tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-92216841989545421492024-03-13T14:56:37.520-07:00Earth (and other) MattersComments about anything and everything, including politics, economy, philosophy, how to live, the biosphere, protecting the earth, humanity, our future, deforestation, pollution, Earthchurch, etc.
<a href="http://earthchurch.net">(CLICK HERE for EARTHCHURCH WEBSITE)</a>
planetearthchurchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16506651746042077852noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-17744632256992473882022-03-20T07:55:00.001-07:002022-03-20T07:56:04.121-07:00Gloom and Doom for planet Earth. <p> </p><div><div dir="auto"><div class="ecm0bbzt hv4rvrfc dati1w0a e5nlhep0" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id="jsc_c_me"><div class="j83agx80 cbu4d94t ew0dbk1b irj2b8pg"><div class="qzhwtbm6 knvmm38d"><span class="d2edcug0 hpfvmrgz qv66sw1b c1et5uql lr9zc1uh a8c37x1j fe6kdd0r mau55g9w c8b282yb keod5gw0 nxhoafnm aigsh9s9 d3f4x2em iv3no6db jq4qci2q a3bd9o3v b1v8xokw oo9gr5id hzawbc8m" dir="auto"><div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Putin can see that the west is afraid to challenge him, for fear of nukes. He will kill all Ukrainians who oppose him, in order to capture Ukraine. He will replace them with Russians, thereby greatly increasing the wealth of Russia. (Ukraine is highly productive in agriculture, minerals, and many other things.) Putin is a thoroughly evil man, and he does not care how many Russians and Ukrainians die in this project.</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">As soon as Ukraine is digested, he will go after Georgia. China, seeing the impotence of the west, will capture Taiwan, and continue to destroy the culture of Xinjiang.</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"> </div></div><div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Meanwhile, the slow process of climate change is not being effectively addressed. This means that our children and grandchildren will have a double crummy planet to live on, both physically uncomfortable, and authoritarian.</div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div>Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-20563438822069263562021-07-13T09:37:00.003-07:002021-07-13T09:40:48.504-07:00Space Puzzle<p><span style="font-size: medium;">You and the small crew awaken from suspended animation. The ship's computer is offline, so one knows how long they were asleep. Everyone is floating within the ship; there is no gravity. The electronic view ports are not working. The lights work. "Could we be in free fall near a star?" someone asks. How can you determine if you are far out in space, or near a star?</span></p>Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-87708602927226041442015-02-17T11:37:00.003-08:002015-02-17T11:37:54.696-08:00God's True Colors"By their fruits shall ye know them." or something like that, from a pretty good work of literature. So, if God exists, he is to be judged by examining his work. When I do that, my conclusion is that the purpose of the earth and its inhabitants, is drama, to entertain God, who has a lot of time on his hands. He/she is not concerned with human suffering, injustice, cruelty, etc., except as it affects the dramatic quality of the work.
Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-71074599768805388412014-05-26T14:48:00.001-07:002014-05-26T15:13:30.401-07:00The Red Herring in the GMO Controversy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kiwzRj3Wll4/U4O7nEOSCAI/AAAAAAAAAls/qTUSzeIHu_o/s1600/RedHerring.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kiwzRj3Wll4/U4O7nEOSCAI/AAAAAAAAAls/qTUSzeIHu_o/s1600/RedHerring.jpg" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o8KJWgvk39U/U4O8aOKQW6I/AAAAAAAAAl0/0rcb2EWNC94/s1600/CornCobs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o8KJWgvk39U/U4O8aOKQW6I/AAAAAAAAAl0/0rcb2EWNC94/s1600/CornCobs.jpg" /></a></div>
Yesterday I saw a documentary called: The Story of Seeds. I was reminded that everything we eat depends on seeds. All of our wheat and corn and fruits and veggies grow from seeds. And the animals we eat, they eat stuff that grows from seeds. In the past, there was no problem with that. But in recent years corporations have been allowed to own the right to use many of our seeds, and they have been able to greatly reduce the usage of those seeds that they don't own. This is growing into a serious problem for us ordinary folk, who are not big stockholders in Monsanto.<br />
<br />
Have you heard of Seminis? Probably not; I had not heard of it before seeing this movie. This is from Wikipedia: "Seminis is the largest developer, grower and marketer of fruit and vegetable seeds in the world. Seminis' hybrids claim to improve nutrition, boost crop yields, limit spoilage and reduce the need for chemicals. Their retail line includes over 3,500 seed varieties. ..... On March 23, 2005, Monsanto Company announced that it had completed its acquisition of Seminis."<br />
<br />
Those are hybrid seeds, which means that the growers must buy them from Seminis/Monsanto every year. Hybrids don't produce seed that reproduces the parent plant. Hybrids have some advantages, which is why growers are willing to pay for them each year, as long as the cost is not high. As long as there is competition, the cost will not be high. The competition comes from other hybrid seed companies, and from non-hybrid seeds that are in general circulation. Unfortunately, the current trend is for both of those sources of competition to decline, year after year.<br />
<br />
Then there is GMO seed, which has been genetically engineered, and patented. The use of such seed is growing rapidly in the U.S. Corn and soybeans are the leading crops using GMO seeds, but they are rapidly growing in use for many other crops. The "Red Herring" that I refer to in the title of this article is the idea that these GMO crops may be unhealthful in some way. I call this a red herring because I'm convinced that none of the current GMO crops are directly harmful to anyone's health. The danger that I see is to the diversity of our food supply. If we were to have only one variety of wheat, one variety of corn, one variety of potatoes, etc., there is a real danger that a fungal or viral disease could wipe out the entire crop. This has happened many times in the past. The Irish potato famine is the most famous example. (Google it!) <br />
<br />
The courts have allowed GMO seed to be patented, in spite of the fact that pollen from GMO crops can be transferred by wind or insects to the fields of farmers that are not growing GMO crops. These crops are then contaminated by genetic material that is patented, usually by Monsanto. This is harmless to the consumer's health, but it allows Monsanto to threaten to sue farmers, and thereby coerce them into contracting with Monsanto to use Monsanto's seed. This is a complicated issue, and it is an active one in the courts of America, and foreign nations. <br />
<br />
But perhaps there is nothing wrong with a few giant corporations controlling the world's food supply?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-52801526206434775792014-05-18T11:58:00.001-07:002014-05-19T03:31:10.026-07:00The Job Guarantee: A Government Plan for Full EmploymentI did not write the following article. It's from "The Nation", and the author is L. Randall Wray. I'm reprinting it here, with permission, because I think it's an important article and I heartily support the idea:<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
There is no economic demand more urgent than putting Americans back to work. The government can do this by creating an “employer of last resort” program.<br />
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/authors/l-randall-wray">L. Randall Wray</a> <br />
<br />
June 8, 2011 | <a href="http://www.thenation.com/issue/june-27-2011">This article appeared in the June 27, 2011 edition of The Nation.</a><br />
<br />
There is no economic policy more important than job creation. The private sector plays an invaluable and dynamic role in providing employment, but it cannot ensure enough jobs to keep up with population growth or speed economic recovery—much less achieve the social goal of full employment for all Americans. Thankfully, there is an alternative: a job guarantee through a government-provided “employer of last resort” program offering a job to anyone who is ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage plus legislated benefits.<br />
<br />
In recent decades full employment has been wrongly dismissed as not only impossible but economically counterproductive. Though the Employment Act of 1946 committed the government to the goal of high employment (it was amended by the 1978 Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which targeted a measured unemployment rate of 3 percent), we act as if full employment would ruin us, destroying the value of our currency through inflation and depreciation, and weakening the labor discipline that high unemployment maintains through enforced destitution. Through the thick and thin of the business cycle, we leave tens of millions of Americans idle in the belief that this makes political, economic and social sense.<br />
<br />
It doesn’t. The benefits of full employment include production of goods, services and income; on-the-job training and skill development; poverty alleviation; community building and social networking; social, political and economic stability; and social multipliers (positive feedbacks and reinforcing dynamics that create a virtuous cycle of socioeconomic benefits). An “employer of last resort” program would restore the government’s lost commitment to full employment in recognition of the fact that the total impact would exceed the sum of the benefits.<br />
<br />
The program has no time limits or restrictions based on income, gender, education or experience. It operates like a buffer stock: in a boom, employers will recruit workers out of the program; in a slump the safety net will allow those who lost their jobs to preserve good habits, keeping them work-ready. It will also help those unable to obtain work outside the program enhance their employability through training. Work records will be kept for all participants and made available to potential employers. Unemployment offices will be converted to employment offices, to match workers with jobs that suit them and to help employers recruit staff.<br />
<br />
All state and local governments and registered nonprofit organizations can propose projects; proposals will be submitted to a newly created office within the Labor Department for final approval and funding. The office will maintain a website providing details on all pending, approved and ongoing projects, and final reports will be published after projects are complete.<br />
<br />
