Naked Capitalism has the article Why is Anyone Surprised that Abenomics Failed?

Yves again. So understand full well why austerity gets such favorable treatment. In its current version, where central banks use QE and super-low interest rates to offset its bad effects, the result is rip-roaring asset prices and a continued shift of income and wealth to the rich. The financial classes, who have considerably sway with the media, want to be sure these beatings continue until morale improves.

I was surprised by this turn of events in Japan.  I thought Abe was actually using a fiscal stimulus approach.  If you refer to the wikiPedia definition of Abenomics, you can understand why I was confused.

Abenomics refers to the economic policies advocated by Shinzō Abe since the December 2012 general election, which elected Abe to his second term as Prime Minister of Japan. Abenomics is based upon “three arrows” of fiscal stimulus, monetary easing and structural reforms.

I admit that I wasn’t following what was going on in Japan very closely.  This article sets me straight on my false understanding of what Abe was doing. The fiscal stimulus part of Abenomics was too little and ended far too early. Sound like the policy of any President you know?

These policies fail and fail again, and yet some economists keep insisting that they will work.  Maybe it’s time to refer to Greenberg’s Law of Counterproductive Behavior to wit “If you see a behavior that seems to you to be counterproductive, perhaps you have misunderstood what the behavior was trying to produce.” It is clear from this article that the actual goal was “a continued shift of income and wealth to the rich.” In all cases this result has actually been achieved quite nicely.

The Boston Globe/The New York Times did a wonderful job of proving exactly what the Naked Capitalism article said. As published in The Boston Globe, the article was headlined “As Japan struggles, leader calls for early elections”. Online the headline was Abe’s call for early elections in Japan prompted by fear.

One problem, economists say, is that Abe failed to use the upturn as a chance to push through painful market-opening moves and structural changes needed to make the recovery last.

What you will never find in a story from The New York Times nor from The Boston Globe is “One problem, economists say, is that Abe failed to continue the fiscal stimulus long enough, and foolishly allowed the regressive consumption tax to take effect.” There are many economists (see the Naked Capitalism article above) who are saying this. In what universe does it make sense to put a tax on behavior you want to encourage – consumption?

As this article does point out, wealth in Japan for the working people is being shifted to the wealthy. The non-wealthy are hit by falling wages and rising taxes. A national sales tax is aimed at the middle and lower classes and takes the pressure off the wealthy classes. The wealthy spend a far smaller percentage of their income on consumption than every one else.  So a “fair” sales tax on consumption takes a far smaller fraction of the income from the wealthy than it does from the non-wealthy.

Yet the repeated failure of these policies in many places around the world continues to stump the reporters of The New York Times.

If you needed any further proof that most of the Democrats in Congress just don’t get it, here is the email that proves it.

They could have started with “Remember none of these good statistics apply to the bottom 90% of wage earners where most of the votes for Democrats would be expected to come.”

Most of the bottom 90% does not invest in the stock market, an unemployment rate of 5.8% is still historically at recession levels, just about all of the GDP growth went to the top 1.0% of the income earners, the bottom 90% actually lost ground, a falling deficit is the last thing you want to see when we are still trying to recover from a recession, and where were those confident consumers in this recent election?

I can hear some of those bottom 90% appreciating the rise of the Dow-Jones average. “Yeah, now the market goes up after I had to cash in my 401(k) to save my home from foreclosure. So what should have been my stock market profits went to the top 10%. Go ahead and rub it in. Where was my bailout?”

Other than that, you can see why the Democrats in Congress won’t really have to pay attention to what Elizabeth Warren is trying to tell them.

How on earth can we deliver this message to Congress in a way that they will hear? Perhaps my previous post Announcing Time For Elizabeth Warren will give you some ideas. Just the idea of her running might wake them up.

Of course, if all the Democrats who happen to be in the top 10% of income earners could just understand what the bottom 90% see, maybe they would realize why they didn’t succeed with these facts that only apply to them.

Here is the email that I got explaining the three month effort to get Elizabeth Warren into the race for president.

Hey there Warren fans, ready to get to work? Today, we’re launching Time for Warren, a three-month campaign to get Elizabeth Warren into the race for president. This is a long email, but it has some mission-critical information about our strategy and how you can be part of this. Before we get started, we want to make a promise about all of our emails going forward: We will always respect your time and tell it like it is. We’re not going to yell about deadlines or final notices, there won’t be panic or doom and gloom. You’re part of the team, and that means a lot to us. Now, here’s what Time for Warren means: We’re not just Ready for Warren — someday. We want Elizabeth Warren to run for president — without delay. Income inequality is nearing record levels. Big banks and corporate special interests are treating our government as a cash register, and elections as an inconvenience. For millions of us, the American Dream seems like a nice idea from very long ago, something that belongs on an old episode of “I Love Lucy,” but has nothing to do with life today. That’s the bad news. The good news is that sometimes a leader emerges at the exact moment when her ideas are needed most. This is Elizabeth Warren’s moment. Between now and President’s Day on February 16th, our Time for Warren campaign will make exactly that case. And step one is to get every last Warren supporter to say you’ll help. I can’t emphasize this enough — our greatest strength is what we can do together when we decide to take action and stand up for the kind of future we want to see. So before I say anything more, say you’ll join the Time for Warren campaign and help draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president. First things first, I’ll address the elephant in the room: Hillary Clinton is almost certainly running for president, and she’ll be the early favorite. She has the money, the profile, and the backing of the party’s power brokers. But it’s possible to like Clinton and still think it’s time for Warren. The greatest problems facing America today are the exact problems that Elizabeth Warren has dedicated her life to solving. That’s rare. There is a precedent for getting Warren to run. A few years ago, she had her heart set on being the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — an independent agency that she created to protect regular people from predatory financial institutions. When that fell through, tons of people got together and encouraged her to run for Senate. She resisted at first. But more and more people kept saying, “Run, Liz, Run!” — and she did. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. We just have to get organized in an even bigger way. Now here’s the plan to get Liz to run: 1) Get 100,000 supporters to write to Warren and ask her to run We’re going to organize letter-writing parties across the country over the coming months, where supporters will write personal notes to Warren and ask her to fight for us as president. And on President’s Day, February 16th, we’ll deliver a whole boatload of people’s names who have signed our “Run, Liz, Run” petition on ReadyForWarren.com. 2) Make a lot of noise in the early states Part of Liz Warren’s appeal is that her ideas are popular everywhere. But as always, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina are super important in a presidential year. Showing Democratic excitement for Warren in those early states will make a Warren candidacy all the more credible. If you have friends in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina, forward them this email right now. 3) An aggressive and creative media strategy Our new deputy campaign manager, Kate Albright-Hanna, was President Obama’s online video director in 2008, and most recently was part of Zephyr Teachout’s campaign for governor of New York. Teachout’s campaign was creative and nimble, but more importantly, it focused on the issues that matter. On Election Day, Teachout defied expectations and won a third of the vote despite being out-spent and out-advertised — with your help, this is exactly the kind of strategy we’re going to use. Democrats already love Elizabeth Warren. Americans of all stripes are inspired by her ideas. We just need to show there is a viable movement that will stand behind her if she runs. If you truly want to see Elizabeth Warren run for president, these next 90 days are key — we’ll soon be one year out from the Iowa caucuses. It’s Time for Warren, and we’re ready to show it. Say you are too: https://actionnetwork.org/forms/time-for-warren-join-the-campaign Let’s do this! Thank you! Erica, Kate, and the Ready for Warren Team We’re a volunteer-driven, grassroots movement to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president — and we couldn’t do it without your support. Donate to Ready for Warren here. Paid for by Ready for Warren Presidential Draft Campaign, ReadyForWarren.com, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Sent via ActionNetwork.org.

I signed on and donated.

Naked Capitalism has the book review Matt Stoller: Lobbying Used to Be a Crime: A Review of Zephyr Teachout’s New Book on the Secret History of Corruption in America.  The review concludes with the following paragraphs:

Americans broadly speaking would probably agree with Teachout’s interpretation of corruption, rather than that of those who authored Citizens United. Americans see the revolving door of lobbying and believe Congress and the government as institutions are corrupt. They have, in other words, a structural sense of what corruption means. It is not just bribery, it is a set of incentives that are not per se illegal, just unethical. Teachout shows, through painstaking historical research, that this popular conception of corruption is actually far more consistent with the intent of the Constitutional framers than the odd and anomalous John Roberts-led Hobbesian majority.

