Wednesday, August 24, 2011
so long, and thanks for all the ipods
Can't wait to see how much Apple's stock will plummet tomorrow when the market opens. It'll be good for a few lulz to watch all the amateur day traders panic YET AGAIN that Steve Jobs is stepping down, possibly for good this time. The market isn't so much rational as it is reactionary. I'm sure it'll eventually recover, though.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
rethinking what 'productive' means
I've seen a lot of talk about 'the productive class' lately (which is right out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged), usually in reference to the mythical 'job creators.' But this attitude often neglects the importance of what they in turn consider 'unproductive' activities. As C. A. L'Hirondelle puts it in "The Stupidity of Economic Growth," "many 'non-jobs' such as being an unpaid carer, or doing volunteer work---activities that are often essential to human health and happiness---are considered 'unproductive' according to conventional economic measures such as the GDP."
Personally, I believe that we need to start looking at what is and isn't 'productive' in an entire different and more sustainable way. For example, as the same article notes: "E.F. Schumacher, Marilyn Waring and others have pointed out that harmful activities such as oil spills, clear cuts, ill health, and car accidents count on the 'plus' side of the GDP ledger because they generate economic activity while beneficial activities like unpaid family caregiving or growing your own vegetable garden are not counted as they are considered 'unproductive.'" That's why I completely agree with biologist and Nobel laureate John Sulston that it's time to look for more holistic alternatives to GDP as measures of well-being, as well as who and what kinds of activities are considered 'productive.'
Personally, I believe that we need to start looking at what is and isn't 'productive' in an entire different and more sustainable way. For example, as the same article notes: "E.F. Schumacher, Marilyn Waring and others have pointed out that harmful activities such as oil spills, clear cuts, ill health, and car accidents count on the 'plus' side of the GDP ledger because they generate economic activity while beneficial activities like unpaid family caregiving or growing your own vegetable garden are not counted as they are considered 'unproductive.'" That's why I completely agree with biologist and Nobel laureate John Sulston that it's time to look for more holistic alternatives to GDP as measures of well-being, as well as who and what kinds of activities are considered 'productive.'
Friday, August 19, 2011
a bad idea to get our economy moving a head quickly
A friend of mine sent me a link to a blog post by Dan Gilbert, founder of Quicken and owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, and asking for my thoughts on it. The post itself is titled "An Idea to Get Our Economy Moving Ahead Quickly." Basically, Gilbert thinks that a great way to jump start the economy and create jobs is to reduce capital gains tax to 0% on "any new capital investment beginning immediately and made through the end of 2012, with certain important stipulations (which I will explain in a moment), if the investment is held for two years or longer." The types of investments include:
While interesting, my first reaction was more or less, Sounds great if you're rich and have money to invest into your own company or some other eligible area of investment, but I sincerely doubt that it'll translate into much for the working class in the way of higher employment and wages—except, of course, for a select few industries like construction, and that only temporarily.
The key buzzword here is 'job-producing investments.' However, many investments don't necessarily translate into new jobs, and according to a report by the Nation Employment Law Project, close to 75% of the new jobs added in the last two years are below $14 an hour, which isn't as helpful in terms of economic growth as you might think. Most people at that pay rate have little in the way of discretionary income. Moreover, I don't think that growth for the sake of growth is sustainable. In my opinion, we need to be focusing on high quality full employment, not just 'job creation,' since many jobs are wasteful, unnecessary or even harmful.
In addition, when people 'reinvest' into their own companies, it's often just another way for them to avoid certain taxes or higher tax rates and hoard money/capital in the form of assets. For example, according to an article in Bloomberg, tax cuts for people making considerably more (including capital gains) don't really do much to help to stimulate the economy because, much like Plato's oligarch in the Republic, they tend to save (read 'hoard') it.
The main problem I basically have with this idea is that it's the same 'trickle-down economics' that have failed time and again (e.g., in the 1890s, when they called it 'the horse and sparrow theory'; 'Reaganomics' in the 1980s, which Ross Perot called 'political voodoo'; etc.). In a predominately consumerist economy, what you need more than anything are consumers who have money to spend to keep the money moving and the economy growing (or at least relatively stable), not easier-to-produce goods and services when there's little in the way of real demand or a financially stable consumer base.
Giving tax breaks and such to the wealthy, however, actually allows very little to 'trickle down' to the average worker/consumer. The enormous amount of capital currently available isn't 'dead' so much as it's being hoarded or transformed into even higher record profits for the top 10%. They could use it if they really wanted to. Banks, for example, have plenty of money to lend; they're simply sitting on it. Same for large multi-national corporations. Whether it's out of fear of economic instability or whatever, lowering tax rates even more is like begging them to start doing something with their hoards of cash. We shouldn't be begging; we should be demanding.
Last but not least, even if this idea does spur 'new job-producing investments,' which is certainly possible, I think it's an extremely bad idea to encourage investment in, and construction of, even more commercial and residential real estate when we've just experienced a housing bust, record high foreclosure rates and currently have a large numbers of commercial properties already sitting empty all over the country. These kinds of measures to stimulate job growth and consumer spending simply by increasing supply, when they actually work, tend to create artificial bubbles, which is half the reason we're in this mess in the first place.
