Here is an excerpt that is just a hint of all the truths revealed in the article.
For thousands of years, economists and economic observers from Aristotle to Adam Smith to Thomas Piketty have told us that a “middle class” is not a normal byproduct of raw, unregulated capitalism—what right-wing ideologues call “the free market.”
Instead, unregulated markets—particularly markets not regulated by significant taxation on predatory incomes—invariably lead to the opposite of a healthy middle class: they produce extremes of inequality, which are as dangerous to democracy as cancer is to a living being.
When people ask why a country like the USA that creates its own money out of thin air has to collect taxes, remember the quote from above.
… markets not regulated by significant taxation on predatory incomes—invariably lead to the opposite of a healthy middle class …
Ed Earle has posted a reply on Facebook to the lying ads against Question 1.
4) ER wait times will increase and ambulances will have to “hold the wall.”
The TRUTH California has 47% shorter wait times than Massachusetts, a big improvement since they placed their staffing law. Massachusetts rates 48th of the 50 states for wait times… As for “holding the wall,” most California nurses don’t even know what this means. It does occasionally happen for short times, moreso in LA. It is important to note that Los Angeles County has 2+ million more residents than the entire state of Massachusetts, so they are servicing a ridiculously larger population and sound so 47% quicker
I chose this excerpt to quote because I had been thinking of researching this topic ever since I saw the ad that brought this up. I had a strong suspicion that this was a phony issue.
Don’t let hospital management fool you into thinking that having fewer nurses is going to be better for your health. It is going to be better for the managers’ and investors’ wallets, but not for your health. These interests might as well be telling you to put a noose around your neck and pull it tight for a better fit.
In the United States, Mr. Trump’s nationalist policies have not been without merit. Where his predecessors have feared alienating China, he has boldly challenged its transfer of technology, cybertheft and hidden trade subsidies and barriers. He has also spoken up for American manufacturing industries and their workers, and chided footloose companies like Nabisco, Ford and Carrier.
It is not globalism, per se, that has caused the backlash, but globalism in the interests of the oligarchs. Workers of the world unite is the kind of globalism that would make nationalism pale in comparison. Nowhere in the recent globalism has the interest of the workers been even considered. If workers had been considered, then the focus of world trade agreements would not be on protecting the “intellectual property” of the oligarchs to the exclusion of almost everything else.
It is the focus on protecting “intellectual property” that has given the pharmaceutical companies cover to raise their prices by a factor of 5.
It is not surprising that the piece on The Dreaded New York Times would miss the point entirely.
In this part of the interview Stephanie Kelton says things that I have never heard her say before. They don’t surprise me, and I am glad to hear them, but it is news that she finally opened up about some of these topics.
In the first part of the interview, What Is MMT And How It Works w/Stephanie Kelton, she says what I expected her to say about MMT. It is very worth listening to if you don’t know Modern Money Theory.
I think the case is strong that these Fed announcements contain at least some information that is important as a signal about economic fundamentals rather than a pure signal about monetary policy. To the extent that is true, it suggests that the effect of the LSAP programme itself on interest rates is likely smaller than many previous estimates.
Chris Herbert made the comment:
A more important metric, I would think, is what effect QE might have had on productive investment. The rationale for QE was that it would boost investment and thus employment and real goods. A study conducted in Britain on the effects of QE there concluded that it had minimal positive impact on productive investment. My view is that QE was always intended to restore the value of the savings of the wealthy elite. It had nothing to do with boosting employment or investment in the real economy.
This finally prompted this comment from me.
One begins to wonder if John Maynard Keynes is just a figment of my imagination. What part of “No freakin’ customers” do we not understand when monetary easing does not stimulate productive investment to produce more of what there are no customers for?
I guess it took a Milton Friedman to convince us that sane capitalists would invest in more production if we just gave them more money even though there was nobody to buy what they could produce in their existing factories. Capitalists were closing factories and accumulating massive amounts of cash, but Friedman’s teachings insisted that they would reopen those factories if we just gave them more of what they already had plenty of.
And for this, Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in economics. If I were an economist with a Nobel Prize, I’d try to keep that a secret. Seems like a lot of Nobel Prizes have been awarded for junk economics.
While it is reasonable to assume that some of the more than 800 total pages and accounts shut down by Facebook were engaged in overtly fraudulent behavior—such as the use of fake accounts and bots to generate ad revenue—numerous independent media outlets that cover a wide array of issues say they were swept up in the massive purge despite never using such tactics.
Our major hope for unlatching the grasp of the oligarchs on our government and on our news media was to use the internet and social media as a more democratic way to speak to each other. Getting rid of net neutrality was one way for the oligarchy to shut down the people’s voices. Since Facebook, Twitter, and other social media monopolies are part of the oligarchy, I didn’t think their seeming passivity could last forever. How long did we think the oligarchy would let us speak freely?
These concerns are why I did not discontinue my personal political blog when Facebook became so popular. I pay good (well, it’s not that good) money to have my blog hosted rather than depend on the good graces of Facebook.
Have we lost the means of getting a revolution going in the 21st century? We will have to find a crowd funded and staffed social media mechanism.
Carey Wedler
Published on Oct 11, 2018
My page of over two million followers (Anti-Media) was unpublished from Facebook today, and I was also suspended from Twitter for no specific reason (Anti-Media was also suspended from Twitter).
Alternative voices online are incensed after Facebook and Twitter closed down hundreds of political media pages ahead of November’s crucial midterm elections. Facebook says they broke its spam rules, they say it’s censorship.
Are the proposed tax cuts a huge giveaway to the rich? Most definitely. Will they, as advertised, create a booming economy with benefits that trickle down to everyone else? I don’t think so. Mr. Trump’s plan will widen the country’s already dangerous wealth and income gaps, and because the gains go mostly to those at the very top, the tax cuts won’t do much to promote broad-based consumer spending or overall job growth.
That’s enough to reject the plan. But it would be unwise to oppose tax cuts, or any other federal legislation, simply because they add to the deficit.
I couldn’t count the number of times I have said that using a faulty argument in support of a good cause is a huge mistake. In this Op-Ed, Stephanie Kelton offers another explanation of why you shouldn’t do it.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the case of the missing or murdered Jamal Khashoggi, and what this means for an already tense relationship between Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Hard as it might be to bite their collective tongues, what the Democrats ought to do if they take the House this November is to dramatically and forcefully CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Strategically, leading up to the 2020 elections, this would be, by far, the most intelligent and effective course to take. Should the Democrats continue throwing gasoline and flaming matches on the emotional blood-feud which has come to dominate our politics and news cycles, they will be playing directly into the game-plan Donald Trump has imposed on the Republican party—and American politics in general.
The posted the following comment on the article.
Excellent suggestions. When I am thinking rationally, I have repeatedly told anyone in the Democratic Party that will listen, “You can’t beat something with nothing. You can’t win by what you are against. You must establish a vision of what you are for.”
Yes, we are both naive to think that the Democrats will listen or that they really want to win back power with a progressive platform. They really just want to win back power to better serve their corporate paymasters.
* David M. Clive, MD, Professor of Medicine, UMass Medical School, Worcester, and Hospice Physician at Good Shepherd Community Care, Newton
* John Berkowitz, Director, Pioneer Valley Death with Dignity
They will speak, show slides and a short video, and dialogue with Q&A from the audience about this important end-of-life healthcare and personal rights issue (Bill H1194 in Mass. Legislature).
Miguel Carrasquillo (1981-2016) of Chicago called for Death with Dignity laws before he died at age 35 of a brain tumor in Puerto Rico with his family: