CBS News just showed a graphic about this poll which showed that 57% of Americans do not know enough about the Iran nuclear deal to say whether or not Trump should pull us out of it.
What I find remarkable about this report from CBS News is that they said not a peep about what part CBS News has played in the fact that 57% of the people do not know enough to form an opinion on this important subject.
Does CBS News think they have even a slight responsibility to inform their audience on important matters like this one? Do they think that they should do any introspection on what they might have done differently to make their audience better informed?
How much longer will CBS News continue to fall down on its main job and not have a pang of conscience of the consequences of their failure?
New Economic Perspectives has the article Framing a Job Guarantee. Just to be clear, this is not the same article I discussed in a previous post Framing the Progressive Platform. The current article is specific to the proposal for a federal job guarantee. To the start the discussion, the author dispels the notion that this is somehow “A federal job for everyone?”
The Job Guarantee (JG) program will use federal dollars to pay wages, but few (if any) of the wage earners would become part of a federal bureaucracy that most Americans believe is already over-bloated and inefficient. Think instead of all the private doctors and nurses paid federal dollars to provide health-care services to Medicaid and Medicare patients; think of all the private enterprise farmers, food-processors and distributors who are paid federal dollars to implement the SNAP (food-stamp) program; think of the millions of private defense contractor employees who build ships, planes, and missiles. Ms. McArdle is being disingenuous in planting the idea that everyone who is paid with federal dollars is a federal employee; it’s an idea that immediately discredits the JG program, and it should be proactively discredited itself.
If you are interested in finding out more about a program that could save this economy, society, and nation from fading into the pages of history, I suggest you read the rest of the article. A rational discussion of the pros and cons of the idea will only help to refine it to an even better program that most of us will be able to agree to.
The New York Times has the 2013 article Government Doesn’t Have to Borrow to Spend by James K. Galbraith, a professor of government and business relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, is the author, most recently, of “Inequality and Instability” and the president of the Association for Evolutionary Economics.
The debt ceiling was enacted in 1917 for one purpose: to fool the rubes back home.
I don’t know why this 2013 story turned up now on my Facebook feed, but it is as true now as it was in 2013. I guess it is just proof that the scam has gone on well after its exposure in 2013. Not that 2013 was the first time this scam was exposed. When Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971, people should have awakened to the changing facts of life.
This hidden, never-explained, but clearly systematic, news-suppression, exemplifies the widespread and coordinated operation by the major media, against any independent sites which document things that the Establishment, the aristocracy, the “Deep State,” or however you call the controlling owners of the corporations that advertise in and own the media, hire their journalists and editors to block from reaching the public.
It should have been obvious from the beginning as it has been to me that when you get a “free” service, you are at the mercy of the people who are giving it to you. That is why I have continued to maintain this blog, which I pay GoDaddy to host. Originally, I only used Facebook and Twitter to advertise the articles on this blog. I have woefully fallen down on the job by posting and making comments on Facebook that are not on this blog.
I have also recognized early on the power of the internet to break the monopoly on the news that is held by the corporate press. I had hoped something would come of this before the oligarchs running our society woke up to the power of the internet. I thought getting rid of net neutrality would be the first step. I now realize that before that change even gets to take hold, the effort to censor the internet is having a larger impact.
I think time is rapidly running out for the power of the internet to overcome the power of the oligarchs.
KATHERINE MOOS: I think that it’s certainly the case that we have a large-scale problem when it comes to good jobs, and there’s a lot of concern about automation. And it’s something that economist Guy Standing calls “the global precariat,” which is precariously employed proletariat. And so, I think that this is a big concern. And what we see from the World Bank’s perspective is that they’re saying, “Work has changed, work is not going to provide for people’s basic needs, so there should be something done to provide [what they call] a societal minimum standard, but it might not come from work.”
Now, Bernie Sanders’ plan, which– the details have not been released, but the general idea is to invest in things like infrastructure, and also things like child care and elder care, which, while there are some technologies that automate these, much of this actually does need to be done by people in place, when we talk about caring for children, caring for elderly people, and even infrastructure projects. So, we’re seeing, now, a response, and different political points of view, of how to resolve this very serious problem of both poor quality of jobs and the threat of automation.
Finally a rational discussion about a real problem that needs to be addressed. Of course, this is just the beginning of describing the problem, and then starting to consider some of the factors that might go into a solution.
In this interview, Katherine Moos correctly explained that the answer to the headline question depends greatly on the details of the proposed program and the context into which it is placed. If is foolish to think that any program is absolutely good or absolutely bad without knowing these factors.
The other point that I believe is true is that automation of jobs is an inevitable outcome of technological advancement. We need to accept that truth, and figure out how society can adapt to the change to make sure it is of the most benefit to the most people. The UBI and the Jobs Guarantee can be two responses that address different aspects of job automation adjustment. UBI addresses the truth that traditional work may no longer be the complete provider of everyone’s support for a minimum acceptable standard of living. The jobs guarantree addresses the problem that there is socially useful work that needs to be done that is not financially supportable by a completely free capitalistic market.
Open Society Foundations chairman and founder George Soros shares his latest thinking on economics and politics in a five-part lecture series recorded at Central European University, October 26-30, 2009. The lectures are the culmination of a lifetime of practical and philosophical reflection.
