patrick.net

Tru dat to the article (not the Wogster's blather). I will post one that further explains the situation.

"Obama wanted to re-establish some trade barriers but was prevented"

not sure about that one . . .

WASHINGTON — IN his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama focused on reversing the growth of economic inequality in the United States and restoring the American dream. At the same time, he also announced his support for fast track authority that would limit Congress’s role in determining the content of trade agreements.

The president’s call follows on legislation introduced earlier this month to grant him fast-track authority as a way of forcing Congress to speed up its consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation pact with Latin American and Asian nations.

But Mr. Obama’s desire for fast-track authority on the T.P.P. and other agreements clashes with another priority in his speech: reducing income inequality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?_r=0

As for economics itself, it was corrupted 100+ years ago to serve the interests of the wealthy. Maybe half our economic problems stem from not taxing land wealth sufficiently, and that's thanks to the "neoclassical" school that took over economics before my grandparents were born.

Thanks, Fed!

It actually makes perfect sense, the unprecedented fiat printing spree hockey-stick-saved the growing wealth disparity from the reversing trend that kicked in in 2008. Now a lot of that counted as wealth is paper wealth, which - as we have seen - can evaporate rather quickly.

You keep hearing about inequalities, but nothing in the political system is based on that.

On the republican side: they are quite successful at convincing their base that the system is still working for them, and if they work hard enough they can get ahead, and if it's not the case it must be the fault of unions and "entitlements". (In other words 90% of Americans are lazy, and the rich are rich because of unions).

But worse is the democrat side: they are doing almost nothing, barely talking about it, and in fact continuing to act in ways that increase inequalities. Look at Obama on trade for example, or on finance.

Not that any mutts will read this but it explains this situation perfectly:

/?p=1252020

Heraclitusstudent says

But worse is the democrat side: they are doing almost nothing

what the fuck can the Dems do (in the present continuous tense) when they lost the House 4 years ago already?

There was a brief window 2009-2010 when they could accomplish things, holding 3 of the 4 DC power blocs, albeit of course their hold in the Senate was a mere majority not the "filibuster proof" supermajority needed to ram things over GOP delaying tactics for all but a few months, given the delay in seating Franken and the ensuing death of Kennedy.

This also ignores the fact that the Dems are not a monolithic liberal bloc. Their conservative wing nearly overlaps the illiberal edge of the GOP, and in fact red-state Senate Dems in 2009-2010 had to trim their support of bona-fide liberal ideas like single payer to what their (more conservative) constituents would support.

"But worse is the democrat side"

my head asplode

Bellingham Bill says

what the fuck can the Dems do (in the present continuous tense) when they lost the House 4 years ago already?

They are not even putting this at the center of their agenda.
They are not even *talking* about anything that would actually help.

What do we hear from democrats?
- Raising minimum wage? If on the other side you liberalize trade, all that will do is put Americans workers at a bigger disadvantage compared to foreign labor they compete against. Or for local businesses, this will hurt these businesses. It doesn't help anyone not on the minimum wage either.
- Tenure laws for teachers, also called "screw everyone else so their base has a easy life".
- Affordable housing and education: all they want is allow access to bigger credit for deadbeats. They propose absolutely nothing that would actually reduce the cost of either housing or education.
etc, etc....
They also spend a lot of time talking about things like gay marriage (who the hell cares), inclusion (doesn't help if happen to be white), feminism (screw you if you're a man), etc, etc...

Their agenda itself just doesn't address the key issues. It remains largely a corporatist agenda.

Neoliberalism is a scam.

Trade should be bilateral with an aim towards a trade balance, like it used to be - and still is with smarter-run countries.

thunderlips11 says

Trade should be bilateral with an aim towards a trade balance, like it used to be - and still is with smarter-run countries.

IOW without mercantilism and more importantly without a target inflation rate from the Fed.

Heraclitusstudent says

It doesn't help anyone not on the minimum wage either.

utterly incorrect. Raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/10-ripple-effect-of-increasing-the-minimum-wage-kearney-harris

"we quantify the number of workers potentially affected by minimum wage policy using the assumption that workers earning up to 150 percent of the minimum wage would see a wage increase from a higher minimum wage."

and

"Just 2.6 percent of workers are paid exactly the minimum wage, but 29.4 percent of workers are paid wages that are below or equal to 150 percent of the minimum wage in their state."

