good:
Visit the website for TED, the conference for creative techies and do-gooding hipsters that vaulted the 18-minute lecture into an art form, and you’ll find speakers discussing everything from “Sculpting Waves in Wood and Time” to “Building U.S.-China relations … by Banjo.”
What you won’t find is a recent TED talk by Michael Hanauer, a wealthy venture capitalist, that argues income inequality is a problem that threatens the economy, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are part of the solution.
Comparing Obama and Reagan’s economic records - Ezra Klein, WaPo
“Beware of perfect wording. If the phrasing flows like ad copy, it probably is, warns Jeff Blyskal, a senior editor for Consumer Reports. Review factories are offering $10 for every 5-star review on the e-commerce giant Amazon, the New York Times reported. On that note, Blyskal figures someone waxing poetic about $5 socks should not be taken seriously. “It’s just out of proportion to what it is.”
(via huffingtonpost)
“Christian Captialism” in their view, isn’t an oxymoron, it’s God’s will as revealed in the Bible. God wants you to own property and make money, and if some make a lot more money than others, that’s okay. In fact, it’s God’s will too.”
“During the three weeks I traveled in Australia, I was often asked, with genuine bafflement and considerable sympathy, how the world’s greatest nation had become captive to a band of ideologues and fundamentalists, how the American dream — a beacon to people everywhere — had become so powerless to deliver on its promise of opportunity for all.”
(via huffingtonpost)
“Arghh!!!!!!!! Don’t you have to know anything to write for a major newspaper these days? USA Today told readers that:
“That raise actually might not be as good as it looks. The extra money is nice, but it could very well bump you into the next tax bracket, possibly leaving you with less money than you had before the raise.”
No, no and 286,000 times no! The tax system brackets give marginal rates. This means that if the raise bumps you into a higher bracket then you pay more taxes only on the income in the higher bracket. Suppose that the tax bracket for income under $200k is 25 percent, and for income over $200k is 33 percent. If you get a raise that pushes your income from $195,000 to $205,000 then you only pay the higher 33 percent tax rate on the $5,000 that is above the $200k threshold not your whole income. Therefore, there is no (as in none, nada, not any) way that getting more money, and being pushed into a higher tax bracket will leave you with less money after taxes.
Don’t the writers and editors at USA Today know this? - cepr.net”
The New Resentment of the Poor
Representative Michele Bachmann noted recently that 47 percent of Americans do not pay federal income tax; all of them, she said, should pay something because they benefit from parks, roads and national security. (Interesting that she acknowledged government has a purpose.) Gov. Rick Perry, in the announcement of his candidacy, said he was dismayed at the “injustice” that nearly half of Americans do not pay income tax. Jon Huntsman Jr., up to now the most reasonable in the Republican presidential field, said not enough Americans pay tax.
Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, and several senators have made similar arguments, variations of the idea expressed earlier by Senator Dan Coats of Indiana that “everyone needs to have some skin in the game.”
This is factually wrong, economically wrong and morally wrong. First, the facts: a vast majority of Americans have skin in the tax game. Even if they earn too little to qualify for the income tax, they pay payroll taxes (which Republicans want to raise), gasoline excise taxes and state and local taxes. Only 14 percent of households pay neither income nor payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution. The poorest fifth paid an average of 16.3 percent of income in taxes in 2010.
Economically, reducing the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit — which would be required if everyone paid income taxes — makes no sense at a time of high unemployment. The credits, which only go to working people, have always been a strong incentive to work, as even some conservative economists say, and have increased the labor force while reducing the welfare rolls.
The moral argument would have been obvious before this polarized year. Nearly 90 percent of the families that paid no income tax make less than $40,000, most much less. The real problem is that so many Americans are struggling on such a small income, not whether they pay taxes. The two tax credits lifted 7.2 million people out of poverty in 2009, including four million children. At a time when high-income households are paying their lowest share of federal taxes in decades, when corporations frequently avoid paying any tax, it is clear who should bear a larger burden and who should not.
-The New York Times. Without a doubt, this is the best editorial I have read all year. Read the entire piece here.
“Capitalism in its raw form can’t pull us out of this hole.”
Bill Gross, a billionaire Republican, and one of the chief investment officer of the giant bond fund Pimco.
He believes “the government needs to arrest America’s dangerous economic slide.” That sentiment is growing. Economists and the financial industry want policymakers to boost the economy.
The pushback against the Republican austerity agenda is arguably even more intense. Jamison Foser explained this week:
J.P. Morgan says “fiscal tightening” will worsen the “negative feedback loop” hindering economic growth. Greg Ip notes, “A shift toward fiscal and monetary austerity in the United States in 1937 helped prolong the depression. Fiscal tightening helped push Japan back into recession in 1997.” Jared Bernstein argues for more stimulus. Larry Summers, too. Bruce Bartlett, a policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, writes, “the important thing is for policy makers to stop obsessing about debt and focus instead on raising aggregate demand.”
(via zeitvox)
(via socialistexan)
“Basically the Republicans said we’ll blow up the world economy unless you give us exactly what we want, and the President said OK. That’s what happened… . We’re having a debate in Washington which is all about, ‘we’re going to make this economy worse, but are we going to make it worse on 90% of the Republican’s terms or 100% of the Republican’s terms?’ And the answer is 100%.”
“Let me just say, he [Paul Krugman] is influential because if you’re a blogger, and you’re still living in your mom’s basement, and you got Cheetos all over the keyboard, you type in your underwear, unlike Alex Trebek, then yes, you look at Paul Krugman and you think yes, he is my hero.”
“The point is that when S&P or Moody’s speaks, that’s not the voice of “the market”. It’s just some guys with an agenda, and a very poor track record. And we have no idea how much effect their actions will have.”
C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb interviews economic rap video creators Russ Roberts and John Papola on this week’s Q&A program
Russ Roberts, Economics Professor at George Mason University and host of the weekly podcast series “EconTalk,” and John Papola, a filmmaker and entertainment marketing executive. They have collaborated on the creation of two rap videos about economics (The first, “Fear the Boom and Bust” a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem). The most recent is called “Fight of the Century.” The rap videos cover the contrasting beliefs of economists John Maynard Keynes and Frederick Hayek. Topics covered in the rap videos include government spending, interest rates, and consumption of goods. The two videos combined have had over 3.3 million viewings on YouTube. In addition to hosting a podcast and teaching, Russ Roberts is a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and is a contributor to the blog “Cafe Hayek.” He is the former director of the Center for Experiential Learning at Washington University in Saint Louis and the author of three books. John Papola is former creative director at Spike TV. He has also worked at MTV and Nickelodeon. His blog is called “But What the Hell Do I Know.”
GPOY
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. (Read More.)
“Just 400 Americans — 400 — have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.”
Michael Moore on Saturday, March 5th, 2011 in a speech to protesters in Madison, Wisconsin.
PolitiFact - The Truth-O-Meter Says:
