Posts tagged economics.

Personally, I think the voting age should be much, higher, not lower. I think it was a mistake to lower it to 18, to be brutally honest… [I]t is a simple fact of science that nothing correlates more with ignorance and stupidity than youth. We’re all born idiots, and we only get over that condition as we get less young. And yet there’s this thing in this culture where, ‘Oh, young people are for it so it must be special.’ No, the reason young people are for it because they don’t know better. That’s why we call them young people…

The fact that young people think socialism is better than capitalism. That’s proof of what social scientists call their stupidity and their ignorance. And that’s something that conservatives have to beat out of them. Either literally or figuratively as far as I’m concerned.

Jonah Goldberg, suggesting conservatives should beat young people ‘til they think capitalism is cool.

There’s many problems with Goldberg’s statement, but this one is glaringly obvious: We don’t have capitalism in this country. The game is rigged. For example, we have a financial system that unfairly rewards undue risk by allowing “too big to fail” to become the standard for large financial institutions to receive government help, yet homeowners preyed upon by the same institutions are told “You KNEW the risk” and denied help outright or are given table scraps. And then no regulation is put in place to stop this because freedoms. That’s not capitalism, my friends.

If you want to pretend we have capitalism for a minute, fine – it’s only for the poor. We have capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. Remember the first round of bailouts under Bush? We socialized the risk and privatized the profit.

So Mr. Goldberg, if you really want to beat the socialism out of someone, find a Goldman Sachs or Bank of America exec.

(via cognitivedissonance)

(via lipsredasroses)

11 Things We Could Buy With 1 Month Of War Funding ›

thepeoplesrecord:

progressivefriends:

“Our communities are depressingly polluted, social services are being cut left and right and hunger is very real right here in America. So hearing that the United States government spends $20 billion in Afghanistan each year on air conditioning alone stings just a little. When it comes to war, the U.S. Treasury is hemorrhaging cash, yet Congress demanded that President Obama cut things like high-speed rail, United Nations support and funds for the Environmental Protection Agency from the 2012 fiscal year budget.”

1. Domestic hunger relief

2. High-speed rail transportation in the U.S.

3. Public health programs

4. Protecting the environment

5. Cleanup projects

6. Education

7. Jobs

8. Housing for low-income families & homeless

9. Scientific research

10. Organic farming

11. Wind energy

(via breezyappleorchard)

downtohuck:

ladyatheist:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

municipal-cake:

slaytanica:

If more company leaders followed this example of selflessness instead of being so fucking greedy the economy wouldn’t be so shitty. I mean really, just how much money do you really need to have.

This dude is fucking awesome. \m/

is there an article on this or something?

It’s true. He actually cut his pay down to $90,000 not $100,000.

So here’s the thing - it used to be that in corporations you had to do show some significant improvement in your company before you could get a raise or a bonus or any such thing. Now you can just say what you’re going to do, get the money, and bail - no harm no foul. I respect this man, because he is legitimately trying to run a business - for the good of everyone involved (employees, shareholders, consumers, and himself) and not just looking to scam everyone involved. Thank you, sir.

I don’t hate people with more money that me. I hate people with more money than me who acquire that money by harming those they are supposed to be looking out for. It’s simple, really. 

What a boss, literally.

(via breezyappleorchard)

stfuhypocrisy:

So that’s why they don’t want to tax the rich.

stfuhypocrisy:

So that’s why they don’t want to tax the rich.

socialismartnature:

(Photo) “People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in capitalist society.” - Jason Read

socialismartnature:

(Photo) “People who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in capitalist society.” - Jason Read

(via sanityscraps)

anticapitalist:

The true “American Dream” is a path to debt-slavery
(highres)
(source)

anticapitalist:

The true “American Dream” is a path to debt-slavery

(highres)

(source)

perse1010:

PerSe1010:

pantslessprogressive:
Five Things You Probably Don’t Know About Food Stamps

1. A large and growing share of SNAP households are working households
 One reason why SNAP is serving more working families is that, for a growing share of  the nation’s workers, having a job has not been enough to keep them out of poverty.
2. SNAP responded quickly and effectively to the recession.
3. Today’s large SNAP caseloads mostly reflect the extraordinarily deep and prolonged recession and the weak recovery.
4. SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program.