Tenure laws for teachers, also called "screw everyone else so their base has a easy life".

anti-union pro-employer "crab-bucket" bullshit. One set of workers getting a good deal in one sector make it possible for other workers to get a similar deal in their sector.

Tenure protects high-wage educators from being let go to save money. The more high wage earners an economy has, the more employers have to compete on wages. This is entirely pro-worker.

They propose absolutely nothing that would actually reduce the cost of either housing or education.

true, to quote a recent opinion column, they lacked not only the courage of their convictions, but the convictions too.

but

They also spend a lot of time talking about things like gay marriage (who the hell cares), inclusion (doesn't help if happen to be white), feminism (screw you if you're a man),

shows you're not really cut out to be a member of the liberal caucus. Sticking with the GOP is your best bet I guess.

It remains largely a corporatist agenda.

Corporatism is where the money, and votes are. Just look at what happened last week.

I'm with Heraclitusstudent on this one. The Dems haven't even TRIED to propose bills to fix trade imbalance or fix inequity. It's one thig to not be able, it's another thing to not even bother to try. The argument that they "don't have enough votes to ram anything through" is tired and needs to be shot. How about crafting bills that have popular support? Then, when the Repubs shoot them down, they take massive flak from their base and get voted out next election?
There are a lot of economic issues that the majority of Americans can agree on. But none of these ever make it even to committee. Instead all we see is tirades about "war on women" and "marriage for gays" and Obama giving every fucking Latino from south of the border a plane ticket to the American city of their choice!
Are the Democrats so stupid they don't see how to win? Or is it just like many of us have been saying: the two parties are just two jack boots, worn by the wealthy elite owners of America to crush the rest of us?
We lost control of our country a long time ago, but it is now becoming glaringly obvious to even the dullest duck.

Quigley says

Or is it just like many of us have been saying: the two parties are just two jack boots, worn by the wealthy elite owners of America to crush the rest of us?

That's the line the conservatives want you to think, yes. Just check out of the democratic process altogether.

This isn't a fight between Dems and Republicans, it's one between liberals and conservatives.

Dems are maybe 50-50 on this front, while the GOP is ~99% conservative now.

If you are conservative, you want to boost the GOP's factions ("No Labels", Tea Party, etc) and support the Dem's conservative faction (the DLCC).

If you are liberal, you need to oppose everything the GOP does and fight for more progressive Democrats, basically everyone the GOP and their media agents vilify.

There can't be a viable progressive third party given the voting system our constitution establishes, not to mention the fact that conservatives dominate progressives 2:1 in this country.

And even more pluralistic multi-pole system like Canada and Germany's results in conservative minority parties taking control. This has happened recently in many Westminster systems, actually.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

is the story. There really is no fix for this. People are going to have to learn the hard way, like the 1920s-30s.

John Bailo says

Are people opposed to inequality?

Or just inequality where they're on the short end of the stick?

The problem is that an economy stops functioning when inequality gets to current levels. See 1929 for an example.

Republicans like to make it seem like sour grapes or class warfare to distract folks from the core problem. An economy cannot function with high disparity.

Quigley says

The money chooses winners, the money chooses losers, and guess which category you are in? The uber wealthy aren't interested in an equal or egalitarian society. They want serfs, easily controlled peasants to serve gratefully. The myth that every American is just one good idea or a lot of hard work from wealth is losing traction as the wealthy consolidate assets. At some point, if you aren't already wealthy, the game is rigged against you such that you can never achieve that status.

Exactly.

Dan8267 says

Exactly.

If you mutts would look at this it explains it perfectly:

/?p=1252020

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Exactly.

If you mutts would look at this it explains it perfectly:

/?p=1252020

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
― Warren Buffett

When the rich no longer bribe politicians to pass laws that erode the middle class and ensure that other people cannot reasonably accumulate wealth, then and only then, will I buy into the premise that the rich are not engaging in economic warfare against the rest of society.

indigenous says

If you mutts

And by the way, the correct term for us is Browncoats!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/3Q3pdj9p6yI

Bellingham Bill says

Raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect

Yeah. A few cooks and waiters will get a small increase, but....
Look, I'm in software. I compete everyday with developers that earn one fifth of what I earn. If you think I will get a raise because the minimum wage is raised, you must be crazy. Now... if restaurants are more expensive because of the minimum wage, you can bet I will cut on eating out. I have to, sorry, no choice. Will waiters and cooks gain? There will probably be fewer of them paid a bit more.

