in the case of their military posture in the Asia-Pacific region, they are increasingly a strategic competitor and potential adversary. They have taken a very aggressive position on the South China Sea, and it is one we should not accept. That is why I beleive we need to not just increase defense spending but our posture in that region, and strengthen our ties. And on the economic front, this week is a case of why we need to finally conclude this trade agreement with our allies in the Asia-pacific region. These are developed economies, and if we could foster free trade, it won't be an exclusionary deal, but in order for China to join it, they will have to change their policies on imports, the way they manipulate exports, the currency manipulation, how they steal intellectual property and secrets from our companies. They won't be able to join... the most powerful trading bloc in the world, unless they change behaviors. It will be beneficial for them to do so, although it is hard because of the nature of that regime.

It’s refreshing that at least one candidate actually understands how economics works.
Why Are There Any Jobs Still Left?
Technological unemployment: Will robots take all the jobs?

After two centuries of relentless automation, why are there more jobs than ever? Certainly, tens of millions of jobs have been lost. Whatever happened to the myriads of hostlers, blacksmiths, coopers, sucksmiths, millers, tallowmakers, wheelwrights, sicklemen, puddlers, telegraphers, stockingers, fellmongers, saddlers, ploughmen, knackers, bleacherers, weavers, thatchers, and scriveners? Most of these jobs have been either wiped out entirely or largely taken over by machines.

The advance of massively more productive machinery has clearly not led to mass unemployment. The number of people employed in advanced economies has never been higher. For example, since 1950 the number of Americans employed has nearly tripled, rising from about 58 million to nearly 149 million today. During that time the proportion of adults in the civilian workforce rose from 55 percent in 1950 to peak at 65 percent during the dot-com boom in 2000. The ratio has now dropped to 59 percent, but the lower rate is widely understood to reflect the fallout from the Great Recession, Baby Boomer cohort retirements, and younger individuals spending more time in school.

Given this history, why are so many professors, pundits, and politicians worried that this time it’s different? That automation, chiefly ever more effective and productive information technologies, will soon produce vast unemployment?

Continue reading


Why You Should Ignore The Media’s Freakout About The Stock Market Drop

Two weeks after China devalued its currency, the Dow Jones plunged more than 1,000 points on Monday morning, leading to widespread media coverage about the stock market in turmoil. Most major networks immediately shifted their morning coverage to focus on the drop.

Don’t make financial decisions because the media sensationalized a stock market dip
In Hawaii, rooftop solar panels threaten 'utility death spiral' | Al Jazeera America
Energy experts worry that the rise of solar power will raise prices for utility customers left to subsidize the grid

Hawaii’s electricity prices are higher than anywhere else in the nation. The burdensome cost of power, paired with the island state’s plentiful sunshine, has led to an unparalleled adoption of residential rooftop solar energy. On the island of Oahu, where 80 percent of the state’s population lives, more than 12 percent of Hawaiian Electric Co. (HECO) customers have rooftop solar systems — about 20 times the solar penetration rate of any mainland utility. As homes increasingly morph into mini power plants, some residents are winding down their HECO bills to net zero.

The problem is this: When solar customers provide their own power, they don’t pay for the fixed costs the utility has outside of electricity generation. As more and more people switch to solar, an ever-shrinking pool of utility customers still connected to the grid are left to cover these operating and maintenance expenses. This causes bills to spike for traditional customers, which incentivizes even more people to switch to solar, raising bills for nonsolar customers even more. Every new rooftop solar installation added to the grid contributes to this cost shift.

Interesting market effect in Hawaii. Likely has mainland utilities shaking in their boots.

One of the weird things about life is money

When I made $12,000 a year, that wasn’t enough. I was always scrimping and saving, trying to make rent.

Later, I made $20,000 a year. And, yep, I was scrimping and saving, trying to make a different, higher rent.

A friend of mine owns his own house and makes almost $70,000 a year. And guess what? He doesn’t have quite enough money.

How is it that $12,000 a year is not enough, but neither is $20,000 or $70,000?

We always bitch about the “economy” and how everything is so “expensive” now.

Are you sure we’re not just a bunch of dipshits?

i know i already posted about this just a few days ago but look at this chart comparing life expectancy in various countries

like holy shit look at how big the jump was in china between 1950-1970, look how quickly communism saved china from imperialist exploitation and brought china neck-in-neck with the major world superpowers

look at how thoroughly this chart debunks the propaganda which tries to claim chinese socialism was an economic failure

anonymous asked:

It is truly insulting to say that someone is a fascist for supporting anti discrimination laws That was completely uncalled for

Unlike most liberals who throw around the term ‘fascist’ as a pejorative, I actually understand how to use it properly.