Participants will be subject to all federal work rules, and violations will lead to dismissal. Anyone who is dismissed three times in a twelve-month period will be ineligible to participate in the program for a year. Workers will be allowed to organize through labor unions.<br />
<br />
The program will meet workers where they are and take them as they are: jobs will be available in local communities and will be tailored to suit employees’ level of education and experience (though with the goal of improving skills). Proposals should include provisions for part-time work and other flexible arrangements for workers who need them, including but not restricted to flexible arrangements for parents of young children.<br />
<br />
All participants will obtain a Social Security number and maintain a bank account in an FDIC-insured bank. Weekly wages will be paid by the federal government directly to participants’ accounts. The government will also provide funding for benefits as well as approved expenses up to a maximum of 10 percent of wages paid for a project (to cover the cost of administrative materials and equipment).<br />
<br />
Estimated spending will be 1–2 percent of GDP, with economic, social and political benefits several times larger. Net program costs will be much lower, since spending on unemployment compensation and other relief will be reduced—this program will pay people for working, rather than paying them not to work. The promise of increased national productivity and shared prosperity should far outweigh any fears about rising deficits. To fulfill this promise, we need to put Americans back to work.<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Here's a link to the original article:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/161249/job-guarantee-government-plan-full-employment">http://www.thenation.com/article/161249/job-guarantee-government-plan-full-employment</a><br />
<br />Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-88656658957150870802014-04-23T10:53:00.000-07:002014-04-23T10:53:02.880-07:00Affirmative ActionThere is a better way to do affirmative action, one that sidesteps the controversy about race. It should be based on need, not race. A person should get help if they come from an underprivileged background, with no consideration of race or ethnicity. Since some minority groups have a high percentage of underprivileged families, there would be a high percentage of those families that benefit from affirmative action. People of European descent would benefit at a much lower percentage, although the total number may still be high. There are plenty of poor white people. A poor white person needs help more than a middle-class black person. Poor blacks and poor whites would both get help, if this policy were adopted. Basic justice tells us that people who need help should be the ones to get it, regardless of skin color or other ethnic characteristics.<br />
<br />
The main drawback of this policy is the effort that it takes to evaluate the merits of each applicant. It is relatively easy to determine if someone is black or white, at least in most cases. In order to have a totally need-based policy it would be necessary to employ many case workers to determine the eligibility of the applicants. Of course, in my opinion, this is a good thing, since we need government policies that increase total employment.Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-80118158343515611562013-12-19T11:17:00.000-08:002013-12-19T11:32:04.418-08:00Getting There - How to have Full Employment with Good WagesIn my previous article I talked about the need to reduce the length of the work week. But this cannot be done in isolation; if we simply all began to work less, then we would produce less, and we all would be poorer. No, it must be done in synchrony with other measures. This is the plan that I present below.<br />
<br />
First, let me list some facts:<br />
<br />
1. A large fraction of the U.S. population are either unemployed or under-employed. Also, many are earning poverty wages even when working full time or more than full time.<br />
<br />
2. The gap between the incomes of ordinary people and the incomes of the wealthy is very large. The last time it was this large was about 1928. Since then it has mostly been much lower, until recently. You can see a nice graph of this here: <a href="http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/10/the-great-regression-robert-reichs-new-film-mainstreams-the-dangers-of-income-inequality/">http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/10/the-great-regression-robert-reichs-new-film-mainstreams-the-dangers-of-income-inequality/</a><br />
<br />
3. America's large corporations are doing very well. Their profits declined briefly during the recent recession, but quickly recovered to reach record levels. Wealthy individuals are also doing very well. (The rich have gotten richer.)<br />
<br />
4.There is no shortage of investment capital to invest in plants and equipment, or to hire new employees, should corporations decide to do so. They are currently able to supply the demand for their goods and services with what they already have, so they are investing very little. (The so-called "job creators" are not doing it.)<br />
<br />
5. About 70% of the goods and services produced by American businesses are consumed by Americans.<br />
<br />
6. Wealthy people spend a fraction of their income on goods and services; the rest they invest. The size of the fraction depends on the income. (of course there is individual variation) The very wealthy invest most of their income.<br />
<br />
7. Poor people save nothing, they spend all of their income quickly. Middle class people save a little; they spend most of their income fairly quickly.<br />
<br />
8. Due to pervasive and continually increasing automation, the number of workers needed, is less than the population of working age adults. This unbalance will grow, probably for decades to come.<br />
<br />
Now let's address how to improve our situation:<br />
<br />
If the populace were to smarten up just a little, and elect representatives that understood these issues, and had the courage to do what's best for the whole country, then they would begin to fix the roads, bridges and railroads, and invest in alternative energy, and raise subsidies for the installation of solar systems on homes and small businesses, and a host of other things. Not just any other things; they must be projects that result in significant employment gains, and with little delay. This would employ many people directly, and many more people through the increased spending by those who are directly employed. (the well-known multiplier effect) Projects that mostly transfer tax dollars to wealthy people and corporations should be avoided.<br />
<br />
There are 3 ways to pay for this: Money can be borrowed, revenue can be increased, or the government can "print" the money. (as you know, this last means that they simply create money by accounting entries in computers.)<br />
<br />
Although there can be a mix, IMO it's best to pay for most of it by increasing revenue. There will be substantial revenue increase just due to the increased employment and increased profits of businesses, but some tax increases, or loophole plugging, are desirable. Taxes should be progressive, because if the goal is to boost the economy, then it's important for the average person to have money to spend. (This follows from items 5, 6, and 7 above.) This is not a new idea: <a href="http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-do-henry-ford-joseph-stiglitz-have.html">http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-do-henry-ford-joseph-stiglitz-have.html</a><br />
<br />
For those who think that increasing revenue will prevent the economic gains, I refer you again to items 5, 6, and 7 above.<br />
<br />
The main and important goal, as I see it, should be to maintain, over the long term, a balance between a labor shortage and a labor surplus. Currently we have a labor surplus. That leads to low wages, and to oppressive working conditions. A labor shortage would also not be a good thing; it would lead to inflation and high labor turnover. Too much government spending on job-creating projects will create a labor shortage. Hence government spending needs to be adjustable. It needs to be part of a feedback control system. It should reflect the unemployment rate.<br />
<br />
When the unemployment rate is high, government spending should be increased. When it is low, spending should be decreased. I suggest a "dead band" of 3% to 5%. When the unemployment rate is below 3%, then spending should be decreased. When it is above 5%, then spending should be increased. As a side issue, it would be very desirable if the labor department would calculate and publish a true unemployment rate, It is this rate that should be input into this proposed feedback control system.<br />
<br />
Legislation can be enacted which describes the broad outlines of such a scheme, but it is impossible to get everything right in advance. Congress will have to revisit this topic annually, or better yet, semi-annually, and make necessary adjustments, with the goal of maintaining unemployment within the desired range. And of course that range may also need to be changed.<br />
<br />
Now to the question of the length of the work week: As a consequence of the great strides that have been made in automation, it is no longer necessary for people to work a 40-hour week. In fact, that custom makes it more difficult to keep everyone employed. The only way that we could maintain full employment and the 40-hour week is to undertake major projects, something like building the pyramids. An expanded space program is one example, but it would probably not be sufficient. We could also build lots of hospitals, clinics and schools of all kinds. Or we could expand the defense establishment even beyond it's present bloated condition.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to regulate the work week. There are many categories of people who want to work long hours, and should be allowed to do so. Into this category fall artists and other creative workers, as well as the self-employed. However, it is only necessary for work-week regulation to apply to a majority of the population, in order to have the intended effect of enabling full employment. It should apply to all of the most common occupations, blue and white collar. It does not need to apply to any category that includes relatively few people.<br />
<br />
Current labor law (Fair Labor Standards Act) makes a 40-hour week standard, and requires the payment of time-and-a-half for overtime. This law applies to the employees of most large organizations, public and private, and hence covers a large fraction of the workforce. What I propose is that the FLSA be modified to reduce the 40 hour figure according to a flexible schedule. The initial schedule would be simply one hour less for every year that passes. However, whenever the unemployment rate is low, say below 5% for example, the work week would not be changed. Whenever the unemployment rate climbs above 5%, then the once-a-year lowering of the work week would resume. The work week would never be lowered by more than one hour per year.<br />