The entire scheme doesn't make sense. You can't distort economics. Once you place yourself into a workers pool that includes China, India, Brazil and others, you just can't force employers to pay more.

Bellingham Bill says

anti-union pro-employer "crab-bucket" bullshit. One set of workers getting a good deal in one sector make it possible for other workers to get a similar deal in their sector.

Again you must be kidding? I will get a better deal from my employer because of teachers? Uh... NO.

All that does is make me pay more for bad teachers, screwing me and my kids.
It makes me pay the cost of their protection while doing nothing to protect me.

Bellingham Bill says

shows you're not really cut out to be a member of the liberal caucus. Sticking with the GOP is your best bet I guess.

All this crap is better than republicans, but the point remains: dems are not addressing the key issues.

Bellingham Bill says

It remains largely a corporatist agenda.

Corporatism is where the money, and votes are. Just look at what happened last week.

This is all this is about: Getting money from corporations to finance election.
Well, if that's the case, fine, let's have republicans and be poor.
If you want my vote you need to address the issues.

Bellingham Bill says

That's the line the conservatives want you to think, yes. Just check out of the democratic process altogether.

It's the democrats who have checked out of defending Americans altogether.

The choice has been removed.

Dan8267 says

When the rich no longer bribe politicians to pass laws that erode the middle class and ensure that other people cannot reasonably accumulate wealth, then and only then, will I buy into the premise that the rich are not engaging in economic warfare against the rest of society.

Excellent

Bellingham Bill says

There can't be a viable progressive third party given the voting system our constitution establishes, not to mention the fact that conservatives dominate progressives 2:1 in this country.

What part of the voting system prevents a third party?

The conservatives dominate 2:1? Then the line between the 2 needs to move. You think conservatives like cronyism?

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

When the rich no longer bribe politicians to pass laws that erode the middle class and ensure that other people cannot reasonably accumulate wealth, then and only then, will I buy into the premise that the rich are not engaging in economic warfare against the rest of society.

Excellent

Then indigenous will show us a caricature about democrats and go to vote for bribed republicans.

Heraclitusstudent says

The entire scheme doesn't make sense. You can't distort economics. Once you place yourself into a workers pool that includes China, India, Brazil and others, you just can't force employers to pay more.

Are folks in China competing for waitressing jobs?

Regardless, if you are saying that increasing minimum wage will raise restaurant prices, then you are basically saying that restaurants aren't smart enough to maximize revenue.

Remember--price is not a function of cost. That is why corporate profits have risen so dramatically as labor costs have decreased. Those reduced costs have NOT translated to reduced prices, just as increased costs will NOT translate to higher prices.

Heraclitusstudent says

Then indigenous will show us a caricature about democrats and go to vote for bribed republicans.

Excellent

Heraclitusstudent says

What part of the voting system prevents a third party?

The part where if you split the left vote the right wins more handily.

cf Canada for how that works.

Then the line between the 2 needs to move. You think conservatives like cronyism?

By nature they're told what to think so what they think at any given point in time really doesn't enter into it.

"Cronyism" is just another thought-terminating cliche, too. Conservatives love our $800B/yr military and want more of it, even though it's the height of waste and insider-dealing in our mixed economy.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you want my vote you need to address the issues.

LOL. Let's not bullshit everyone. If you're happy with the GOP taking over, just say so. It'll save all of us a lot of time.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you think I will get a raise because the minimum wage is raised, you must be crazy.

And that's not what I wrote at all. The study I linked listed the bottom 30% of the workforce, not everyone.

The entire scheme doesn't make sense. You can't distort economics.

Rightwing religion -- not fact. Your very loaded words -- "scheme " -- "history" -- are warping your thinking here.

I will get a better deal from my employer because of teachers? Uh... NO.

Sure. The more fields pull qualified competitors from your particular labor pool, the more bargaining power you have with your employer.

