Yeah.... What recovery? Is immediately what I thought when I read this title. The headline unemployment figure has been going down, but at the same time the Labor Participation rate has been going down also. So for each person who decides that they do not want to try to find a job anymore both the labor participation rate and the headline unemployment go down. That is not something you want at all. Take a look at these two graphs here from The Bureau of Labor and Statistics Unemployment Rate http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2004_2014_all_period_M04_data.gif Labor Participation Rate http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2004_2014_all_period_M04_data.gif Unfortunately these images are gif so they will not embed automatically
The more I think about it, the more I think the recovery was botched from the outset by the Democrats. GOP was going to stand in the way no matter what agenda. Democrats chose to make the agenda healthcare. They could have chose to make it tax policy or inequality (two of the underlying causes of our lingering terrible economy). Health care would have flowed naturally from a growing economy and shrinking inequality (our system of health delivery worked a lot better when the middle class had great benefits, something not possible in a minimum wage driven economy). In the end, they either didn't see or completely missed a grand opportunity to fix some fundamentals. The cynical part of me thinks it was observed and ignored for reasons of campaign contribution.
The recovery, was about cementing the Wall Street's vision for Main Street. When candidate Obama signed onto the Paulson-Geithner plan to save the banks above all else (and in Geithner's charming description of "hosing the runway" so the banks could survive the self-inflicted collapse of the housing bubble), we should have known there would be no recovery. The purpose of Main Street is to be a permanent source of wealth extraction for the banksters of Wall Street. The politicians, regardless of party, all follow the dictates of the money crowd -- because hey, that's how it is. Persisting in the illusion that either party actually gives a damn about its constituents, is sophmoric in the most generous of arguments. Remember and understand C.R.E.A.M. Your elected representatives sure do.
I agree with you here that Healthcare was not the correct agenda. There are like a million things wrong with the way they are handling the economy right now. First and foremost is probably the corporate tax rate which is astronomical at something like 35 or 40%. This is causing companies like Pfizer trying to merge with Astra Zeneca so that they can be incorporated under the UK and have a much lower tax rate. Seems like the right solution here is to have a tax holiday and drastically reduce the corporate tax rate seeing as you would probably collect more taxes in total and allow capital to flow back to the United States rather than being spent and invested overseas. That's just one of my gripes. I don't even know where to start with the rest so I guess I'll get a little meta. Maybe the issue is how do you align our political systems with the long term interests of our constituents.
No the right solution is to suspend the extension of Pfizer's patents, and tax them more for relying as heavily as they have on the basic research funded by the American taxpayers. Pfizer is a rentier corporation that has a dramatically shrunken pipeline because they have spent more money on marketing than they ever did on research. I don't really think we need to give tax breaks to marketing companies masquerading as research companies.
Also you've been a member of hubski for two hours and you only follow minimum_wage (who isn't my favorite person when it comes to discussing economics). You are either masquerading under an alternate account or you are truly new to the community. Either way, I kind of regret responding to this.
Oh yeah. That's it. We should tax them because its our right as a people to pull money out of every successful operation. Let's see how that works out.... So I waited and guess what I know how that works out because its happening right now. Pfizer is trying to merge with a British company so that it can avoid that American tax rate. Capital flows freely nowadays and their is labor everywhere so companies can relocate their business and tax obligations easily. Put your pitchfork away because if you keep crucifying businesses for trying to do their fiduciary duty to their shareholders you are going to drive them out of this country and we are going to have an economy that looks like France. I agree with you that Pfizer does a lot of marketing directly to consumers and improves their bottoms line trying to convince you that you need artificial tears, or your boner isn't hard enough, or you need to get on an aspirin regiment, but these problems could be solved more easily by making it illegal to advertise prescription medicines directly to consumers (like Europe).
Agree completely. Health care was about the most divisive major issue they could've picked, and one of the easiest to argue against (polemically). But inequality wasn't a buzzword in 2006/2007 when Obama's team was putting together its longterm policy plan (and according to Ron Suskind that process was a joke anyway). Inequality would've made a great platform-builder because it has tons of expert support and a lot of very obvious effects on a huge voting bloc's everyday lives. That's not to say the Democrats really had a "grand opportunity" ... they had the House, the Senate and the White House but that doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to. (cf. Dodd-Frank, which they managed to pass only nominally.) As far as tax policy, I'm not sure you can really create a debate about tax policy when, unfortunately, no one gives a shit (or if they do it's in the wrong direction).
Huh! Who the hell doesn't give a shit about Tax Policy!!!! Every other week when I see how much the government is taking out of my pay I am infuriated by tax policy and their reckless misallocation of resources. I don't know what you are saying the wrong direction is here. Let me just be straightforward and say that taxes should be lower. . . . . . . . way lower.....As far as tax policy, I'm not sure you can really create a debate about tax policy when, unfortunately, no one gives a shit (or if they do it's in the wrong direction).
Yes, but it's difficult to address inequality with a serious debate on marginal rates, inheritance tax, and capital gains. Dry as it may be, the public would greatly benefit from a strong lesson in government finance. In it's absence we get sound bites like "American people are tightening their belts, so why shouldn't the government?" And people eat it up.As far as tax policy, I'm not sure you can really create a debate about tax policy when, unfortunately, no one gives a shit (or if they do it's in the wrong direction).
Do you really believe that tax policy is the main driver of inequality in this country? It is the culture of learned powerlessness. You want people to give a shit about tax policy when they can't ask for a raise for fear of being fired. The reality is that work, jobs, employment is highly contingent for most people because they have no protections in an at-will world. The same world where the petty tyranny of the employer is legally and illegally sacrosanct. The people don't care about tax policy because they may not be paying taxes tomorrow, because they're going to be out on their ass. The ones who gobble up the trite talking points, are the Baby Boomers, you know, the generation that actually has some wealth lying around.
Yes.... So stupid....... I guess I'll get meta again. How do we combine the collective intellectual power of our constituents to make the right long term decisions that is in the best interest of the people. I'm thinking something like quora/hubski/twitter for representatives.... and I've been thinking about this for a long time."American people are tightening their belts, so why shouldn't the government?"
You should be thinking of something like ACORN, or the civil rights era NAACP. Social media is a tool for organizing and education. Organizing real people for direct action campaigns targeted at those in power is the only way to change things. And this requires years of effort, possibly even multi-generational. Rosa Parks didn't just decide one day to not go to the back of the bus. She was trained to do it. She wanted to do it. And when she did it, there was a plan in place to make the bus boycott successful and to keep people getting to their jobs (which was aided by the availability of automobiles). The internet is revolutionary, but it isn't the revolution.
Yes. Thanks. I'm aware. The point here is more that our headline numbers are as inflated and massaged as China's. (That's hyperbole. I don't actually mean that literally)