Corruption in America is a book worth reading, almost as much as Teachout is a person worth following. Reorganizing America is a large task, and many of us are seeking to do that. But first, in some sense, we must reorganize our own thinking, trapped as many of us are in Robert Bork’s nightmarish Hobbesian world of hopelessness. This book will help us take that first critical step.

One of the most surprising things I found in the book review was this discussion of the ‘Yazoo’ controversy.

The first significant test of the revolutionary anti-corruption doctrine was the 1795 ‘Yazoo’ controversy, when a Georgia legislature sold a massive land grant to speculators who had, as it turns out, bribed lawmakers. Voters turned out the legislature at the next election, and the newly elected lawmakers voided the deal. The case generated widespread controversy and went to the Supreme Court, where in 1810, in Fletcher v Peck,the court said that the sanctity of the contract must be upheld even in the face of corruption. In a nod to today’s logic of brutal tolerance of corruption, the court argued that corruption may be problematic, but there was nothing the state could do about it. This was a highly consequential decision, and prioritized contract rights over anti-corruption.

This just so violates my sense of justice.  I have always believed that if you agree to something under duress, then you cannot be held to that agreement.  Although, come to think about it, we hear of violations of such principles often enough.  A criminal defendant can and frequently is convicted on the basis of a confession that was admittedly coerced.

Why I even think this was mentioned in our Constitution as the Fifth Amendment.

No person shall be … nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

The issue is one of being compelled.  It is forbidden.

Here is a link to purchasing the book Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United.

Here is a little musical interlude.

Here is an email I got about their Kickstarter Campaign to fund a new CD.

North America’s only touring Russian-American balalaika-piano duo! Click here to watch Russian Duo’s Kickstarter Video! Dear Friends, We would like to thank all of you who have already backed our Kickstarter Campaign to record a new album. And we want to invite everyone else to join the fun. Time is of the essence to reach our goal. We have raised $3,215 of the $5,400 needed to record our new album. (That’s 60% with 15 days to go.) If we don’t reach our goal by December 3, the project will not be funded and we will not receive any of your heartfelt pledges. This new album celebrates our 7 years of collaboration. We get to share our beautiful new repertoire with fans, friends, colleagues, supporters and future audiences. In exchange, depending on your pledge, you will receive a digital download, a real CD, a Dalcroze Eurhythmics session, chamber music session, Oleg’s solo concert or a Russian Duo house concert! On the career side of things: we need a new album to represent our current level of performance, we need new material to apply for a prestigious grant from Chamber Music America, and we need professionally recorded repertoire to enter juried showcases around North America. By the middle of December (with your help!) we will have spent time in the recording studio and will be well on our way to a finished product. In just 2 short weeks our campaign will be over. We hope you will partner with us – soon! – to make this project a reality! Watch our Kickstarter video for a glimpse of Russian Duo in action and to learn about the process. With Best Wishes, Terry & Oleg Terry, after a recent concert in Ohio. Oleg singing a Soviet song in concert. www.russianduo.com Our mailing address is: 3003 Euclid Heights Boulevard Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118

Our Time has the article Our American Nightmare? The New American Dream Is Much Different Than It Used To Be. (Sorry, I just couldn’t stand to post as my subject line the title the way it was written.)

We learn to view the world through the lens of our environment, which explains why neighborhoods have such a large impact on one’s future financial situation. A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that the economic segregation of neighborhoods effected mobility; in particular, urban areas with distinctly separate wealthy and poorer sections had lower levels of success among the underprivileged. Logically speaking, this makes sense – with no peers or neighbors to serve as examples of a different lifestyle, people living in areas of concentrated poverty have no reason to believe that their actions can impact their lot in life.

As I read this, I kept thinking that there was nothing new here.  We learned this all in the 1960s.  Then I remembered that I am always telling people that we need to keep repeating these lessons for the people who weren’t around in the 1960s to learn all this stuff.  How are these new people supposed to understand the problems we are trying to solve if they don’t go through a learning experience like some of us did?

Slate has the article Why Democrats Can’t Win Over White Working-Class Voters. I’ll give you the ending paragraph to think about as you read the article.