<br />
I'm sure it is obvious that the present congress is neither willing nor capable of implementing my proposal. It cannot happen until we have a congress that is dominated by people who are both intelligent and open-minded, and furthermore are not beholden to conservative political donors.<br />
<br />
Why do I want the government monkeying with the economy to such a degree, some will ask? My answer is that I am convinced that without such "monkeying" we will continue to regress toward a very hierarchical society, with the vast majority of the populace in poverty. This has been the normal state of human civilization ever since the rise of large cities several thousand years ago. It is still the norm in most of the world. I prefer a society where there is a well paid job for everyone who wants one.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-15975725810911301952013-09-20T14:26:00.001-07:002013-09-20T14:26:54.065-07:00Should people work hard?I'm talking about the U.S.A., in the 21st century. What do you think, should people work hard? Our ancestors certainly did; shouldn't we keep doing the same?<br />
<br />
Funny thing, though - part of the work that our ancestors did was to invent labor-saving methods and devices. This is still going on, so that less and less labor is required as time marches on. One of the consequences is that we typically work about half as many hours per week as our great-great-grandfathers did. Nevertheless, at the present time we are able to produce all that we need without using the entire labor force. A large fraction of today's adult population is either unemployed or under-employed. And this is with millions of people in the military or in the some aspect of the defense industry. What if peace were to break out? (actually, it already has. The U.S. is not currently at war, nor is it currently threatened by any major military power.)<br />
<br />
Maybe it's time to reconsider the "protestant ethic"? After centuries of development of labor saving technology, perhaps it's time to start working less. Otherwise, what was the point of all of that clever inventing? Should we keep everyone working full time and simply produce a huge amount of stuff that is not really needed? Or would it make more sense for most people to just work less, and have more free time?<br />
<br />
Today in America, many people are struggling to get by. How can this be, when there is so much technology, which accomplishes so much with minimal human input? The answer to that question is that most of that technology is benefiting the business owners and not their employees. The latter are mostly receiving rather low wages, because there is a labor surplus in America. The market for labor currently favors the employers, in most cases.<br />
<br />
If the nation were somehow able to get people to work substantially fewer hours, then many new jobs would open up, as people were hired to fill in the missing hours. This could lead to full employment, and a happier American workforce, with time for relaxation, sports, and hobbies.<br />
<br />
In a future article I will describe how that might be accomplished. Some thoughts in that direction can be found in these older articles:<br />
<a href="http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2011/12/full-employment-let-me-count-ways.html">http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2011/12/full-employment-let-me-count-ways.html</a><br />
and <a href="http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2012/09/full-employment-revisited.html">http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2012/09/full-employment-revisited.html</a><br />
<br />Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-37118867193332216792013-07-02T15:39:00.000-07:002013-07-02T15:44:44.171-07:00A Petition on the White House WebsiteThe White House has a website where anyone can post a petition, and then signatures are collected in support of that petition. (it's at petitions.whitehouse.gov)<br />
<br />
There are many videos on youtube.com showing policemen in action. Many of them show policemen doing bad things. Not surprisingly, there are many instances of police punishing people for making videos, even though courts have held that people have the right to make them. The particular video that inspired me to create this petition is here:<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDBZr4ie2AE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDBZr4ie2AE</a><br />
This ends badly, but what the cops did wrong was to handcuff a person who did nothing to warrant it.<br />
<br />
I want to let you know about this petition, and ask for your support. Will you add your name to mine? If this petition gets 100,000 signatures by July 31, 2013, the White House will review it and respond.<br />
<br />
You can view and sign the petition here: <a href="http://wh.gov/lcE6q">http://wh.gov/lcE6q</a><br />
<br />
We ask the U.S. government to:<br />
Ensure that the people have the right to create videos of police in action, and not be punished for doing that.<br />
<br />
In recent years there have been numerous instances of police mistreating people because they were making video records of police in action. These videos need to be made, to expose police who behave in a non-professional manner. It's important to protect the people who make videos of police behavior. If you are unsure about this issue, search for "videos of police brutality" on youtube.com.Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-83496973743272573582013-01-23T17:29:00.002-08:002017-10-18T17:07:24.012-07:00Guns and Cars - Treat 'em the Same!<b><br /></b>
<img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="150" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dbSTlfghHyM/WefsBGs1f3I/AAAAAAAAA2U/bIbjENBmWjwZ04rNfkdCshEYGiPjFiKWACLcBGAs/s320/gunshirt.jpg" style="color: #0000ee; text-align: center;" width="240" /><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>This essay is liable to annoy both gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates; the former because I'm advocating a lot of regulations, and the latter because I'm allowing every competent person to own guns.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;">I think guns and automobiles should be treated the same. Both are potentially dangerous machines which are very useful and also loved by </span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; line-height: 15.199999809265137px;">many. You should need to be tested to get a license for either, and both should be registered.</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;"><b>There are some differences of course. Cars are used every day by most Americans, whereas guns are used much less. Of course many gun owners keep theirs in the home for possible defense, so you could say that it's being used every day. Although the number of gun owners is much less than car owners, still there are roughly a third of the population that does own a gun. It's estimated that there are about 300 million guns in the U.S., but many gun owners have several guns, which explains how there can be so many guns and also so many people who don't own a gun. A big difference between cars and guns is that almost all deaths due to cars are accidental, whereas most gun deaths are either deliberate, or the result of a gun being used in a crime.</b></span></span><br />
<b><br /></b>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;"><b>If guns are to be treated like cars, that implies training, testing, licensing, registration and taxation. In order to drive a car safely, everyone gets some training, either in high school, or by a driving school, or by a family member or close friend. Then everyone gets tested to see that they do know how to handle the vehicle, and that they know the traffic laws. Finally, they are issued a license, without which it is illegal to drive. </b></span></span><br />
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;">All of that is apart from vehicle registration. All vehicles that use the public roads are required to be registered, meaning that a state motor vehicles department knows their serial number, and who owns them. When ownership is transferred the state must be notified. If the car is stolen the state must be notified. Every car has a unique serial number (VIN) which it is illegal to remove. Cars must be tested for minimum safety requirements, such as functioning brakes and lights. Finally, there is a registration fee, which is necessary in order to pay for all of the above. (That's what I meant by taxation.)</span></span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;">The primary purpose of all of the above is to reduce accidents on the nation's streets and highways. It has worked fairly well, since tens of thousands of miles are driven for every accident, and the accident rate per mile traveled has been steadily declining for decades. Most of that decline has probably been due to improvements in roads and vehicles, but the system of training, testing, licensing and registration deserves some of the credit. There are secondary purposes as well, such as recovering stolen cars, identifying owners of abandoned cars, and identifying cars involved in crimes</span></span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;">If we were to begin treating guns the same as cars, it would require the various states to create Departments of Firearms, just as they now have Departments of Motor Vehicles. Then a system of training, testing, licensing and registration would have to be devised, along with a fee structure to pay for it all. Serial numbers on guns would continue to be required; they might be called FINs. So, under this proposed system, a young would-be gun owner would have to get some training in the proper use of firearms, and the laws governing them. Then he would have to pass a test to demonstrate his knowledge. Ideally, that would have a written part, and a "live" part, where he would shoot a few bullets at a firing range, and demonstrate his knowledge of proper gun handling. Probably there would be a minimum age for a license, and there might be a one or two year provisional licence when the user would be required to have a fully licensed person present when using the gun. There might also be advanced types of licenses required for more dangerous weapons.</span></span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.199999809265137px;">The weapon itself would have to be registered with the state Department of Firearms. The owner would have to be responsible for seeing that the registration is updated when the ownership changes. Stolen guns must be reported to the police and the DF. (Department of Firearms)</span></span> </b></div>
Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-85342717809072866802012-12-27T16:04:00.003-08:002012-12-28T16:53:17.703-08:00A Proposed Way to Reduce Gun Violence<br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">I support the right of sane & law-abiding citizens to own and use</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">guns. But many guns that were originally purchased by regular people</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">are now in the hands of criminals or mentally ill persons. I think</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">that the law should make gun owners more responsible for preventing</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">such transfers. So what I'm proposing is that whenever a gun is found</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">in the possession of someone other than the original owner, there is a</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">presumption of a crime by the owner. The crime would most likely be</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">culpable negligence. That would be the case if there was no criminal</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">intent, but the owner sold the gun, or left it behind when moving, or</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">failed to take reasonable measures to keep it from being stolen. In</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">order to transfer a gun from one private party to another, there would</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">have to be a registration process. To skip this registration process</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">would be culpable negligence. If a gun is stolen, the police must be</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">notified so that there is a record of that event. When an heir</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">acquires a gun due to a death, a similar procedure must occur.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">What this would do is give gun owners additional motivation to prevent</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">their guns from falling into the wrong hands. Would it have prevented</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Adam Lanza from getting his hands on one of his mother's guns in her</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">basement, loading it, and killing her? We cannot know that, but at</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">least Nancy Lanza, as part of her weapons training, would have been</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">told about the law. That might have made her more aware of the risk</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">she was taking.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">But this approach certainly cannot prevent all gun violence. What it</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">would do is cause many gun owners to think a little more about the</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">whereabouts of their guns. That ought to have a positive effect on our</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">national gun violence problem.</span></span>Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-60136308413906946512012-11-12T17:12:00.001-08:002012-11-20T10:40:09.238-08:00Safely Descending the Fiscal CliffI'm of course referring to the U.S. national debt, and the law that the congress passed in 2011, the Budget Control Act. This law mandates substantial cuts to many government programs, including defense, and tax increases for most taxpayers. This is to happen at the beginning of next year, unless congress and the president can agree on another plan for getting the national debt under control.<br />
<br />
This has been called the "Fiscal Cliff" because it would throw the economy into recession, due both to the large number of layoffs that would result from program cancellation, combined with the money removed from the economy by the tax increases.<br />
<br />
However, doing nothing, and continuing business as usual, is not an attractive option. The U.S. now owes an amount roughly equal to our annual Gross National Product (GDP). At the moment this is not really hurting us, because interest rates are very low, so we can afford the interest on the debt. However, this debt is rapidly growing, since our government spends a lot more than it collect in taxes each year. This difference is called the deficit. In order to keep the debt from growing, we need to reduce the deficit to zero. It does not have to be done in one year; taking a decade might be OK, as long as it is clear that it will happen. But the longer it takes, the larger the debt will become. Furthermore, interest rates will not stay low forever, and a growing debt will eventually cause interest rates to rise sharply.<br />
<br />
There is no good way to reduce the deficit; but we (the congress and president) can try to choose the least bad. Let's look at some of the options:<br />
<br />
What if we just keep doing what we have been doing, running a large deficit? At first, nothing special happens, but the national debt will continue to grow, and therefore the interest payments will also grow, and these interest payments add to the deficit. But that's not the worst of it; what's really bad is that the interest rates will eventually rise, and what's more they will shoot up sharply. The rates are low now because the U.S. still has a great reputation as a very safe country to loan money to. If our debt continues to grow we will lose that reputation. It might take 2 years, or 5 or 10, but once we are considered a risky place to loan money to, the rates will rise, and once they do, we quickly become much riskier, because the rising interest make the deficit worse! Then we will no longer be able to borrow money at reasonable rates. Then we will default on some of our debt, or, more likely, very high inflation will ensue, permitting us to repay the debt with dollars that are worth much less. If either of these things happen, then we will no longer be able to borrow money. The government will still be able to pay it's bills, but with dollars that don't buy as much, so most Americans will be much poorer.<br />
<br />
OK, suppose we simply cut government spending a whole lot. This is the austerity approach. If the economy is strong we can cut it a little bit without harm, but most government spending is income to someone, so if spending is cut, lots of people will have less income. That means they will buy less, and that means layoffs at the businesses that lose that business. If the spending cuts are small, and if the economy is producing lots of jobs, then those that lose work due to the spending cuts can find other jobs. But if the spending cuts are large it will tip the economy into recession.<br />
<br />
What if we raise taxes enough to greatly reduce the deficit? This will also be bad for business, since taxes used for deficit reduction are not spent on goods and services. Depending on the size of the tax hike, and who it is applied to, we may have just a slowdown, or a recession. Either of those results mean that the tax hike does not bring in the money it is supposed to, since tax collections depend on economic activity. A slowdown or a recession reduces tax collections substantially, thus it is at least partially self-defeating.<br />
<br />
Are there any other options? I don't think there are any other major options, but a careful mix of selected spending cuts and revenue increases, along with keeping total employment high, gives us our best chance of successfully handling this problem.<br />
<br />
A first principle here is that it's very important to keep almost everyone working. The unemployed do not pay taxes, they do not buy much stuff, and they get money from the government. All of that worsens the deficit. When total employment is very high then most businesses have plenty of business, and plenty of taxes are collected, which directly helps the deficit problem.<br />
<br />
A relevant fact that most economists agree on is that people in the less advantaged economic classes quickly spend all or most of the money they earn. Conversely, wealthy people put a large fraction of their earnings into long term investments of various kinds. Hence if taxes take an extra dollar from a typical wage earner, there will be a dollar less spent on goods and services. But if taxes take an extra dollar from a rich person, there might be only fifty cents less spent on goods and services, depending on how rich they are and what their spending habits are. A clear lesson to draw from this is that, if you want to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues, you should get that revenue from the wealthy.<br />
<br />
Another principle to consider is how different types of spending cuts will impact the economy. We want to cut spending to reduce the deficit, but if the economy shrinks as a result, then less taxes will be collected, and we will not get the hoped for deficit reductions. Since the people with lower incomes spend most of their money quickly, it is self-defeating for the government to reduce their income. An example of this is unemployment benefits; those are almost all spent on goods and services, so if those are cut, business is reduced and less taxes are collected. The same can be said of all kinds of federal assistance to poor or lower middle class people.<br />
<br />
So if the goal is to cut spending without harming the economy, then we must reduce payments to the wealthy. In most cases this would also apply to corporations, since wealthy people own most of the shares of most corporations of significant size. Hence we should reduce or eliminate subsidies that are paid to agribusiness, oil companies, and any other large corporate interests. <br />
<br />
What about defense? The military industrial complex receives roughly one sixth of all government spending. Can this be cut without harming the economy? Any cuts will have some negative effect, but the size of the affect depends on the program. For example, if we bring soldiers back from Germany or Japan, that has a minimal effect on our economy. It may do some damage to those foreign economies, and they may then have less money to buy stuff from us, but that is a relatively small effect.<br />
But if we halt production on a weapon system that is ongoing, and has many workers involved, that may have an immediate negative effect. So my conclusion is that the myriad ways that money is spent on the military and the defense industry, need to be carefully evaluated to identify those which have a relatively small near-term economic impact. Those are the ones that should be cut. Of course a related issue is that we cannot cut programs that, realistically, would endanger national security. However, many people, including myself, feel that our military could be pruned substantially without risk to our national security.<br />
<br />
My conclusion is that the way to get the deficit under control is with a careful mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, and which are oriented toward keeping a high level of employment. This would mean getting most of the added revenue from those with high incomes, and from medium and large corporations. The spending cuts must be those that have little impact on people with incomes below the U.S. median income.Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-77992451543253355372012-09-05T16:44:00.001-07:002012-09-05T17:10:40.406-07:00Full Employment RevisitedDuring the last two decades there have been major structural changes in the U.S. labor situation. These are primarily the result of the microcomputer revolution. Computers, with appropriate software, enable a great reduction in required staffing levels. This is true both in the office and the factory. In the factory it is by the use of manufacturing robots, and also by automated logistical systems. In the office it has eliminated typing pools, and reduced the number of bookkeepers and accountants and inventory clerks required. So nowadays the goods and services that are really needed can be produced by a fraction of the total workforce, and many people are left without jobs.<br />
<br />
But there exist numerous ways to keep almost everyone working, if the government had the political will. Many of them are already in use, else we would have much higher unemployment than we currently do. Many of you probably have read my article here:<br />
<a href="http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2011/12/full-employment-let-me-count-ways.html">http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2011/12/full-employment-let-me-count-ways.html</a><br />
Now I want to expand on that a little.<br />
<br />
What some business people would like would be to emulate China. If real wages are made low enough we can sell lots of stuff to the rest of the world at very low prices. This would be one way of having low unemployment. But most of the U.S. population would not like this at all. The bulk of our population would be in poverty, as in China. The business owners, however, would be raking in previously unimaginable incomes.<br />
<br />
The biggest make-work program that we currently have is defense. This uses tax receipts to employ tens of millions of people. Most of these are employees of the various defense contractors. Many more are military personnel. And then there are the many cities with military bases. These local economies depend on the personal spending of the local military personnel. Why do I call this a make-work program? Isn't it necessary to defend the nation from foreign aggressors? Well, our defense establishment is about twice as big as necessary for this purpose. (So it's only half a make-work program, and half a necessary program.) Defense is also a form of corporate welfare, and that in fact is why it's so large. The various companies that manufacture all of that military stuff also spend lots of money lobbying our congress, and contributing to the campaigns of favored politicians.<br />
<br />
If it was up to me I would greatly increase spending on all kinds of scientific research, including the space program. Plus I would embark on a vast infrastructure improvement program to give us roads, bridges & railroads as good as they have in Germany. Also, we should be building many medical schools and clinics and providing scholarships to train medical personnel at all levels. Money for all of this stuff would come from restoring the tax code to what it was in America's best economic years, the 60's and 70's, but also, the greatly increased GDP that would result would bring in substantially increased tax receipts.<br />
<br />
Finally, I would start a long term program to gradually reduce the standard workweek from the present 40 hours.Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-53742316682676661272012-07-25T12:54:00.000-07:002012-07-25T13:16:25.505-07:00An "Occupy Tucson" Speech by Al Anzaldua - Part 2<br />
Is it a coincidence that after the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which kept investment banks from merging with insurance companies & commercial banks, was overturned by the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization Act) and after Senate Banking Committee head Phil Gramm also inserted a provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted derivatives like credit-default swaps from government oversight, that Wall Street banks went into a frenzy of mergers & then a frenzy of creating and selling opaque derivatives based on sub-prime loans leading to the 2008 economic collapse? It is not a coincidence! These acts of deregulation let the Wall Street foxes run wild in the U.S. economy henhouse!<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
We must break up the banks and bring back Glass-Steagall! It was a good law that protected us for 66 years! We must push for strengthening the Dodd-Frank Act so that all Wall Street derivatives are traded on open, transparent exchanges, like the stock exchange – not just in so-called “clearing houses” dominated by Wall Streeters. <span style="background-color: white;">Why is Wall Street so against derivative transparency? Can you guess?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
GAP BETWEEN RICH & POOR<br />
Some in the richest 1% have influenced members of Congress with bribes (political donations) and lobbyists to rig the tax system so that now the richest 1% make more money than the bottom 140 million people! And the gap between rich & poor is growing! <br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
INJUSTICE<br />
If you hold up a 7-11 for a hundred dollars, you will go to jail, but if one of the banking plutocrats steals millions, he at most gets a “naughty naughty” from the press & slap-on-the-wrist fine. <span style="background-color: white;">What kind of justice is this?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
I AM ANGRY<br />
… because the enemies of our 99% movement are perpetrating a lie – a big rotten lie – that 51% percent of Americans pay NO tax! They repeat it over and over. That’s what you do with a big lie. The truth is that people working for a wage pay 15.3% payroll tax. (In effect, they are paying 30%, etc.) Then there’s state, county, and city sales taxes. And property taxes. Even renters pay property taxes (indirectly)! Don’t let them get away with this lie!<br />
<br />
PITFALLS<br />
Glenn Beck and others are predicting violent class war from us. (“They will drag rich people out of their homes and businesses and kill them.”) Don’t give the foes of the 99% movement ammunition to use against us! Don’t let them divide, discredit, weaken us. Don’t let them make a lie out of 99% unity. We therefore must avoid not only violence, but even the hint of violence. Avoid masks and other face coverings. Avoid compiling rich-people lists, especially ones with addresses. We don’t need them to prevail. We have nothing to hide. They have plenty to hide! Let them continue to wear their phony American-loving masks. We can see beneath those masks! Always remember that we have something stronger, more powerful than violence: We have persistence, we have the numbers, we are the 99%!<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
WHERE TO GO FROM HERE<br />
At the very least: We continue demonstrating and organizing. Before voting for a particular politician, find out how many of his/her staff aids and former staff aids are/were ex-corporate lobbyists or corporation officers. Find out who the corporate front groups I mentioned are supporting. Go to Source Watch and other websites and follow the money. It will amaze you! Support public financing bills for every level of government.<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
ALSO<br />
If you go to www.wethepeoplecampaign.org you will find a Declaration of Independence from Corporate Power to sign. It reads:<br />
I pledge my support for America’s founding principle of government of, by, and for the People. I believe that a corporation is not a person, money is not speech, and corporate money should not be allowed in our country’s elections.<br />
I pledge to work with other grassroots Americans for reforms that will free today’s politics from the dominating power of what Thomas Jefferson called “the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations.”<br />
I encourage you sign this pledge and continue to demonstrate for economic justice!<br />
<br />
Remember that we have something more powerful than violence, we have the power of persistence, the power of non-violent action, and if need be, non-violent resistance. Persistence, Resistance, Non-Violence! We have the power of numbers. Potentially vast numbers.<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">WE HAVE THE POWER OF THE 99%!!!</span>Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-70815863527847220722012-07-21T11:07:00.000-07:002012-07-21T13:35:57.301-07:00An "Occupy Tucson" Speech by Al Anzaldua - Part 1Al Anzaldua gave this speech at an Occupy Tucson event in October, 2011:<br />
<br />
THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT SPEECH<br />
<br />
In my lifetime, I’ve never seen the 99% of Americans so economically beleaguered, and I think I know<br />
WHY WE ARE IN THIS SORRY CONDITION.<br />
<br />
… because giant, multinational corporations have hijacked our politics and economy. They are controlling or at least influencing the elections and political agendas of legislators (Fed & state), governors, and even some mayors and judges, as well as the agencies that are supposed to protect us, such as the FDA, USDA, & EPA. Which corporations? Examples include: Monsanto, Exxon/Mobil, Mellon/Scaife Industries, Philip Morris (Altria), Merck, Cargill, Phizer, Koch Industries, Wall Street banks -- i.e. Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Chemical, Big Agriculture, Big Coal, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Banking. And don’t be fooled that just because a business is family owned, or is based in the U.S., that it’s a purely domestic company. Koch industries, for example, family-owned and headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, has branches in 59 other countries!<br />
<br />
WE ARE IN THIS SORRY CONDITION<br />
…because a new type of fascism is creeping upon us. The old fascism was national. This new fascism is multinational. In the old fascism, governments took over corporations. In the new fascism, corporations are taking over governments! I am not talking about mom & pop companies here. I am speaking of group of gargantuan, multinational corporations moving towards monopoly or cartel as they squeeze out smaller businesses. They are seizing power to the detriment of smaller businesses, which we need for a healthy economy.<br />
<br />
A CYNICAL MASQUERADE<br />
The biggest of these corporations use the masquerade of libertarianism and American-sounding front groups to mislead, trick, the average U.S. citizen into thinking they are for a free market and freedom from “BIG GOVERNMENT.” This is a cruel joke. They want nothing of the sort! They want big government, a powerful government with claws and teeth to protect them instead of you! And the last thing they want is a freer market with lots of competition. They want a rigged market, a rigged economy with taxpayer subsidies & government contracts for themselves! For example, Koch Industries gets millions in government contracts each year and billions in government subsidies. BTW, they don’t call this welfare. No way! They only call “welfare” what poor people get from government. When they get government help, it’s called free enterprise!<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"></span><br />
<br />
Make no mistake, the corporate plutocrats lust for government, but a convenient government that always says “yes” to them, a government which allows them to produce deceptively labeled junk and GM food -- a Big Fat Government for them, but a lean and mean government for everyone else. The humbug “libertarians” who run these corporations want liberty alright, the liberty to poison our air & water, while they foist tired, old, dirty technologies and fuels on us. What are the front groups they employ? Listen closely to their deceptive and wholesome-sounding names: The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute, Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Citizens for the Environment, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Freedom Works, Reason Foundation, American Legislative Exchange Council, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, Bill of Rights Institute, Heartland Institute (I pass Heartland full-page ad around). These front groups provide deceptive ads and studies, money & logistical support for politicians & movements they favor, and supposed neutral “experts” on TV & radio. I want to remind you all that the biggest insurance companies & banks (AIG, Citigroup, Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America) are still too big to fail!!<br />
As long as they remain gigantic, they can threaten our economy and blackmail us into bailing them out with our hard-earned money, which they use for million dollar bonuses and lobbying against our interests.<br />
<br />
<br />
STAY WITH ME ON THIS NEXT PART<br />
(Part 2 will be published next week)Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-6169911715536671052012-07-09T12:00:00.002-07:002012-07-09T12:20:18.480-07:00Reducing Suffering Worldwide<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a great deal of suffering in the world. There always has been, and many philosophers have noted it. For humans, suffering may be due to famine, war, incarceration, disease, and many other causes, although those first four are probably the most important. Over the past several hundred years, human suffering has been reduced considerably. Famine, as always, is a regional phenomenon, but nowadays there are usually serious efforts to transport food to where it is needed. There are not as many wars as there used to be. Prisons are mostly less cruel than they used to be, although with many local exceptions. And modern medicine and public health practices have reduced the prevalence of most diseases, as well as the suffering of those afflicted. The pain of childbirth has also been greatly reduced by modern medical practice. The same is true for injuries due to accidents. Of course a large fraction of the world's population does not have access to modern medical practice, so there is still a lot of future progress possible. In order for the world to continue the trend of reducing suffering, there must be enhanced food security globally, increased access to effective medical treatment, fewer & shorter wars, and fewer prisons with inhumane practices and conditions. It's not clear that these things will happen. One important impediment is continued growth of the human population, which reduces food security and motivates nations to go to war over dwindling resources.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The potential exists for the human race to reduce suffering for many species of animals as well. I'm certainly not claiming it's likely any time soon, and may never happen. I just want to point out that it's possible. Humans would have to first get their act together, stop having so many children worldwide, and get the human population down to a level that is sustainable, and with a good quality of life for all. This is necessary because as the human population increases it is accompanied by a decrease in animal habitat. This causes much suffering among the animal populations. There are also many animals that are in the custodial care of humans. These would be farm animals, laboratory animals, zoo animals, and pets. There are already trends in place to reduce suffering of these animals; these trends would merely need to be continued. When wild animals suffer it can be due to many different causes, and those vary from species to species. But a major cause of suffering for many of the large mammals is overpopulation. Most animals have high birth rates, and if conditions are right for a few years their populations can acheive levels such that the food supply is inadequate, leading to death by starvation for many. Starving IS suffering. Deer in many parts of North America illustrate this phenomenon. Humans can reduce suffering of this type by population control efforts, either by hunting, or by birth control drugs administered either by bait or by dart.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
In order for the processes described above to be implemented worldwide, it would probably require forcible intervention by some world body to change the governments and cultures of the many dysfunctional or nasty nations around the world. (Syria, Zimbabwe, Somalia, North Korea, etc.) I wrote about this possibility in an earlier article:<br />
<a href="http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2011/05/fantasy-foreign-policy.html">http://earthchurch.blogspot.com/2011/05/fantasy-foreign-policy.html</a><br />
<br />
All of the above could be achieved by 2100 if that was what people, and their leaders, wanted. Of course they don't actually want that, or rather it is very low on their list of priorities, so this is just a fantasy. A fantasy of the possible.<br />
<br />Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-70304924520499895262012-06-29T12:22:00.001-07:002012-12-29T22:07:11.933-08:00Should you go to college, young person?This article is going to be controversial, because nowadays it's an article of faith that if you go to college you will be much better off financially than if you don't. <br />
<br />
I don't think that everyone benefits by going to college, and I don't believe the statistics that claim to show that going to college makes you earn more money. It's true that the large group of people who went to college are making more money (per person) than the large group who did not go to college. But could that be because the people are different? Could it be that the people who went to college tend to be more willing to study and persevere in a regulated environment than those who did not go? Could it be that those who went to college had more aptitude for white collar careers than those who did not go? Could it be that many of those who did not go to college would have done poorly in college if they had gone? Could it be that many of those who went to college would have done well even if they had not gone? All of those things seem likely to me, so my hypothesis is that the difference between those two groups of people is mainly due to differences in their personal characteristics, and not because one group went to college. Of course I'm speaking statistically, not for every single individual.<br />
<br />
So I'm advising you to go to college if you want to train for a white collar career, or because you seek knowledge for it's own sake. If you were thinking of going to college because your friends are going, or because your parents want you to, think twice. Do you have any other good options? Are you prepared to attend classes and do lots of homework for several years?<br />
<br />
Now to be better off financially as a result of college, it's not enough that you simply get a higher paying job than you would have otherwise. You will have to earn enough extra money to make up for the 4 to 6 years that you spent in college, the experience or training that you will miss by being in college, and the money that you will have borrowed. For example, if instead of going to college you learn a skilled trade that is in demand, you are likely to be earning good money and be better off than many of your high school friends that went to college. Of course that's not necessarily true for those that have the dedication and talent necessary to become an engineer, attorney, physician, accountant, or other well-paid white collar careers. If one of those careers is right for you, then by all means, go for it!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-75588352129535762412012-06-16T16:46:00.002-07:002012-06-23T09:24:10.309-07:00Iran, Israel, and Nuclear Weapons<div>
As a news junkie, I have formed some educated guesses as to what is going on over there. The following is merely speculation based only on what I hear on the public airwaves:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think Iran is working on developing nukes. They have plenty of motivation. The U.S. government frequently make hostile statements about Iran. Of course Bush famously named them as part of an "Axis of Evil". The present U.S. government continues to speak in ways that are not reassuring to the Iranians. Furthermore, they notice that North Korea seems safe from attack. Iran has never fully cooperated with the U.N. Atomic energy people. If they had nothing to hide you would expect them to cooperate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
About Israel, I believe they will do whatever they think necessary to prevent Iran having a nuke. I think they have an active spy network within Iran. I think their present tactic is to disrupt progress, both by cyber attacks, and by assinations of key scientist and administrators. But if their spies tell them that Iran has the materials and is actually building a nuke, then they will launch an air attack. The goal would be to set Iran's progress back by several years. They would achieve this by massive damage to much of the infrastructure necessary to support Iran's nuclear development efforts.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My best guess about the U.S. government is that they are cooperating with Israel on the spying and cyber attacks. If Israel launches an air attack they won't object, and may even participate. They will try to delay such an attack as long as possible, for fear of the many unknown consequences and complications. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-32865618637699114462012-06-14T17:40:00.000-07:002012-06-14T19:15:02.932-07:00What do Henry Ford & Joseph Stiglitz have in common?Henry Ford was a leading industrialist, perhaps THE leading industrialist, of the early 20th century.<br />
