If Obama were really trying, he would make the case that the Republican’s understanding of economics is only at a very childish level.  It may be true that the Republicans have plans that came make a few people very wealthy, but it is at the expense of everybody else.

The adult economic plan makes almost all of us better off.  That improved outlook for us all is for the long term.  The Republicans can only focus on the short term profit of a few.

The adult plan would repeal the Bush tax cuts as one of many ways to start bringing the budget into balance. A tax plan that favors manufacturing and other useful work over excessive money manipulation and the creation of asset bubbles shows a mature understanding of economics and tax policy.

Other parts of an adult plan are stated in the Congressional Progressive Caucus prescription.

Individual income tax policies

1. Extend marriage relief, credits, and incentives for children, families, and education, but
   let the upper-income tax cuts expire and let tax brackets revert to Clinton-era rates
2. Index the AMT for inflation for a decade (AMT patch paid for)
3. Rescind the upper-income tax cuts in the tax deal
4. Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, and 47% top rates)
5. Progressive estate tax (Sanders estate tax, repeal of Kyl-Lincoln)
6. Tax capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income

Corporate tax reform

1. Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned
2. Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
3. Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee
4. Financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange)

If the Obama team were really trying, they would embrace this progressive plan. It is not so much that Obama and his team are failing. What really irks me is that they don’t seem to be trying.

Has Obama and his team’s association with the University of Chicago (where Milton Friedman promoted his wacky economic ideas) so poisoned their minds with regard to economics that they have lost the ability to think straight?

Monopoly and Competition in Twenty-First Century Capitalism by Robert McChesney provides more evidence of how modern economic thought has concerned itself more with an idealistic view of the world than one based on reality.

For all economists, mainstream and left, the assumption of competitive markets being the order of the day also has a striking impact on how growth is assessed in capitalist economies. Under competitive conditions, investment will, as a rule, be greater than under conditions of monopoly, where the dominant firms generally seek to slow down and carefully regulate the expansion of output and investment so as to maintain high prices and profit margins-and have considerable power to do so. Hence, monopoly can be a strong force contributing to economic stagnation, everything else being equal. With the United States and most of the world economy (notwithstanding the economic rise of Asia) stuck in an era of secular stagnation and crisis unlike anything seen since the 1930s-while U.S. corporations are sitting on around $2 trillion in cash-the issue of monopoly power naturally returns to the surface.

Compare this understanding with what has happened to economic study in the last 30 years.

In the early 1980s, an unquestioning belief in the ubiquitous influence of competitive markets took hold in economics and in capitalist culture writ large, to an extent that would have been inconceivable only ten years earlier. Concern with monopoly was never dominant in mainstream economics, but it had a distinguished and respected place at the table well into the century. For some authors, including Monthly Review editors Sweezy and Harry Magdoff, as well as Paul Baran, the prevalence and importance of monopoly justified calling the system monopoly capitalism. But by the Reagan era, the giant corporation at the apex of the economic system wielding considerable monopoly power over price, output, investment, and employment had simply fallen out of the economic picture, almost as if by fiat. As John Kenneth Galbraith noted in 2004 in The Economics of Innocent Fraud: “The phrase ‘monopoly capitalism,’ once in common use, has been dropped from the academic and political lexicon.”4 For the neoliberal ideologues of today, there is only one issue: state versus market. Economic power (along with inequality) is no longer deemed relevant. Monopoly power, not to mention monopoly capital, is nonexistent or unimportant. Some on the left would in large part agree.

For a long time, I have been wondering why there is very little enforcement of laws against using monopoly power no matter which political party is control of the executive branch of the government.