The fascist economic model basically advocated for a free market so long as it served the national interest and operated in accordance to the government’s wishes.  This is why conservatives often call radical Islamists, “Islamofascists.” You see, they do not mind businesses operating for profit, just so long as they adhere to their strict enforcement of Sharia Law when they do it.

So, I find activist clowns like Ellen Page, who believe the government should force businesses to operate as they see fit, to be quite fascist.

For a second I was like why isn’t the government tracking down Steven Universe and making him go to school but I guess if your mom gives up her physical form for you to exist then you weren’t born in a hospital so he probably doesn’t have a birth certificate or a social security number
Steven Universe can never have a real job because he doesn’t have a social security number and he probably wouldn’t have to pay taxes
But he is still a consumer of the American economy
Does Greg get to claim him as a dependent even though, as far as the government is concerned, he doesn’t exist? Because Greg could really use that tax break and Steven is his dependent
Steven also couldn’t leave the country because he wouldn’t be able to get a passport
He also isn’t technically an American citizen

[T]here’s a reasonable argument to be made that part of what ails the world economy right now is that governments aren’t deep enough in debt.

Paul Krugman

People genuinely listen to this chucklehead.

Never mind that public debt worldwide has tripled in the last 15 years (from about $20 trillion to about $60 trillion). And never mind that those who most gain from government largesse, which becomes said debt, are those closest to the spigot and with bigger hands to fill. The rich and connected, in other words - banks, giant corporate entities, political cronies, etc. What happened to your concern about “income inequality,” Paulie?

Anyway, here’s a completely irrelevant chart for your perusal:

Oh, and another:

Find a cozy corner of the crow’s nest, lookout boy, and take a nap. The Titanic will be fine.

Once upon a time, Democrats pretended to care about the debt. But that was before they were in power.

By the way, if you’ve managed to not lose your senses in violent bouts of sad laughter at Señor Krugman’s Keynesian prattle, the jokers at Alternet have come to Krugman’s defense claiming - and if you have bladder issues you may want to go relieve yourself before reading this - that: “No one creates safe assets quite like the government does.”

Seriously. They seriously wrote that. And, presumably, they seriously believe it.

>”No one creates safe assets quite like the government does. Not Wall Street, contrary to some arguments. The “con jobs” of subprime mortgages and derivatives that led to the housing bubble and ultimately to the crash of 2008 and Great Recession is an indicator of how safe that is.

Granted, their analysis is flawed so it’s understandable that their conclusion would be as well. Allow me to dust off a previous post from 2013:

Housing is made more expensive mostly because of goosed demand facilitated by easy credit from government agencies and lowered lending standards facilitated by government decree. The housing bubble is decades in the making (though it really began its meteoric climb in the 1990s), and the recent correction didn’t come anywhere near correcting since the same activities that led to the bubble are mostly still in effect. A dramatic decrease in lending standards put people into homes that they could not afford, creating an increase in demand that drove the costs of owning a home upward.

Russ Roberts, in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money,” details the entire process of perverted incentives in the housing market that incentivized buyers to purchase more and bigger homes while protecting investors from the risks of making such loans - all which led to dramatic increases in housing prices, most of which are still artificially overvalued today. (Also relevant are Woods’ Meltdown, Sowell’s Housing Boom and Bust, and Norberg’s Financial Fiasco).

The “Great Recession” of 2008 is wholly a product of government, from the Federal Reserve to the GSEs.

But let’s not go off the rails. The topic here is that debt is outrageously high, and Paul Krugman is an irresponsible madman

In the crises of the world market, the contradictions and antagonisms of bourgeois production are strikingly revealed.  Instead of investigating the nature of the conflicting elements which erupt in the catastrophe, the apologists content themselves with denying the catastrophe itself and insisting, in the face of their regular and periodic recurrence, that if production were carried on according to the textbooks, crises would never occur.
—  Marx - Theories of Surplus Value 1863

Kerala pioneered universal health care in India several decades ago, through extensive public health services. As the population of Kerala has grown richer—partly as a result of universal health care and near-universal literacy—many people now choose to pay more and have more munificent private health care.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen discusses how the current Indian government is failing to properly invest in health care and the crucial role that states such as Kerala play in providing models for the wider country in The Country of First Boys.

Image credit: Waiting for their Turn at a rural health camp in Chalakudy. Photo by Challiyil Eswaramangalath Pavithran Vipin. CC BY-SA 2.0 via challiyan Flickr. 

The drug business is a big business. The drug business is a business like any other. You need customers, supply chains and logistics to deliver a quality product at competitive prices in an unregulated market. Unlike other businesses, there is no mechanism to resolve business disputes. Violence serves as the only effective mechanism to ensure that market participants adhere to the customs of the trade. Violence is the unwritten code needed to make sure that the goods and money flow efficiently. It prevents ‘seepage’ of either cash or inventory and is an effective tool to expand market share. The murders and shooting aren’t 'senseless’ from an economic point of view.