5. SNAP’s recent growth is temporary.
 Over the long term, SNAP is not growing faster than the economy. So, it is not contributing to the nation’s long-term fiscal problems.
Source: Off the Charts Blog - Center on Budget & Policy Priorities

perse1010:

PerSe1010:

pantslessprogressive:

Five Things You Probably Don’t Know About Food Stamps

1. A large and growing share of SNAP households are working households

One reason why SNAP is serving more working families is that, for a growing share of the nation’s workers, having a job has not been enough to keep them out of poverty.

2. SNAP responded quickly and effectively to the recession.

3. Today’s large SNAP caseloads mostly reflect the extraordinarily deep and prolonged recession and the weak recovery.

4. SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program.

SNAP is Projected to Shrink as a Share of GDP

5. SNAP’s recent growth is temporary.

Over the long term, SNAP is not growing faster than the economy. So, it is not contributing to the nation’s long-term fiscal problems.

Source: Off the Charts Blog - Center on Budget & Policy Priorities

7 CEOs making 1,200-2,500 times more than their workers. ›

*ahem*

FUCK THAT SHIT.

How Reaganomics Destroyed America ›

anticapitalist:

laliberty:

Obama recently claimed: “Nearly a decade of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires led to little more than sluggish growth [and] a shrinking middle class. Your paychecks flatlined. Wages and incomes did not go up. Even when the economy was growing, it wasn’t growing for you.”
Reality illustrates otherwise:  ”In the seven years from 2001-2007 (inclusive), not only did the middle class get at least its fair share of overall income growth, the income gap between the rich and the middle class actually got smaller.”
The Myth of Middle-Class Stagnation

 This is complete and utter bullshit.
Firstly, measuring growth in terms of total income/FTE has been debunked. You are presenting the data in a misleading way. The reason this is a problem is because middle class families do not have access to overtime hours because of the recession. Businesses are not hiring people for as long periods/for the same length of work. This is a basic economic concept. You do not measure income in terms of total income/FTE. (for those who don’t know, FTE = full time equivalent, and is used to compare people who work different number of hours)
Also:

shows that income inequality is rising.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that your claim is true, and that the income inequality is shrinking. During that period, the government increased it’s involvement in economic matters (funding 2 wars greatly impacts the economy). Thus, according to your logic, big government isn’t too bad after all, because the income gap did decrease when the government impacted the economy. At least if I follow though on your logic, that is what you are saying.

boss commentary ^

anticapitalist:

laliberty:

Obama recently claimed: “Nearly a decade of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires led to little more than sluggish growth [and] a shrinking middle class. Your paychecks flatlined. Wages and incomes did not go up. Even when the economy was growing, it wasn’t growing for you.”

Reality illustrates otherwise:  ”In the seven years from 2001-2007 (inclusive), not only did the middle class get at least its fair share of overall income growth, the income gap between the rich and the middle class actually got smaller.”

The Myth of Middle-Class Stagnation

 This is complete and utter bullshit.

Firstly, measuring growth in terms of total income/FTE has been debunked. You are presenting the data in a misleading way. The reason this is a problem is because middle class families do not have access to overtime hours because of the recession. Businesses are not hiring people for as long periods/for the same length of work. This is a basic economic concept. You do not measure income in terms of total income/FTE. (for those who don’t know, FTE = full time equivalent, and is used to compare people who work different number of hours)

Also:

shows that income inequality is rising.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that your claim is true, and that the income inequality is shrinking. During that period, the government increased it’s involvement in economic matters (funding 2 wars greatly impacts the economy). Thus, according to your logic, big government isn’t too bad after all, because the income gap did decrease when the government impacted the economy. At least if I follow though on your logic, that is what you are saying.

boss commentary ^

(via anticapitalist)

Here is a great editorial from the New York Times addressing the Occupy Wall Street protests ›

At this point, protest is the message: income inequality is grinding down that middle class, increasing the ranks of the poor, and threatening to create a permanent underclass of able, willing but jobless people. On one level, the protesters, most of them young, are giving voice to a generation of lost opportunity.”

I love that we’re called the “generation of lost opportunity,” because that’s a perfect description. So many people, educated and ready to work, are unable to find jobs and are drowning in student debt. School should be free. If you want to learn, you should be allowed to learn. There should be no student debt. Sadly, they expect us to pay to be prepared for a job market that doesn’t exist. Well how can we pay off the loans without a job? The system is corrupt, and we need serious policy restructuring. I hope the Occupy protests can inspire that, and maybe give some hope to the Generation of Lost Opportunity.