But the United States doesn’t have a political party to support that kind of social democracy. Instead, it has the Democratic Party, a collection of disparate interests which—at its best—is nervous about economic liberalism and hesitant to push anything outside the mainstream. And worse, it has a presidential frontrunner who—more than anyone else—is connected to the kinds of elites and the kinds of policies that would push the party away from the muscular liberalism it needs.

From the tone of the comments (and even the article itself) it seems people are still wondering.

For those that are wondering what the Democrats ever did to convince the white folk that the Democrats don’t care, why not think about this?  During the Obama administration, the incomes and wealth of the bottom 90% or income earners declined.  This is the first time in recent history where this decline kept happening during a “recovery” of which the Democrats are so proud.

Obama’s refusal to even charge a single criminal executive in the financial sector only made the great shift of wealth to the wealthy seem more unfair.  Oh sure the corporations that were defrauded by their high ranking executives were made to pay fines, but those executives didn’t pay a nickel.  They got to keep the great transfer of wealth that came their way.  The share holders got to pay the fines.  Worse yet, the corporations took tax deductions for the fines so that the tax payers had to pay more in taxes to make up for what the corporations got to deduct.

The front runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination is closely related politically with these fraudsters, Do people really think she will help them recover from their declining wages and wealth?  Her husband was the great welfare cutter, budget balancer, and financial fraud promoter.  Perhaps some working class sense that what Clinton did is not helping them at all.

We woke up on November 14, 2014 to the first snow of this winter season in Sturbridge.

The Healthy Home Economist has the article The Real Reason Wheat is Toxic (it’s not the gluten) | The Healthy Home Economist.

You’re going to want to sit down for this one. I’ve had some folks burst into tears in horror when I passed along this information before

If you can’t go to the article to read it, the answer will be revealed if you open the spoiler alert. Of course the article has many more details that you’ll want to read once you open the spoiler alert. It is more entertaining if you read the article without seeing the spoiler.

Thanks to Carol Peters for posting this on her Facebook page.

Facebook also presented this Examiner article for my consideration Bogus paper on Roundup saturates the Internet. This Examiner article casts aspersions on Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT who is one of the sources for the above paper.

So was this bizarre article peer-reviewed by actual biologists? No matter, neither Samsel nor Seneff are biologists either. Seneff is associated with the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT. Her homepage says she has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering.

I was just wondering how Facebook decided to show this related article to me. Was it chosen purely algorithmically by matching up certain keywords in the original post to keywords in the related article? Or has Monsanto paid Facebook to put up rebuttal articles to anything negative that is posted about Monsanto products?

So the debunking article isn’t being completely honest about Dr. Stephanie Seneff.

Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation.

Do your own Google search – roundup wheat harvest.

One article that I found was North Dakota farmers encouraged to use glyphosate-sprayed crops for feed, not seed.

Used properly, glyphosate is a terrific product. In recent years, however, our seed lab has seen an increase in samples with poor germination that has been attributed to the use of glyphosate as a harvest aid. We have seen numerous examples in many crops including wheat, durum, flax, lentils and field peas.

The wheat is too damaged to use as seed, so best to just eat it. Sounds logical to me.

The idea for this post was inspired by a post on Bernie Sanders’ Facebook page. Here is the graphic that went with the post.

Certain countries make a living being tax havens for corporations.  I imagine they charge companies a significant amount of money as far as the countries are concerned, but an insignificant amount compared to what the companies would pay if they incorporated in their home country or had an honest set of books that said where in the world they made their profits.

So I had an idea from my own little pointy head.

All non-tax haven countries should adopt a policy of applying their tax policies on the profits companies make in their own country and to all the profits those companies claim to make in tax haven countries.  That way, the companies would pay the normal rate to many countries  on profits they  claim they make in tax haven countries.  The only way a company could avoid this many multiples of taxation would be to declare their profits in a non-tax haven country.

The tax haven countries would be free to offer whatever they wanted to companies, but what they offered would be of little value.  Problem solved with no interference in the internal affairs of the tax haven country 🙂 – as if they aren’t interfering with our internal affairs.

It also allows the non-tax haven countries to make tax decisions without fear of corporate profit flight to tax havens.

Can anyone see any problems with this modest proposal except for a possible global war over the issue?