The Real News Network has the interview and transcript New Employment Figures in the Shadow of a Fragile Economy.  Here is the YouTube video introduction text.

Economist Richard Wolff explains how the holiday season places folks in temporary, low-paid jobs that keep the economy in a fragile state.

Here is the key starting point for the discussion:

WOLFF: Well, I would always begin by saying it’s good news if there are more people working this month than last month, given the unemployment that has dogged this economy now for pretty much seven years and counting. But I would caution anyone to draw anything like the hyped conclusions coming out of the White House and the Department of Labor.

Intuitively, I have been blogging about the recent economic euphoria in the vein of this interview. Here we have an expert economist putting the meat on the bones of the skeleton of my intuition.

New Economic Perspectives has the article A TWELVE STEP PROGRAM TO RESTORE PROSPERITY: THE BERNIE SANDERS PLAN by L. Randall Wray. This article has a response to each of items that Sanders presented in the video in my previous post Bernie Sanders – An Economic Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward.

While Wray and I both like Sanders’ plan a lot, the Wray article gives you what the plan would look like if it didn’t have to be watered down for people who haven’t yet learned about the way the monetary system in the United States works.  I also like Wray’s comments about trade policy and tax policy among a bunch of other likable points he raises in the 12 responses.

If you haven’t been following the New Economic Perspectives blog, then some of these comments might blow your mind.

Naked Capitalism has the article Why Piketty is s Defender of Neoclassical Economics and an Enemy of Egalitarianism. I quote the article in its entirety below, and then show the video around which the article revolved.

Yanis Varoufakis, in an interview by Andrew Mazzone, offers a cogent, damning criticism of Thomas Piketty’s theory, such as it is, of inequality. Varoufakis contends that not only is Piketty’s theory (as opposed to his empirical work) weak and unworkable, it also ignores the true drivers of inequality in a capitalist system, such as differences in bargaining power. Varoufakis contends that Piketty was more interested in coming up with an explanation that would fit a neoclassical framework and thus be well received by mainstream economists than one that would help make the world better by providing real insight into the problem. The inadequate theory leaves Piketty with redistribution as his only possible solution, and he suggests a sketchy,poorly conceived a wealth tax.

The is a lively and provocative talk.

Going back to read the words in the article, I do agree with the value of what the article highlights. However, my impression of the interview by the time I came to the end was the following:

The value of this talk was in the last three minutes or so. What was important was the idea that the process needed to be fair, but the outcome was not something you could control in detail. The rest of it was frustrating because of the generality of it. For instance there was a discussion of three points made by Piketty, the first was deemed a tautology, the second was of some value, and the third was also dismissed. There was no discussion of what the three points were and why their description of them was true. I have read the entire book, but I cannot recall what were the three points they were talking about.

The discussion in the last few minutes of how Nozick destroyed Rawls’ thesis by asking a simple question was very informative. The fear that the same thing would happen to Piketty as what happened to Rawls was also a lesson well worth learning. I also valued the insight by Varoufakis of what was right and what was wrong with Libertarian philosophy. In essence the focus on process is right, the thought that unfettered capitalism was a fair process was wrong.

Much of the rest of the discussion was useless to me. I can’t pass judgment on how useful it was to anybody else, because I cannot know what prior knowledge someone else brings to listening to this discussion.

I cannot predict how you might view this 36 minute talk, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you were wondering what was so lively and provocative about most of it.

The Daily Kos has the post Missouri AG Confirms Michael Brown Grand Jury Misled by St. Louis DA.

The background of this situation is that Lawrence O’Donnell reported that after reviewing the transcripts of the Darren Wilson Grand Jury, his analyst discovered that Assistant District Attorney’s working for Bob McCullough gave the Jurors an outdated copy of Missouri Law that all that was required for an Officer to use deadly force is their “reasonable belief” that there was a threat.

In 1985 the Supreme Court amended this law to include a “probable cause” requirement under Tennessee v Garner and the Jury wasn’t informed of this until 3 months later just before their deliberations, nor even at that time was the difference and relevance of this explained to them clearly.

Here is the video of Lawrence O’Donnell that is the subject of the article.

After reading this and seeing comments about this, I came to realize that a lot hinges on the difference between “reasonable belief” and “probable cause”. I emphasize this, because I hadn’t paid enough attention to these words when I first read the article.

Originally, I would have thought that the two were reasonably similar. Perhaps a reader who is trained in the law can explain the difference.

I think that remembering this discussion is going to be important in judging whatever else you may read or hear about this and other similar cases.

I did a Google search of probable cause vs reasonable belief.

One article I found was Definitions Of Probable Cause Vs. Reasonable Suspicion.

According to the Supreme Court, probable cause to make an arrest exists when an officer has knowledge of such facts as would lead a reasonable person to believe that a particular individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a criminal act. The officer must be able to articulate the facts and circumstances forming the basis for probable cause.
.
.
.
Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officers should be allowed stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity. The officer is given the opportunity to freeze the action by stepping in to investigate. Unlike probable cause that uses a reasonable person standard, reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer.