Those are my thoughts, anyway.
1. All NEW capital investment made by corporations, partnerships and individuals for newly issued shares of stock in both private and public companies (including start-up businesses) after the enactment of the capital gains legislation.
2. All NEW investments made by corporations, partnerships and individuals purchased after the enactment of the new capital gains legislation for all new capital assets.
3. All NEW construction real estate, both commercial and residential by corporations, partnerships and individuals developed after the enactment of the new capital gains legislation.
4. All NEW capital improvements made by corporations, partnerships and individuals to existing real estate, both commercial and residential, made after the enactment of the new capital gains legislation.
While interesting, my first reaction was more or less, Sounds great if you're rich and have money to invest into your own company or some other eligible area of investment, but I sincerely doubt that it'll translate into much for the working class in the way of higher employment and wages—except, of course, for a select few industries like construction, and that only temporarily.
The key buzzword here is 'job-producing investments.' However, many investments don't necessarily translate into new jobs, and according to a report by the Nation Employment Law Project, close to 75% of the new jobs added in the last two years are below $14 an hour, which isn't as helpful in terms of economic growth as you might think. Most people at that pay rate have little in the way of discretionary income. Moreover, I don't think that growth for the sake of growth is sustainable. In my opinion, we need to be focusing on high quality full employment, not just 'job creation,' since many jobs are wasteful, unnecessary or even harmful.
In addition, when people 'reinvest' into their own companies, it's often just another way for them to avoid certain taxes or higher tax rates and hoard money/capital in the form of assets. For example, according to an article in Bloomberg, tax cuts for people making considerably more (including capital gains) don't really do much to help to stimulate the economy because, much like Plato's oligarch in the Republic, they tend to save (read 'hoard') it.
The main problem I basically have with this idea is that it's the same 'trickle-down economics' that have failed time and again (e.g., in the 1890s, when they called it 'the horse and sparrow theory'; 'Reaganomics' in the 1980s, which Ross Perot called 'political voodoo'; etc.). In a predominately consumerist economy, what you need more than anything are consumers who have money to spend to keep the money moving and the economy growing (or at least relatively stable), not easier-to-produce goods and services when there's little in the way of real demand or a financially stable consumer base.
Giving tax breaks and such to the wealthy, however, actually allows very little to 'trickle down' to the average worker/consumer. The enormous amount of capital currently available isn't 'dead' so much as it's being hoarded or transformed into even higher record profits for the top 10%. They could use it if they really wanted to. Banks, for example, have plenty of money to lend; they're simply sitting on it. Same for large multi-national corporations. Whether it's out of fear of economic instability or whatever, lowering tax rates even more is like begging them to start doing something with their hoards of cash. We shouldn't be begging; we should be demanding.
Last but not least, even if this idea does spur 'new job-producing investments,' which is certainly possible, I think it's an extremely bad idea to encourage investment in, and construction of, even more commercial and residential real estate when we've just experienced a housing bust, record high foreclosure rates and currently have a large numbers of commercial properties already sitting empty all over the country. These kinds of measures to stimulate job growth and consumer spending simply by increasing supply, when they actually work, tend to create artificial bubbles, which is half the reason we're in this mess in the first place.
Those are my thoughts, anyway.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
more fukushima bs
From the Independent:
The explosive truth behind Fukushima's meltdown
Yet another story about the growing mountain of lies and misinformation surrounding the Fukushima disaster; and in my opinion, yet another example of what happens when you have a culture where profit is the bottom line and the state is dominated more by lobbyists and large corporations than average citizens: it's the citizens, and particularly the working class citizens, who ultimately suffer.
The explosive truth behind Fukushima's meltdown
Yet another story about the growing mountain of lies and misinformation surrounding the Fukushima disaster; and in my opinion, yet another example of what happens when you have a culture where profit is the bottom line and the state is dominated more by lobbyists and large corporations than average citizens: it's the citizens, and particularly the working class citizens, who ultimately suffer.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
children starve while the sec covers up white-collar crimes
Right now, millions of poverty-stricken children are slowly starving in the US while the rich are getting richer and the SEC is potentially covering up white-collar crimes. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?
And people say there's no such thing as class warfare. Pfft.
And people say there's no such thing as class warfare. Pfft.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
re: "stop coddling the super-rich"
I'm not sure what his agenda is (I guess you don't actually have to like the system just because you're good at gaming it), but I pretty much agree with everything Warren Buffet said in his recent New York Times Op-Ed.
Reminds me of something I wrote back in December when they were arguing about whether to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Also, this.
Reminds me of something I wrote back in December when they were arguing about whether to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Also, this.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
london riots
If you're interested in what's going on in London right now, I suggest reading this. I think Laurie Penny has an insightful take on why this is happening. As for myself, the whole thing reminds me of something MLK Jr. said (especially considering the unemployment statistics and poverty index of the affected areas/population):
[A] riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear 3 of 8 that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)