This is an indirect effect, but the obvious direct effect is that if teaching pays more than your current software industry job, you have the power to tell your boss to stuff it if he doesn't raise your wages, provided you can secure one of those cushy teaching jobs.

Labor has to hang together or we will be defeated in detail. This isn't rocket science.

All that does is make me pay more for bad teachers, screwing me and my kids.

You've successfully conflated protecting teachers with seniority with bad teachers. Wonderful parroting of rightwing talking points. Congrats.

tatupu70 says

Regardless, if you are saying that increasing minimum wage will raise restaurant prices, then you are basically saying that restaurants aren't smart enough to maximize revenue.

It is not a theory, but a fact: restaurants have been tacking on extra fees due to rising cost of mandatory labor cost. Restaurants do not compete on the portion of the bill that every competitor has to pay equally. Mandatory higher labor cost (whether in hourly wage or mandatory healthcare) works like tax and rent. Businesses pass tax and rent to the consumers because they do not have to compete with their neighbors on those.

Remember--price is not a function of cost. That is why corporate profits have risen so dramatically as labor costs have decreased. Those reduced costs have NOT translated to reduced prices, just as increased costs will NOT translate to higher prices.

Corporate profits have risen because competition has been restrained by the myriads of government regulations.

Bellingham Bill says

Sure. The more fields pull qualified competitors from your particular labor pool, the more bargaining power you have with your employer.

This is an indirect effect, but the obvious direct effect is that if teaching pays more than your current software industry job, you have the power to tell your boss to stuff it if he doesn't raise your wages, provided you can secure one of those cushy teaching jobs.

Labor has to hang together or we will be defeated in detail. This isn't rocket science.

All that does is make me pay more for bad teachers, screwing me and my kids.

You've successfully conflated protecting teachers with seniority with bad teachers. Wonderful parroting of rightwing talking points. Congrats.

LOL. So if robbery becomes a more profitable job, your standards of living would improve? How about a bunch of robbers voting to increase their own per heist legal take?

There is no such thing as "hanging together." Everyone's take-home pay is expense to everyone else. The market is where buyers decide how much to pay a seller, and vice versa. Political machination to interfere in the market place and increase tax-funded pay is little different from robbery.

Calling raising minimum wage "hanging together" is even more absurd: it is literally higher paid union workers forcing lower-paid workers into unemployment, as a way of preserving union jobs.

Bellingham Bill says

The part where if you split the left vote the right wins more handily.

Who says the right will not also split? You are confusing 2 issues: Having parties to represent ideas and winning elections. If you represent the right ideas you will win elections. The alternative is to have fake choices like who want gay marriage while you have no choice on the real issues. Basically no one represents economic interests of 90% of the population in Washington.

Bellingham Bill says

"Cronyism" is just another thought-terminating cliche, too. Conservatives love our $800B/yr military and want more of it

The main reason why there was a tea-party was precisely because conservatives didn't like the way the gov interacted with WS and other industries. Ask Indigenous here.

Bellingham Bill says

Sure. The more fields pull qualified competitors from your particular labor pool, the more bargaining power you have with your employer.

So you think tenures for teachers pull anyone from the labor pool?
You understand that tenure doesn't increase the number of teachers?
Believe me it doesn't remove ANYONE from my labor pool, certainly not in a way that matters, considering my labor pool includes people from around the planet.

Bellingham Bill says

Labor has to hang together or we will be defeated in detail. This isn't rocket science.

You need to understand this very basic fact: As long as corporations can send money, technologies and jobs overseas, labor here can stand together all you want, YOU HAVE NO POWER. You have already been worked around. All you have is competing for low paying jobs like waiters and picking strawberries, and oh, yes, I know, we do have a few well protected professions: real-estate, education, healthcare, and finance, who are allowed to pray on everyone else. But this will never be an entire economy.

Bellingham Bill says

Heraclitusstudent says

If you want my vote you need to address the issues.

LOL. Let's not bullshit everyone. If you're happy with the GOP taking over, just say so. It'll save all of us a lot of time.

I'm not happy, I just don't have a choice, either way.
And apparently I'm not the only one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/the-great-wage-slowdown-looming-over-politics.html?ref=business

tatupu70 says

Regardless, if you are saying that increasing minimum wage will raise restaurant prices, then you are basically saying that restaurants aren't smart enough to maximize revenue.