I am still mulling this over to see if I really understand the difference between the two. Every time I think I have it, the difference starts to escape me.

I also found the Police Magazine article Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion.

One court decision they quoted said the following:

“Articulating precisely what ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause’ mean is not possible. They are commonsense, non-technical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. As such, the standards are not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” (Ornelas v. U.S.)

The best conclusion the article could come up with was:

“Probable cause” means reasonably reliable information to suspect there is a “fair probability” that a person has committed a crime, or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence. “Reasonable suspicion” is a strong suspicion, even if based on less information of a less-reliable nature, that a person is involved in criminal activity or may be armed and dangerous.

I think the point of the article is that you would be completely justified if you were still confused.

Here is what President Obama had to say about the Employment Situation in November as posted on the White House Facebook page.

“Over the first 11 months of 2014, our economy has created 2.65 million jobs. That’s more than in any entire year since the 1990s. Our businesses have now created 10.9 million jobs over the past 57 months in a row and that’s the longest streak of private-sector job growth on record.” —President Obama: http://go.wh.gov/43es9V

On Facebook, I remarked:

For the millions of people who are working part time but want to work full time, and the millions of people for whom these new jobs don’t pay anywhere near what their old jobs paid, and for the still unemployed, are they supposed to be excited enough about this to come out and vote in the next election?

This continued tone deafness on the part of the President is what is losing him many supporters. What are the suffering people supposed to think, when the President seems to continue to believe that the situation they are living just does not exist?

Every time the President holds one of these news conferences, he loses thousands of former supporters. I have always been a strong proponent of the President speaking more often about what he has accomplished, but these appearances cannot continue to only tout what is in the imagination of the President, but what is totally missing from what the people see in their own lives.

The link posted above goes to a White House web site page The Employment Situation in November. this page highlights five key points in the day’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I gave them the following feedback on that page.

In the key points, where is the recognition of all the part-time employees who want to work full time? Where is the recognition that these newly created jobs do not pay nearly as much as the lost jobs? Where is the recognition of the people who still cannot find work?

All this pretending that the news is great without any recognition of what is not great is a sure way to turn people off. No wonder so many voters failed to come out in the last election in support of the President’s “accomplishments”

New Economic Perspectives has the article Jeffrey Sachs Channeled His Inner Bill Black – and Obama and Holder Ignored Him Too by William K. Black.   The article quotes from the appearance by Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University at The  31st Annual Monetary & Trade Conference
in Partnership with Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business: Fixing the Banking System for Good, Wednesday, April 17, 2013, Pennsylvania Room at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 100 N. Sixth Street Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Jeffrey Sachs: ‘Well, thank you very much for saying it and practicing it. I do believe – by the way, I’m just going to end here because I’ve been told I have to run to the U.N. in fact right now – I believe we have a crisis of values that is extremely deep, because the regulations and the legal structures need reform. But I meet a lot of these people on Wall Street on a regular basis right now. I’m going to put it very bluntly. I regard the moral environment as pathological. And I’m talking about the human interactions that I have. I’ve not seen anything like this, not felt it so palpably. These people are out to make billions of dollars and nothing should stop them from that. They have no responsibility to pay taxes. They have no responsibility to their clients. They have no responsibility to people, counterparties in transactions. They are tough, greedy, aggressive, and feel absolutely out of control, you know, in a quite literal sense. And they have gamed the system to a remarkable extent, and they have a docile president, a docile White House, and a docile regulatory system that absolutely can’t find its voice. It’s terrified of these companies.

For those who don’t know Jeffrey Sachs, William Black quotes the following from the article Jeffrey Sachs Calls Out Wall Street Criminality and Pathological Greed.

Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia professor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia, is a controversial figure for his neoliberal stance on macroeconomics and his role in promoting the use of “shock therapy” in emerging economies. But it is also important to recognize that criticism from a connected, respected insider has more significance than that of someone like Bill Black, who has made a career of taking on bank fraud but has never reached a top policy-making level.

Now, perhaps you get the point of why I am so disappointed in our “docile president”.  It may even be worse than what we have been hearing from Elizabeth Warren and William Black.  You should also read what Sachs had to say about the Clintons.

Here is an email, I just received from Ben Ray Luján at The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Hi everybody.

My name is Ben Ray Luján. As you may have heard, I’m the new Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. And I want to loop you in on something pretty cool.

Right now, my team is preparing our strategy for 2016. This is when we start to think about the issues we’ll make a top priority, and the campaign strategies that will help Democrats win.

There are so many exciting ideas I want to share to rebuild our middle class and the heart of America, but first I want to hear from you.

Click here to answer our 2016 issue survey and tell us what matters most to you:

http://action.dccc.org/2016-Priorities-Survey

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Looking forward to working with you!

Ben Ray Luján
DCCC Chairman

You might want to tell him to promote the plan that was the focus of my previous post, Bernie Sanders – An Economic Agenda for America: 12 Steps Forward.

You might also mention how important it is to bring criminal charges against the executives on Wall Street who committed fraud against their own companies while bringing the world economy to the brink of collapse. What the Democratic leadership needs to hear is that as long as high crime continues to pay high returns to the criminals, there will not be much progress in fixing what ails this country. Without the promise of reform that the bottom 90% of wage earners can believe in, then Democrats do not deserve to win elections.

