Three days ago I posted a comment on Qaddafi's demise, including some cryptic historical references.
Yesterday's New York Times printed a more complete account by the historian Simon Sebag Montefiore. Montefiore compares the death of Qaddafi to deaths of other tyrants in history.
The headline of the article says it all: "Dictators Get The Deaths They Deserve."
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Contempt For Working People; Contempt For Democracy
It has long been obvious that many republicans, especially the Tea Party kind, have little but contempt for people who work for a living. They despise labor unions and public employees, but also look down on anyone but (to quote the words of William Jennings Bryan more than a century ago) "the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world."
This contempt is reflected in the sneering tone of commentary about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, but also in other comments that pass for political discourse these days. Here is an example recently brought to my attention. It is posted on the web site of the Asheville Tea Party in Buncombe County, North Carolina:
A question that comes to mind is, "just what have the top one percent of earners in this country actually produced lately?" Do they produce anything but deals? If so, I'd like to know what.
I would like for folks who write such things and think such thoughts to turn their energies to a thoughtful examination of what kind of a country we want the United States to be.
As I drive around the country, I see crumbing roads and bridges, decrepit school houses, general decline in public infrastructure. This isn't because our public servants don't do the best they can with what they are given to work with - it's because of the "we're too poor to do that - we can't afford it - we're broke" mantra. As I have pointed out before, that didn't keep our forebears from turning the great depression into the Age of Great (and lasting) Undertakings.
This contempt is reflected in the sneering tone of commentary about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, but also in other comments that pass for political discourse these days. Here is an example recently brought to my attention. It is posted on the web site of the Asheville Tea Party in Buncombe County, North Carolina:
Ineptocracy (in-ept-o-cra-cy)
A system of government where the least capable to lead
are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of
society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with
goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing
number of producers.
A question that comes to mind is, "just what have the top one percent of earners in this country actually produced lately?" Do they produce anything but deals? If so, I'd like to know what.
I would like for folks who write such things and think such thoughts to turn their energies to a thoughtful examination of what kind of a country we want the United States to be.
As I drive around the country, I see crumbing roads and bridges, decrepit school houses, general decline in public infrastructure. This isn't because our public servants don't do the best they can with what they are given to work with - it's because of the "we're too poor to do that - we can't afford it - we're broke" mantra. As I have pointed out before, that didn't keep our forebears from turning the great depression into the Age of Great (and lasting) Undertakings.
The Rich Get Richer
Yesterday's New York Times reported on a new Congressional Budget Office report that the top one percent of earners in the United States doubled their share of the nation's income since the late 1970's.
Unlike some economic statistics, this is a win-lose proposition. The share of the nation's income received by the lower 99% has decreased by 9%.
From the NYT account, specific increases and reductions in the share of national income were as follows:
"¶ The share of after-tax household income for the top 1 percent of the population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from nearly 8 percent in 1979.
¶ The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other four-fifths of the population.
¶ People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, down from 7 percent in 1979.
¶ People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007."
Why did this happen? The rules changed to benefit the already wealthy.
Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan described the process in 1896:
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."
What happened after 1979? The political rise of "supply-side," "trickle-down" economic actions. A kind of reverse Robin Hood policy. This was not new. Such thinking was plainly evident to William Jennings Bryan in 1896. And the results were foreseeable.
Unlike some economic statistics, this is a win-lose proposition. The share of the nation's income received by the lower 99% has decreased by 9%.
From the NYT account, specific increases and reductions in the share of national income were as follows:
"¶ The share of after-tax household income for the top 1 percent of the population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from nearly 8 percent in 1979.
¶ The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other four-fifths of the population.
¶ People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, down from 7 percent in 1979.
¶ People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007."
Why did this happen? The rules changed to benefit the already wealthy.
Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan described the process in 1896:
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."
What happened after 1979? The political rise of "supply-side," "trickle-down" economic actions. A kind of reverse Robin Hood policy. This was not new. Such thinking was plainly evident to William Jennings Bryan in 1896. And the results were foreseeable.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Brussels Meeting Canceled
Tomorrow's meeting in Brussels of European Union Finance Ministers has been canceled. Apparently the ministers have been unable to craft a financial rescue package not only for Greece, but also for Italy and Spain. A meeting of EU leaders will go on as scheduled. The expectation seems to be that the prime ministers will work something out and provide direction to the finance ministers.
Doesn't sound good. The usual way in international negotiations is for functionaries and responsible ministers to work out the details and for the principals to meet and ceremoniously announce the resulting agreement. When the procedure is reversed, it doesn't bode well for agreement.
This is of interest to us because? The EU as a whole is a larger economy than our own and is our largest trading partner. Economic contraction in the Euro zone would be bad enough, but a crisis in the European banking system will inevitably spread to the US.
Cross your fingers that they will work it out. Don't, however, hold your breath.
Doesn't sound good. The usual way in international negotiations is for functionaries and responsible ministers to work out the details and for the principals to meet and ceremoniously announce the resulting agreement. When the procedure is reversed, it doesn't bode well for agreement.