Remember--price is not a function of cost. That is why corporate profits have risen so dramatically as labor costs have decreased.

You have to distinguish multinational corporations that profit from globalization and the local joint struggling to survive. For them it is a question of costs.
Reality says

Corporate profits have risen because competition has been restrained by the myriads of government regulations.

Lol. So corporate profits go down it's because of regulations, they go up, it's because of regulations.

Leave it to conservatives to impose their cult narratives on any situation.
Putting 2 and 2 together: low wages, rising productivity, is too hard for them.

Folks, this stuff is simple. You can't exist on a level playing field with billions of poor people and have a wage structure that allows growth.

Even if somehow you manage to force it, either you allow one part of the economy to cannibalize other parts, or it will again lead to growing private debts in the US, high risk finance, growing trade deficit (things that are starting to develop once more) ultimately followed by a bust.

As long as you have these fluid trade flows, then you need to converge with other countries and wait 2030 (earliest) until China and India develop enough of a middle class to consume stuff you produce. By then most of Americans will be as poor as Chinese people or Brazilians.

We need more worker protections, less H1B visas, and more equal trade. Europe has negotiated such a deal ten years ago, and is doing better than we are the with megalithic producer China. Basically the deal goes: they buy as much as China buys from them. This translates directly into Euro parts incorporated into Chinese products. This raises quality (and price), but also guarantees Europeans keep good jobs in their own countries.
Why we don't have a similar system is because our politicians are bought and paid for by corporatist lobbyists.

Instead we get corporate stooges complaining about a lack of talent here in america and petitioning to bring in "more qualified" people from asia. And the low skill jobs will be wage undercut by importing poor Latins. So workers get screwed on both ends. The only way to win is to get into a specialty occupation that can't be outsourced.

While it's good for a tiny chuckle to watch call it crazy make a complete ass of himself, it's beyond sad how many people allow the retard to troll the fuck out of them. Taking his bait, enabling the simple Simon motherfucker to troll the rest of us, by proxy.

Thanks

There is a way. You slap tariffs on imports.

A country can not sustain near trillion-dollar annual trade deficits if it does not have the dominant reserve currency.

Our current lifestyle utterly depends on the ability to import virtually unlimited goods without the necessity of exporting nearly the same amount or more to pay for those imports.

Because of our currency reserve status, the trade deficit can exist, because we don't need to sell to buy. Because we don't need to sell in order to buy, we can have unsustainably weak and shitty job creation.

America looks increasingly like a third world economy dependent on tourism and raw resource exploitation: we create nothing but low end service and coal mining jobs.

Neoliberalism has made it this way.

Supporting East and South East Asian low-end manufacturing made sense in the Cold War to employ mass numbers of people and make Communism less attractive.

It makes no sense now. It continues because our Industry was pushed overseas by Banksters, and there is no division among the elites - they are united on seeking arbitrage from everything, all the time, and there is no immediate pressure on them to do otherwise.

When that pressure does eventually arrive - guess who will be the bagholders?

Call it Crazy says

BoomAndBustCycle says

I kind of want the democrats just to roll over and say.. Ok, Republicans you win... You get your way for 8 years

The Dems have had their way for the last 8 years in the Senate. How has that worked out for you?

51 to 47 with 2 independents is having their way? I always like to think the best of people, but if you actually believe that then you really are stupid.

Reality says

It is not a theory, but a fact: restaurants have been tacking on extra fees due to rising cost of mandatory labor cost.

Here's a tip for you--companies sometimes say things that aren't true!! I know that's hard to believe... It's much easier to tell customers that they are raising prices due to Obamacare or rising labor cost than it is to tell them they are raising prices because the market can bear it and the owners want to maximize revenue.

Reality says

Mandatory higher labor cost (whether in hourly wage or mandatory healthcare) works like tax and rent. Businesses pass tax and rent to the consumers because they do not have to compete with their neighbors on those.

So, you disagree that price is unrelated to cost then?

Reality says

Corporate profits have risen because competition has been restrained by the myriads of government regulations.

Don't you agree that companies will do everything in their power to restrict competition?