After I took the survey, the DCCC sent me a thank you and urged me to promte the survey among friends using the following image:

Rejected Image

I replied that I would not be using this image, as President Obama is no longer the symbol of our hopes. If they can’t understand that anyone who promotes Wall Street favoritism is not a good symbol to use, then their campaign for 2016 is doomed to failure from the start.

Politico has the article Whatever Happened to Overtime? : It’s one reason we’re poorer than our parents. And Obama could fix it—without Congress. by Mick Hanauer. The article is written by a wealthy capitalist who is trying to explain to you how he and his fellow capitalists are taking advantage of you.  He’d prefer for you voters to change the rules so he won’t have to do  this, but until you do, he and the others will continue to do this.

This is the part of the article I decided to focus on as I read the beginning.

But what about the most basic need of all—jump-starting the real economy by giving more middle-class Americans a fair shake? You would think that for a Democratic administration, raising the threshold back to where it once was would be a no-brainer, but I have grave doubts that administration officials are heading in this direction. In fact they are likely to raise the threshold only partly, and the Obama administration has not yet grappled with the broader question of how moves such as this are critical to helping to restore America’s middle class. How do I know? Intuition. OK, I admit it, more than intuition. I’ve had conversations with administration officials about their forthcoming policy changes. And the scuttlebutt out of the Labor Department looks promising—for corporations. Not the middle class.

It is my sense, based on my conversations with government officials, that the administration is buying the line from corporate lobbyists who are arguing that such rule changes would devastate their bottom lines, forcing them to lay off workers. You know, the old trickle-down gambit—if workers earn more money, it would be bad for business, the economy and workers. The Obama team, in other words, is buying into the same discredited theories that were used to erode the threshold in the first place. Officials will very likely raise the overtime threshold just enough to say they’re doing something, without actually doing much of anything for the middle class or our demand-starved economy at all.
.
.
.
What very few Americans seem to understand is that that extra trillion dollars isn’t profit because it had to be, or needs to be or should be. That extra trillion dollars is profit because powerful people like me prefer it to be. It could have been spent on your wages. Or it could have gone into discounts to you, the consumer. We capitalists will tell you that our increasing profits are the result of some complex economic force with the immutability and righteousness of divine law. But the truth is, it is simply a result of a difference in negotiating power. As in, we have it. And you don’t.

This part focuses on what Obama has failed to do, but could still do to help the middle-class.  This goes along with my continuing thesis that the Democrats lost big in the last election exactly because they were not doing all they could to help the middle-class.

As I read more of the article, I realized there was much more to it.  Unfortunately for you, I am not going to quote it here.  You’ll have to read it yourself.

It goes a long way to explain why I am retired and getting richer, while you may be working and getting poorer.

New Economic Perspectives has the article The Wall Street Journal Still Refuses to Grasp Accounting Control Fraud via Appraisal Fraud by William Black.

I’ll give you the beginning of the article.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) report described one of three epidemics of accounting control fraud that drove the financial crisis in these terms.

“Some real estate appraisers had also been expressing concerns for years. From 2000 to 2007, a coalition of appraisal organizations circulated and ultimately delivered to Washington officials a public petition; signed by 11,000 appraisers and including the name and address of each, it charged that lenders were pressuring appraisers to place artificially high prices on properties. According to the petition, lenders were ‘blacklisting honest appraisers’ and instead assigning business only to appraisers who would hit the desired price targets” [FCIC 2011: 18].

The FCIC Report then documents scale of this epidemic of loan origination fraud.

“One 2003 survey found that 55% of the appraisers had felt pressed to inflate the value of homes; by 2006, this had climbed to 90%. The pressure came most frequently from the mortgage brokers, but appraisers reported it from real estate agents, lenders, and in many cases borrowers themselves. Most often, refusal to raise the appraisal meant losing the client” [FCIC 2011: 91].

And here is the conclusion of the Black’s analysis of the Wall Street Journal article.

No bank officer was sanctioned administratively by the regulators, sued by them, or prosecuted. No enforcement action is described as being taken by the OCC against any bank. The OCC is not described as adopting any rule. The OCC is not described as having made a single criminal referral. If this is what the WSJ thinks describes a “wary” regulator’s response to a fraud epidemic then they are delusional. I have explained in prior articles that the head of the OCC is an anti-regulator who has expressly refused to make ending control frauds led by bank CEOs a regulatory priority. Note that the OCC not only failed to use the word “fraud” to describe appraisal fraud, it also attributed the endemic appraisal fraud to preposterous explanations such as insufficient staff “training” and “oversight.”

To what can we attribute the absolute refusal of regulators to see any fraud when the evidence of the fraud has been presented to them for over 14 years?  What can we expect for investigations of this question from the Republican leadership of the House and the Senate in the next two years – Benghazi?

Is it any wonder that voters are disgusted with both Democrats and Republicans who cannot agree on anything except for “more money for fraudulent bankers is good for the economy”?