This is of interest to us because? The EU as a whole is a larger economy than our own and is our largest trading partner. Economic contraction in the Euro zone would be bad enough, but a crisis in the European banking system will inevitably spread to the US.
Cross your fingers that they will work it out. Don't, however, hold your breath.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The French got that right.
I just read through William Jennings Bryan's "cross of gold" speech of 1896. On the face of it, the issue was whether to have a gold standard or to have free coinage of silver at a ratio of sixteen to one (sixteen ounces of silver would have the same value as an ounce of gold.) But the real issue was the desire of the lending class (creditors or rentiers) to insure a "stable currency" as against the need of cash poor and debt-burdened farmers, small businesses and wage earners for easier money. With minor editing, the speech could still be given today. A few excerpts:
"When you tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world."
"They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have made no criticism. We have simply called attention to what you know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the Court. That will give you criticisms.
"When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours."
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."
I just read through William Jennings Bryan's "cross of gold" speech of 1896. On the face of it, the issue was whether to have a gold standard or to have free coinage of silver at a ratio of sixteen to one (sixteen ounces of silver would have the same value as an ounce of gold.) But the real issue was the desire of the lending class (creditors or rentiers) to insure a "stable currency" as against the need of cash poor and debt-burdened farmers, small businesses and wage earners for easier money. With minor editing, the speech could still be given today. A few excerpts:
"When you tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world."
"They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have made no criticism. We have simply called attention to what you know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the Court. That will give you criticisms.
"When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours."
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."
Monday, October 24, 2011
Qaddafi's Demise
I was a bit surprised at the call for an investigation into the circumstances of Qaddafi's death.
My first reaction: who cares?
Qaddafi's supporters might care, and may wish to use the information to stir up a new civil war.
My advice? Let the Libyans sort it out. Not our job.
My first reaction: who cares?
Qaddafi's supporters might care, and may wish to use the information to stir up a new civil war.
My advice? Let the Libyans sort it out. Not our job.
Municipal Elections; Write-Ins
I've had some questions lately about the rules for voting in municipal elections, especially rules for writing in candidates. Here are some answers:
1. The only competitive municipal race in Pamlico County is the three-candidate race for mayor of Oriental;
2. Eight of the nine municipalities in the county have the same number of candidates for board of commissioners as there are open seats. Vandemere is one candidate short;
3. Voters need not vote for any of the declared candidates - they may write in candidates of their own choosing;
4. The ballots contain enough blank lines to write in names for each opening;
5. Voters need not select a candidate for each vacancy - it is acceptable to vote for a single candidate or for none at all (blank ballot);
6. Candidates may, but need not, publicly state their willingness to serve as a write in candidate;
7. Write in candidates who spend ANY money on the campaign must establish a campaign bank account and are subject to the same financial reporting requirements as a declared candidate.
1. The only competitive municipal race in Pamlico County is the three-candidate race for mayor of Oriental;
2. Eight of the nine municipalities in the county have the same number of candidates for board of commissioners as there are open seats. Vandemere is one candidate short;
3. Voters need not vote for any of the declared candidates - they may write in candidates of their own choosing;
4. The ballots contain enough blank lines to write in names for each opening;
5. Voters need not select a candidate for each vacancy - it is acceptable to vote for a single candidate or for none at all (blank ballot);
6. Candidates may, but need not, publicly state their willingness to serve as a write in candidate;
7. Write in candidates who spend ANY money on the campaign must establish a campaign bank account and are subject to the same financial reporting requirements as a declared candidate.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Greece, Debt, Capital, And The Whiskey Rebellion
European finance ministers are meeting today to craft a solution to the Greek debt crisis.
The more I read about the so-called Greek sovereign debt crisis, the more I am convinced that the Eurozone as currently structured has been a vast mistake. Of course, the powers that be in Europe will never admit this. They will figure out a way to blame and punish the present victim (Greece) and possible future victims (Italy and Spain), and to avoid placing any significant burden on the real perpetrators, German banks. Well, not only German banks, but also French, Benelux and Finnish banks.
As for Greece, the beatings will continue until morale (or the economy) improves. The beatings themselves will make it impossible for the economy to improve.
How did Greece get in this pickle? Private capital movements over which Greece had no control, and which were the prime motivation for creating the Euro in the first place. In short, wealthy owners of capital in the heart of Europe wanted more freedom to invest in the periphery at higher interest rates.
The economist Kash Mansori has an excellent explanation of the process in a recent edition of The New Republic.
Some of the "blame Greece" rhetoric reminds me of accusations bandied about concerning balance of payments issues (current accounts) back when the world operated with fixed exchange rates. Under the Bretton Woods system established under the guidance of John Maynard Keynes at the end of World War II, persistent balance of payments imbalances were expected to be addressed by exchange rate adjustments by both the country in deficit and the country in surplus. That never happened. The country in surplus always blamed the country in deficit and the latter had to devalue its own currency. Surplus countries never adjusted.
