Steve's Politics Blog

I happened to take a look at the geographic distribution of viewership of this blog over the last 30 days.  I found it rather amazing.

Who knew I had an international audience?

C-Span recorded the November 18, 2013 discussion by Noam Chomsky on his book On Anarchism.

Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, talked about his book, On Anarchism, in which he examines the political ideology of anarchism, from its history and early proponents to the author’s thoughts on its current usage and practicality. Noam Chomsky spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

I cannot embed the video here, so you’ll have to use the link above.  There are many startling and useful revelations in the video.

In answer to a question at the end of the video, Chomsky explains why preserving slavery was an important factor for the American Revolution.  Not that this is the most startling nor most useful part of the discussion, but I did find it interesting.  The preceding link is to the clip of only a couple of minutes of the talk.

Thanks to MardyS for pointing me to this discussion.

This is not an endorsement.  It is just an attempt to give some coverage to a candidate who may not have received the coverage she deserves.

Her web site Juliette Kayyem – Democrat for Governor gives some background on who she is and what her qualifications are.

An appointee to both Governor Deval Patrick and President Barack Obama’s Administrations, she has made government work for citizens when it matters the most. As a homeland security expert, Juliette knows what it means to bring together every facet of society and work towards common solutions with a clear path forward. Her career is proof that progressive politics and safety and security policy strengthen one another.

I am looking forward to meeting her in Sturbridge on Wednesday.

McClatchy DC has the article Rep. Clyburn too conservative? Signs of emerging Democratic divide.

The founders of that think tank, Third Way, attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., last week for pushing tax hikes for the rich and increases in Social Security benefits and for taking other stances that they said represented risky fiscal approaches and bad political strategies.

Allies of Warren, a freshman lawmaker who’s a rising star in Washington, struck back quickly. Four liberal groups asked Clyburn and 11 other Democratic members of Congress who are “honorary co-chairs” of Third Way to repudiate the condemnation of Warren and to sever their ties with the organization.

“We’re calling on James Clyburn to do the right thing and immediately drop his affiliation with the Wall Street-backed Third Way for attacking Elizabeth Warren’s agenda,” Adam Green, a leader of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told McClatchy. “Third Way had little credibility to begin with. If Clyburn dumps Third Way, it will deal them a major blow.”

Clyburn declined the demand.
.
.
.
And like so much that happens in Democratic Party circles, the dispute traces back to Bill and Hillary Clinton and their presidential ambitions.

Third Way, a research center established in 2005 as a counterweight to several well-known liberal groups closely tied to the Democratic Party, advocates some fiscal and social views that are more conservative than the ideas promoted by many members of the party’s activist base.

Those centrist notions were championed by former President Bill Clinton, who ran for the White House in 1992 as a “New Democrat” and, once there, embraced welfare restructuring, deregulation, capital punishment and other policies at odds with traditional liberal stances.

I am glad to see that this issue is rising to this level of notoriety.  I have been urging everbody I can think of to deliver a message to Hillary Clinton as she contemplates running for President in 2016.  Publicly divorce yourself from the thinking of groups such as Third Way, or there will be electoral consequences for your failure to do so.  I have even asked Elizabeth Warren to pass this message on to Hillary.

Naked Capitalism has the post 401(k) Plan Abuses Finally Coming to Light. The post starts with the following:

I doubt that I’m unusual in being a finance type who has heard about 401 (k) abuses and bad practices for a very long time. So it’s gratifying to see the Financial Times that something is finally being done to try to curb this behavior. But that is hardly the full extent of what is rotten in retirement fund land.

I have also known about some 401(k) abuses for a long time, but I hadn’t known about all the details of what can be done to turn a company’s 401(k) plan into a profit center for the company itself.

Perhaps it is time for a new Greenberg’s Law of Capitalism – “If there is an unfair advantage to be wrung from the capitalist system, then some capitalist will wring it.”

Rebecca Deans-Rowe posted 28 Most Iconic Feminist Moments of 2013 on her Facebook page.

When I got to 10. Sarah Slamen’s Badass Takedown of Anti-Choice Texas Republicans Went Viral, I just had to post this one.

This is for someone I know who would just as soon disown her Texas heritage.

Naked Capitalism has the article Gaius Publius: `Liberalism Doesn`t Carry the Critique of Capitalism that Progressivism Does`.

I’ve been fascinated lately with the meaning of the terms “liberal” and “progressive.” It’s clear that what we now call “liberalism” is really a variant, a side branch of the real thing, and should be more properly named “FDR liberalism” or “social liberalism.” Today’s “liberalism” — FDR-liberalism — is an offshoot of pre-FDR liberalism that diverges from its original meaning in a rather important way, by including a role for government. Prior to FDR, “liberalism” just meant basic free-market capitalism.

That’s why so-called modern (Clintonian) “neoliberals” are so different from FDR liberals, and why they’re so similar to Milton Friedman free-market conservatives.

That last sentence really piqued my interest.  The rest of the article and the links provided are really great.  One of those links is to a podcast at Virtually Speaking.

I am reading the book “Death of the Liberal Class” by Chris Hedges. It is very interesting to compare the discussion in the Virtually Speaking podcast with what is in the book. I think the two complement each other and fill in some of the holes in each presentation. Hedges highlights the evil intent during the run up to WW I and afterwards a little bit more than the discussion in the Virtually Speaking podcast.

Reading the book, the Naked Capitalism blog post, and listening to the podcast helps me clarify my own views and where they come from.

I guess I am truly liberal in ways that I did not understand before. I do believe that big government is not desirable except for the fact that it needs to be big enough to reign in big capitalism. Of course there is also a role for making the investments in society that no other entity can make but (big) government.

In general, I believe that big concentrations of power are dangerous, but I do not subscribe to the naivete of libertarians that if one side disarms, all will just turn out peachy. When the power of one side gets too large compared to the power of the other side, then their needs to be an effort to rebalance. I don’t know how to avoid the inevitable ratcheting up of concentrated powers balancing against each other that merely rebalancing seems to achieve.

The above title was suggested in a comment on YouTube to the video below.

The actual title on the New Economics Perspectives web site is Dr. Kelton’s Graduate Macro Students’ Video Project.  The Dr. Kelton of the title is Stephanie Kelton, Professor, Economics, and Chair of the Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Kansas City.

I think the video is something that everyone should see, but you know me. I always question everything. So I left a comment on the web site and on YouTube.

At 9:34 into the presentation – Sector Financial Balances as a % of GDP, 1952q1 to 2013q2

There was a little sleight of hand in part of the discussion around the government always needing to be in the red so that others can be in surplus. The truth of the matter is that the government may need to run in the red if the money supply needs to be increased. In a growing economy, the money supply almost always needs to increase, so it seems like the argument I am making is only a quibble.

However, when you skip over the truth to make your message less complicated, it always comes back to bite you. When your opponent points out the fallacy of your argument, you don’t want to have to backtrack, admit you weren’t being accurate, and only then make the correction I am suggesting.

Is the four added words in the proviso, “in a growing economy”, too much to expect in order to keep the argument completely above board?

If the Fed is now ineffectively shoving massive amounts of liquidity into the economy to try to stimulate it, might there come a time when the economy recovers that this excess liquidity must be slurped back out? I know the Fed says that they have a plan, so maybe it won’t require a few years of government surpluses to accomplish the task.

Adding this to the discussion might prove to the doubters that you aren’t completely blind to other possible events that could happen.

December 13, 30123

One of the New Economic Perspectives comments on this article suggested a Dilbert comic strip.

Scott Adams probably didn’t mean this as the start of a deep economic question, but this Dilbert cartoon: http://dilbert.com/2013-12-03/ (at least the first 2 frames) can provide a humorous segueway to answer the question of the origin of money — “The first money came (and continues to come) from the issuer!” Most people agree with frame one, but haven’t even thought to ask frame two and who that issuer might be.

The Real News Network has the interview Fmr. Israeli Intel. Chief Says Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Greater Risk than Nuclear Iran – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself pt2.  I covered the first part in the previous post From Zionist to Anti-Zionist Activist – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself pt1.

On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Phyllis Bennis examines the Israeli debate about Iran and Palestine, the role of AIPAC and the complex changes taking place in Middle East politics.

This segment was probably recorded before the news that the Obama administration is tightening sanctions on Iran as a reward for their good behavior. Say what? See my previous post White House Announces New Sanctions to Block Iran’s Trading Activities.

I hope that all the segments haven’t been prerecorded and are only being released at a rate of one a day. If that were true, it would preclude a discussion of this latest craziness by Obama in the following parts of the interview.

If all the segments have already been recorded, I am sure that Phyllis Bennis will be brought back and there will be other coverage on The Real News Network of this latest craziness.