<br />
Joseph Stiglitz is a current leading economist, and a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics.<br />
<br />
Here's what they have in common: They both recognized that, in order for the society as a whole to be a prosperous one, the common person needs to have much more than a subsistence income. It's pretty simple, really. If most people are broke, who's gonna buy the products of industry? In order to sell lots of cars & washing machines & insurance policies, lots of people need to have money to spend. If only the rich have extra money, well, there are not very many of them, so you can sell only a much smaller number of these items.<br />
<br />
Ford came upon this principle early in the rise of the Ford Motor Company. Through innovations in assembly line production of automobiles, the company rapidly increased the number of cars they were able to produce each week. When this number was small, Ford had no trouble selling all of them, because his car was very practical, and his prices were lower than his competitors. But as his output rose, eventually there came a time when there just weren't enough buyers that could afford a car. This was at a time when most people earned just enough money for the basic necessities, which did not include a car. Ford then began to pay his employees a lot more than the prevailing wage at the time. This had multiple effects. It got him the most qualified employees available, and an endless supply of them, so that he was able to continue to expand his factories and his production. It also caused an economic boom in the Detroit area because of all of the money that Ford's employees were spending in all of the common types of businesses. The well-know multiplier effect was in operation here; most of the businesses in the Detroit area prospered, and this caused even more spending. Furthermore, other employers were forced to raise wages in order to prevent losing their employees to Ford. Detroit became a boom town, with new residents flocking there, lots of cash being spent, and plenty of that going to buy new Ford cars.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
This principle, of prosperity resulting from good wages for the common worker, has been known to economists ever since that time. The reason that Joseph Stiglitz is invoked here is because he recently wrote a book about it. His book is entitled: "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future." It seems that in recent decades America has drifted away from this prosperity principle, as the common worker has been losing spending power, while the rich are getting richer.</div>Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-71529660438214467432012-03-16T12:36:00.002-07:002015-05-11T11:44:41.654-07:00Should the government get out of the marriage business?In our country it's mostly the state governments. They issue marriage licenses and give certain privileges to married couples. The federal government treats married couples differently for income tax purposes. The following quotation is from Wikipedia:<br />
<br />
"According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply to only male-female couples, from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, arial, sans-serif;">I'm nowhere near the first to propose this, but I think marriage is basically a religious rite, and should be left entirely to the churches. (and of course synagogues, temples, etc.) The governments of the fifty states should deal with civil unions, AKA domestic partnerships.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, arial, sans-serif;">This approach would end the current controversy over whether same sex marriages should be allowed. Some churches would perform same sex marriage and some would not. There would be controversies within many churches, but that's just a matter for those believers. Most states would recognize civil unions between two people; I think eventually all states would.</span><br />
<br />
A few, very few, public figures have suggested that marriage, being traditionally a sacrament, should be something for religious organizations to deal with. Governments, on the other hand, should be responsible for defining and regulating civil unions, or domestic partnerships, however they might be named.<br />
<br />
This makes a lot of sense to me. It would end all of the quarrelsome controversy over same sex marriage, except within individual churches. Each religion could make its own rules about marriage. Same sex couples presumably would qualify for civil unions. Those who also want to marry would have to find a church that accepts that. Disputes on that issue would take place within individual churches.<br />
<br />
Each state government would have the responsibility of defining civil union and deciding how it works. Presumably, the vast majority would not specify that the partners need to be of opposite sexes. I think that eventually, all states would permit same sex domestic partnerships.<br />
<br />
This also make it possible for the civil union concept to be extended toward non-sexual partnerships. There are many cases of long time friends, who are not lovers, and who have no other highly important relationships in their lives, who might benefit from a civil union, if it was divorced from sexuality. Civil unions might not even be restricted to pairs; small groups of single people who are very close friends might benefit from such an arrangement, and I see no downside for society.<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, I advocate that marriage be exclusively the domain of religion, and that government promote only domestic partnerships. Many couples, especially those with religion, would choose to have both. Although this is primarily an issue for the individual states, the federal government would have to confirm that the benefits, rights, and privileges formerly given to married couples, would now apply to domestic partnerships.Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-10077906232369752482012-02-22T12:28:00.000-08:002012-02-22T12:49:22.401-08:00Our Jails are too FullWhat I might say has been said many times. Every month or so I read or watch some reportage about our huge prison population. How can we feel good about our country when so many humans are locked up?<br />
We lock up a far higher fraction of our population than any other country! How can this be? Is the typical American a cruel, sadistic bastard? I don't think that's the case, but there is something very wrong that needs to be changed. The latest article that I have read is entitled The Caging of America, by Adam Gropnik. It's in The New Yorker, and you can read it here:<br />
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik#ixzz1n8vbMjpF">http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik#ixzz1n8vbMjpF</a><br />
<div><br />
That's a better article than anything I can write. This situation won't change until enough people badger their elected representative to change it. Of course, those who are cruel sadistic bastards will be content with things as they are. </div>Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-26736478576230223672012-01-13T17:36:00.000-08:002012-01-19T19:50:01.238-08:00The Right Way to Tax Capital GainsIf I buy something, and sell it later for more than I paid, I have made a capital gain. If I waited less than a year before I sold it, my profit is taxed like any other income. The capital gain is added to my other sources of income. But if I wait a year or more before I sell, then our current tax code treats it differently. It's considered a "long term" capital gain, and the tax will be 15%. <br />
<br />
So what's wrong with that system? The most common complaint that one hears is that people who earn their living via long term capital gains are getting a tax break that is unfair to regular people. Those who think this way say that all capital gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income. But there is another issue that is talked about much less often, and that is the effect of inflation. Inflation can produce long term capital gains that are totally illusory. Suppose, for an example, that I bought a house in 1991 for $100,000. then in 2011 I sold it for $200,000. It seems like I earned $100,000, right? But I didn't really, because the 2011 dollars are each worth less than the 1991 dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the $100,000 that I paid in 1991 has the same purchasing power as $166,100 in 2011. If I had sold the house for $166,100 I would have broken even, or exactly gotten my money back. Since I sold it for $200,00, my true profit is $33,900. But I will have to pay tax as if the profit were $100,000. My tax will be $15,000, which is almost 50% of my true profit.<br />
<br />
So it seems that the current system is capable of taxing both too little and too much depending on the circumstances. My proposal to remedy this is to take inflation into account when computing capital gains. The government already considers inflation for other purposes. For example, social security checks are adjusted upward annually to compensate for inflation. And the government sells a type of bond, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 14px;">,</span> whose value is adjusted for inflation. Hence there is already a precedent for considering inflation in government financial matters. So what I suggest is that capital gains be inflation adjusted by the change in the CPI from the time of purchase to the time of sale. The distinction between long and short term capital gains is no longer necessary; it could be eliminated. All capital gains could be taxed as ordinary income, but they would be computed differently. The effect of this difference in computation would be to reduce the tax on long term capital gains, but the amount of reduction would depend on how much inflation occurred during the interval between purchase and sale.<br />
<br />
