Bob Lord Posted by Bob Lord If this wasn't so absurd I might be offended. But it's actually kind of hilarious. Mitt's go to economist, Greg Mankiw, has written a paper Defending the One Percent. No, really, he has. I haven't bothered to read the whole thing. Huff Po skewered it so badly here that it's unlkely to … Read more
Posted by Bob Lord
Paul Krugman's column in yesterday's Times, Sympathy for the Luddites, pokes at an uncomfortable truth. Those on both the right and left want to believe that education is the answer to both unemployment and inequality.
It likely isn't.
As Krugman points out, mechanization is eliminating jobs of the "highly-skilled" just as it has eliminated jobs of the unskilled. We can tell those who have lost their jobs to mechanization or globalization, some in their 50's or older, to train for a new job, but what if that job is mechanized out of existence as well?
Ultimately, we need to deal with the reality that income is moving from labor to capital, as Karl Marx predicted it would. Krugman confronts this head on:
Posted by Bob Lord
We all know Rand (short for Randal) Paul, the Libertarian Senator from Kentucky.
But did you know about another Rand (in this case, short for Randolph) Paul, who had a susbstantial impact on tax policy beginning in the depression years until his death in the mid '50's? I don't know if he actually went by Rand, but it makes for a good introduction.
I learned about Randolph Paul and his contribution to tax policy in Sam Pizzigati's The Rich Don't Always Win, which I've previously written about on this blog. Paul was a successful tax lawyer who represented many of America's largest corporations. But he was a progressive at heart, and believed strongly in a progressive tax system, with steep rates of income tax for those at the very top. He left his lucrative law practice, first on a part-time basis and ultimately on a full-time basis to assist the Roosevelt administration with the design and implementation of that progressive tax system.
He was truly a progressive hero.
Posted by Bob Lord
David Anderson, has an excellent op-ed in today's Times, Atoning For The Sins of Empire. The piece mainly is about how the supposedly benevolent British engaged repeatedly and systematically in torture during their reign. They are now starting to pay compensation to their victims and their descendants.
Anderson softly yet convincingly suggests that America will one day find itself in Britain's current position.
Posted by Bob Lord
A: It doesn't matter. Either way it's short-sighted and wrong.
It's not always clear what drives politicians to ditch their own principles when voting or taking a position on an issue. It often is fear of political repurcussions. That's what the apologists typically refer to when they defend a wandering pol. "just think how he/she would have been attacked if he'd voted for that bill!" If anyone questions a rep's "independent" or "bi-partisan" votes, the apologists are quick to explain how these are "tough districts." Translation: You can't stick to your principles if you represent a tough district. What hogwash. Fear-based decision making doesn't play. Never has. Never will.