Soros discusses his general theory of reflexivity and its application to financial markets, providing insights into the recent financial crisis. The third and fourth lectures examine the concept of open society, which has guided Soros’s global philanthropy, as well as the potential for conflict between capitalism and open society. The closing lecture focuses on the way ahead, examining the increasingly important economic and political role that China will play in the future.
Open Society Foundations chairman and founder George Soros shares his latest thinking on economics and politics in a five-part lecture series recorded at Central European University, October 26-30, 2009. The lectures are the culmination of a lifetime of practical and philosophical reflection.
Soros discusses his general theory of reflexivity and its application to financial markets, providing insights into the recent financial crisis. The third and fourth lectures examine the concept of open society, which has guided Soros’s global philanthropy, as well as the potential for conflict between capitalism and open society. The closing lecture focuses on the way ahead, examining the increasingly important economic and political role that China will play in the future.
This lecture identifies another issue that interferes with the best functioning of society, and that is the agency problem. Again, another astute analysis of yet another issue. This covers a lot of issues in our societal problems that had been missing in the previous lectures, but my hopes for a feasible proposal for a cure for the problem are fading.
One of the things that George Soros fails to address explicitly is that a lot of the thinking that went into the creation of the USA Constitution had to do with ethical considerations. Our Supreme Court of late has taken a decided turn to dismissing ethical issues, even to the point of pretending that there are no ethical issues involved. For example, in the Citizens United Case, some Supreme Court Justices opined that they couln’t imagine that money in politics could be a corrupting influence.
The Court, in holding that corporations have the same right to engage in independent spending as natural persons, naively stated that political spending can only corrupt if it is directly coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
The trouble with this interpretation is that you know that the Supreme Court Justices cannot possibly be that naive. Another interpretation for what they said is that the Supreme Court Justices are just as corrupt as other elements in our government. Another piece of evidence for seeing the agency problem as a corrupting influence.
I have to disagree a little with the idea that the inflation of the 1970s discredited Keynesian Theory because of flaws in the theory. If there was any discrediting of Keynes, it was because of the absence of thoughtful or courageous enough people to apply what Keynes taught (or at least what I had been taught about Keynesian theory). In fact, I believe that Ronald Reagan helped put a stop to the inflation by applying Keynesian theory. Ronald Reagan had the courage (or insensitivity) to drive us into such a deep recession that excess consumer demand was stopped in its tracks. It was the likes of Lyndon Johnson who thought we could blow up our resources in fighting the war in Viet Nam, and at the same time use those resources to fight poverty in the USA. There were not enough real resources to do both at the same time. Nixon could not control inflation either because he continued the over stimulation of the economy in the same way Johnson had done it. Carter was politically undone, because some of the damage was being done to the consumers. Reagan was fortunate to be able to do the damage and get it somewhat over with in the early part of his administration before he confronted a re-election.
Open Society Foundations chairman and founder George Soros shares his latest thinking on economics and politics in a five-part lecture series recorded at Central European University, October 26-30, 2009. The lectures are the culmination of a lifetime of practical and philosophical reflection.
Soros discusses his general theory of reflexivity and its application to financial markets, providing insights into the recent financial crisis. The third and fourth lectures examine the concept of open society, which has guided Soros’s global philanthropy, as well as the potential for conflict between capitalism and open society. The closing lecture focuses on the way ahead, examining the increasingly important economic and political role that China will play in the future.
This episode broadens the discussion way beyond the previous focus om financial impacts of of the Soros philosophy. It is a very enlightening explanation of the fix this country found itself in in 2009. There is not much in this lecture to explain how we will fix these problems. The anticipated promise is that solutions will be discussed in the fifth lecture. I suspect there will be much more analysis of the problem in the next lecture which will be the fourth in the series.
I am prepared to be disappointed. While analyzing the problem in this way is a great contribution, I have found that as great a contribution as that is, analysis is yet easier than coming up with a solution. I always hope to be surprised by finding that exceedingly rare occurrence of being provided with a feasible solution, one that could conceivably be implemented.
If you are joining the lecture series here, and wish to get more into the background of how we got to this point, start with the first lecture which is presented in a previous post Soros: General Theory of Reflexivity.
Open Society Foundations chairman and founder George Soros shares his latest thinking on economics and politics in a five-part lecture series recorded at Central European University, October 26-30, 2009. The lectures are the culmination of a lifetime of practical and philosophical reflection.
Soros discusses his general theory of reflexivity and its application to financial markets, providing insights into the recent financial crisis. The third and fourth lectures examine the concept of open society, which has guided Soros’s global philanthropy, as well as the potential for conflict between capitalism and open society. The closing lecture focuses on the way ahead, examining the increasingly important economic and political role that China will play in the future.
This lecture is much more practical than the abstract first lecture. Perhaps you can understand this lecture without hearing the first one, but if you find yourself wanting to know more about reflexivity, you can read my excerpt from the fist lecture which I put in my previous post Soros: General Theory of Reflexivity. If my excerpt isn’t enough, you may also want to listen to the full lecture or the transcript that are both embedded in that post. Seeing the whole thing is about a one hour time commitment, with the payoff way at the end.