My main point here is that capital gains should be adjusted for inflation. Whether to tax them at the same rate as ordinary income, or to treat them differently, is another issue. Since new business formation is aided by readily available capital, there is justification for giving favorable tax treatment to long term capital gains. If this is done I think the waiting period should be something like 3 to 5 years, not 1 as is currently the case. The latter encourages "flipping", which is not something to be encouraged. 5 years is a reasonable time to wait when you invest in a new business.Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-89716030450450277902011-12-11T08:12:00.000-08:002012-06-30T17:15:08.803-07:00Full Employment: Let Me Count the Ways.Some people think that the free market economy will create jobs for everyone if it is just left alone. We will never know if that theory is correct because no government will let the economy alone. However there are many nations in the world with minimal, ineffective, governments that have very little effect on their own economies. To my knowledge, all such nations are characterized by having mostly very poor people, and a handful of wealthy families owning almost everything. So, by inference, that supports another theory that says that a true free market economy leads to stagnation and great inequality of wealth. (But more about that another time.)<br />
<br />
So, given the type of government that we have, what policy alternatives could lead to full employment, and maintain full employment? I think we have to start with the fact of today's very high productivity, which means that it only takes a fraction of the population to produce the goods and services that people need. That leads us to our first alternative, reducing the work week. If we could get most people to work no more than about 30 hours per week, that ought to keep almost everyone employed, fulfilling our basic needs. It would also be a boon to the recreation segment of the economy, because people would have a lot more time for sports, hobbies, and travel.<br />
<br />
A second alternative is to put more money into the pockets of the common people. This will enable them to buy a lot of stuff that they don't really need, but would like to have. This causes businesses to produce more and hence hire more. With sufficient monetary stimulus of this type we should be able to keep the economy humming along at full capacity. With more people working and more income to businesses, tax revenue would increase, and this would, at least partially, pay for the monetary stimulus. If further revenues are required they can come from increasing taxes on those with very high incomes. If this approach is taken then America can continue to have lots of giant TV sets, smart phones, luxurious cars, muscular trucks, and full closets.<br />
<br />
A third alternative is for the government to be much more aggressive on infrastructure maintenance and construction. This means letting contracts to build or repair bridges, roads, dams, railways, communication lines, hospitals, clinics, job training centers, and so on. The U.S. Postal Service is part of our present infrastructure, so if this policy were adopted we would certainly maintain Saturday delivery, and not close any existing post offices. On the contrary, new post offices would be built so that everyone has one close by.<br />
<br />
A fourth alternative is to imitate the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, who employed large number of people to build pyramids. Nowadays, we would build space vehicles instead of pyramids. In addition to expanding the space program, we would increase support for scientific and industrial research, and for the arts.<br />
<br />
The fifth alternative is to expand the military establishment. Of course we are already spending a large proportion of the government's revenue on defense. This goes not only to paying the salaries of the million and a half service personnel, but also to funding 100's of corporations, large and small, to develop and produce their equipment. (Think tanks, aircraft, ships, missiles, rifles, uniforms, and 100's of other things.) However, we have had a lot more men under arms in the past, so it would be possible to greatly increase the size of the military.<br />
<br />
Those five methods are not mutually exclusive; any of them might be combined with any of the others. As a matter of fact, the nation is currently doing ALL of them, to some extent. To achieve full employment it would be necessary to increase one or more of these approaches.<br />
<br />
Personally, I would prefer more of the first approach mentioned, reducing the length of the work week. This would be in line with the historical trend. Our great-great-grandfathers used to work 70 hours per week; popular demand, along with increasing productivity, gradually reduced the workweek until it reached it's current 40 hours. But since the 1950's the trend to reduce the workweek has not been evident. Why not resurrect this trend?Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-18038980561347534762011-09-30T17:35:00.000-07:002011-10-05T10:35:43.221-07:00Employment, Debt, Deficit & AusterityBefore we get into the details, let me point out that when a government reduces spending, it has to fire people. If there is already high unemployment, this makes it worse. Furthermore, these fired people now stop paying taxes, and collect unemployment benefits instead, making the government's financial problems worse. And finally, these newly unemployed people don't have much money for shopping, so the retail industry suffers a hit, and they order less stuff from manufacturers, and so on. A policy like this, sometimes called austerity, just makes matters worse.<br />
<br />
Just to be clear, the debt I'll be talking about is the total amount of money that the U.S. government owes, and that it pays interest on. The deficit is the difference between total government spending and total government income, in one year. It should be clear that the debt is the result of having a deficit, year after year. In order to reduce the debt we need to have an annual surplus instead of a deficit.<br />
<br />
Deficit and debt are bad over the long haul. It's quite important to reduce the deficit, and reduce it a lot. But it does not have to be done immediately. It's a long term problem. The main reason to pay off the debt is because of the interest payments that have to be made. Those are a significant part of the government's total expenses, but in 2011 they are still manageable, still less than what we spend on the military, for example. But if the deficit remains high, the debt will rise, and the interest payment will eventually become unmanageable. As we approach that point, interest rates will rise, because lenders will worry about the safety of their investments. Fortunately, that point is still a few years away, but the danger must be taken seriously. <br />
<br />
Having 20% of the population under or un-employed is a very serious immediate problem. That is the principal cause of our large deficit, because unemployed people don't pay taxes! There is no doubt that stimulus works if it's the right kind. Giving money to wealthy people doesn't do it. Same for giving money to large corporations. What does work is either the government hiring people directly, like Roosevelt did, or letting contracts to private companies for goods or services that require workers immediately. Since the nation has thousands of roads and bridges that are in serious disrepair, this one is a no-brainer. Do you remember the bridge that collapsed in the midwest a couple of years ago? That's pretty serious. That should have been a wake-up call, but it was not heeded by our dysfunctional congress.<br />
<br />
But hiring people, or letting contracts, requires money. If the deficit is already a problem, how can the government spend more money, and where will it come from? The answer is that you have to go where the idle money is, and that location is well known today. It is in the financial accounts of large corporations and very wealthy individuals. If we were to simply return to the taxation policies of 1960's and 70's there would be plenty of money for hiring people and letting contracts. Our financial problems today are in large part due to a steady reduction of the tax rates on high incomes that began in the 1980's and continue today.<br />
<br />
What I'm saying is: Increase taxes on the rich and use the money to fix and build roads, bridges, railways, airports, high speed internet lines and hospitals. Also use it to train medical workers and technicians in industries with shortages of skilled labor.<br />
<br />
When you hire unemployed people you not only remove them from the unemployment lists, but they then have money to spend, which they do. This spending increases demand for goods and services, resulting in more hiring, to produce those goods and services. It's a positive feedback process. OTOH, if you give tax breaks to wealthy people, they invest most of that money, and so the economy is not stimulated very much. (This would be different if the nation had a shortage of capital, but that is not the case.) The newly employed people also begin paying taxes again.<br />
<br />
There are false myths being repeated endlessly by some in public life. One is that if you tax the "job creators" you will hurt the economy. Well, the evidence is clear: those job creators have been sitting on huge piles of cash for several years now, and they are not creating jobs. 30 years ago, when they WERE creating lots of jobs, they were paying MUCH HIGHER taxes than they are today.<br />
<br />
It's when the economy is strong, and growing, that governments can, and should, reduce spending.Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221684198954542149.post-20828390291986264382011-09-08T17:27:00.000-07:002011-09-08T17:32:21.024-07:00I just watched Obama's Speech about restoring a strong economy.Did you catch it? I'd be curious to hear your impression.<br />
<br />
My impressions of course are those of a progressive, a formerly<br />
enthusiastic supporter of Obama, lately a disappointed, un-enthusiastic supporter.<br />
<br />
The speech was GREAT! Rooseveltian! He described a serious,<br />
comprehensive plan to rescue the nation from the current economic<br />
crisis, a plan that made very good sense to me. Furthermore, he threw down the gauntlet to the Republicans, kind of daring them not to pass it. (my words, not his.) If the Republicans continue with their attitude of the past several months they will not pass his bill. The only thing that might get them to pass it, IMO, is fear, fear of serious disapproval by the voting public. This speech, and the public's reaction to it MIGHT have that effect. Only time will tell.<br />
<br />
There is one serious flaw. Obama said everything would be paid for,<br />
but to do that he is relying on congress to pass serious tax reform.<br />
I don't believe they are capable of that, even if they wanted to.<br />
<br />
But I'll bet that this speech increases his approval rating, and I'll<br />
bet that a strong majority of the public would want the plan to be<br />
enacted.<br />
<br />
For those who did not see the speech, it was unusual for Obama. For<br />
example, he said about ten times throughout the speech: "You should<br />
pass this bill, now!" It was a ballsy and challenging speech.<br />
<br />
m<br />
<br />
--<br />
Tax the rich - build roads, bridges, railways, solar energy plants,<br />
space vehicles, ...................Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699216280885899313noreply@blogger.com2