When Greece joined the Eurozone, they adopted a currency with the most fixed exchange rate of all. No adjustments possible. Therefore, instead of simply devaluing their own currency, Greece must increase taxes (in a depressed economy) and reduce expenditures (including social benefits which are already below much of the rest of Europe).
What else can Greece do? Induce a greater recession than the rest of Europe. Drive down wages and prices which, by the way, depresses government revenue and worsens the deficit. The Greek economy just isn't big enough to accomplish all that by growth.
What does this have to do with the Whiskey Rebellion?
In 1790, the newly-established US Congress agreed to consolidate federal and state debts, principally for revolutionary war expenses. Anticipating this, wealthy Eastern capitalists bought up largely valueless state revolutionary war bonds at pennies on the dollar (or pence to the pound as the case may be). The 1790 agreement, which made sense from the standpoint of establishing the "full faith and credit" of the United States, resulted in a windfall for the speculators who had bought state bonds. But how to repay the debt?
Alexander Hamilton pushed a whiskey tax. It passed the Congress in 1791 and ran into immediate opposition.
The problem? The tax burden fell most heavily on small western yeoman farmers beyond the Appalachians, many of whom paid debts in whiskey, due to a regional shortage of money. Collecting the tax would contract an already marginal regional economy. There were uprisings in the west, mainly in Pennsylvania, but also in Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina. President Washington led forces against the rebels, the rebellion was put down, and federal authority established.
Many westerners continued to evade the tax, and it was repealed after Thomas Jefferson became president.
At this remove, it seems fair to see the tax as a measure to redistribute wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
Were there other commodities Hamilton could have taxed? Tobacco comes immediately to mind. But he would have to have dealt with wealthy and powerful tobacco interests instead of corn farmers.
Power to the powerful - wealth to the wealthy!
The more I read about the so-called Greek sovereign debt crisis, the more I am convinced that the Eurozone as currently structured has been a vast mistake. Of course, the powers that be in Europe will never admit this. They will figure out a way to blame and punish the present victim (Greece) and possible future victims (Italy and Spain), and to avoid placing any significant burden on the real perpetrators, German banks. Well, not only German banks, but also French, Benelux and Finnish banks.
As for Greece, the beatings will continue until morale (or the economy) improves. The beatings themselves will make it impossible for the economy to improve.
How did Greece get in this pickle? Private capital movements over which Greece had no control, and which were the prime motivation for creating the Euro in the first place. In short, wealthy owners of capital in the heart of Europe wanted more freedom to invest in the periphery at higher interest rates.
The economist Kash Mansori has an excellent explanation of the process in a recent edition of The New Republic.
Some of the "blame Greece" rhetoric reminds me of accusations bandied about concerning balance of payments issues (current accounts) back when the world operated with fixed exchange rates. Under the Bretton Woods system established under the guidance of John Maynard Keynes at the end of World War II, persistent balance of payments imbalances were expected to be addressed by exchange rate adjustments by both the country in deficit and the country in surplus. That never happened. The country in surplus always blamed the country in deficit and the latter had to devalue its own currency. Surplus countries never adjusted.
When Greece joined the Eurozone, they adopted a currency with the most fixed exchange rate of all. No adjustments possible. Therefore, instead of simply devaluing their own currency, Greece must increase taxes (in a depressed economy) and reduce expenditures (including social benefits which are already below much of the rest of Europe).
What else can Greece do? Induce a greater recession than the rest of Europe. Drive down wages and prices which, by the way, depresses government revenue and worsens the deficit. The Greek economy just isn't big enough to accomplish all that by growth.
What does this have to do with the Whiskey Rebellion?
In 1790, the newly-established US Congress agreed to consolidate federal and state debts, principally for revolutionary war expenses. Anticipating this, wealthy Eastern capitalists bought up largely valueless state revolutionary war bonds at pennies on the dollar (or pence to the pound as the case may be). The 1790 agreement, which made sense from the standpoint of establishing the "full faith and credit" of the United States, resulted in a windfall for the speculators who had bought state bonds. But how to repay the debt?
Alexander Hamilton pushed a whiskey tax. It passed the Congress in 1791 and ran into immediate opposition.
The problem? The tax burden fell most heavily on small western yeoman farmers beyond the Appalachians, many of whom paid debts in whiskey, due to a regional shortage of money. Collecting the tax would contract an already marginal regional economy. There were uprisings in the west, mainly in Pennsylvania, but also in Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina. President Washington led forces against the rebels, the rebellion was put down, and federal authority established.
Many westerners continued to evade the tax, and it was repealed after Thomas Jefferson became president.
At this remove, it seems fair to see the tax as a measure to redistribute wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
Were there other commodities Hamilton could have taxed? Tobacco comes immediately to mind. But he would have to have dealt with wealthy and powerful tobacco interests instead of corn farmers.
Power to the powerful - wealth to the wealthy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
