Wednesday, April 10, 2019

SOCIALISM IN AMERICA AND THE WAR ON THE AMERICAN (Legal) WORKER

Why Do Young People Find Socialism So Attractive?




To anyone over the age of 40, the growing appeal of socialist policies within the younger generations can be confusing.  To us, this nation's capitalist system has provided the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, while "socialism" repeatedly leads to totalitarian governments like China and the USSR and destroys once prosperous nations like Venezuela.  One must wonder if our younger generations live in the same world as we do.  Do they not see the same things we see?
The answer to these questions is a resounding no.  The younger generations are growing up in a nation and a world vastly different from the ones in which Americans over the age of 40 were raised.  What they see is therefore filtered through an equally offset lens.
People over the age of 40 saw their parents and grandparents work stable jobs for the entirety of their careers — often with a single parent earning enough to support an entire family.  They saw their parents pay into Social Security, and then those same parents drew on those funds upon retirement.  Their parents had college degrees without debt.  They could access health care without concern that it would bankrupt them.  They trusted the safety and competence of the public education system.  They trusted elected officials to be honest and to obey the laws of the offices given to them.  If their parents failed economically, there was a familial and religious culture that could combine with government programs to help them.
American children today have largely seen the opposite.  American workers are routinely replaced by imported foreign workers and by outsourcing to foreign lands.  Immigrants and illegal aliens massively drive down labor costs, requiring both parents to work to sustain an ever shrinking family.  Everyone pays into Social Security, but no one under the age of thirty believes that it will remain in place for him to draw from when needed.  The cost of college is unsustainable.  No one trusts elected officials.  Everyone feels that a single injury or illness will destroy his finances for decades.  For many of us, it feels as if the prevailing sentiment of the now multicultural society is to cheer for our economic failure.
The America of today is starkly divided into two groups: a group that already accesses America as a socialist entity and a group that pays for that system but has no access to it.
For the first group, America is already a largely socialist government.  Members draw their subsistence from government welfare programs and can receive as much as $1,000 a month for simply not committing crimes.  Health care is largely subsidized or simply free, as the recipients either have no money or cannot be traced due to their lack of registration with the government.  Food and housing are often subsidized as well, through federal or state programs.  They are also given preference in access to education and access to programs to offset the cost of that education.  Many of them who receive those benefits are citizens of other nations residing here illegally, but they still receive both the preferential access and offset costs denied to citizens and even veterans.
For the second group, they and their parents have paid into this system through taxes for their entire lives, yet they have seen few, if any, of the benefits to that payment.  They are on no government programs.  While violent illegal aliens are protected from prosecution, members of this second group receive harsh punishment for even minor nonviolent offenses.  Any injury results in massive costs, and they are always fighting to keep jobs with shrinking wages and no security.
To members of this second group, the implementation of government policies that promise them at least a minimal return on the payments they are making into that system is a relief.  This is how the younger generation of Americans view a "socialist" model, and this is why they see potential in it.
To young Americans, a system that promises minimal access to equality with other classes living in the U.S. is preferable to a capitalist model that robs them of all funds, all options, and all dignity while providing benefits only to other groups.  Access to a terrible health care system is still better than one that will bankrupt you if you touch it.  Access to a low-quality but free university system may still be preferable to one that is inaccessible due to race and will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if you are given the ability to attend.  The guarantee of a poorly funded safety net is still better than one that isn't there at all.
The younger generation of Americans do not fear a totalitarian state, where they pay into a system in which the benefits can be accessed only by those with government influence, because younger Americans are already living in that state. The only difference is that those who are receiving the benefit of their labor are not some elite class of rulers from among their own people, but rather those who have the political and cultural power to redirect that wealth.  This is namely a migrant class that has become the dominant force in American politics as well as other groups that have been able to establish power to give themselves legal preferences in education, contracting, and protections.
To pull the younger generation back from the lure of "socialism," we must demonstrate both that the rule of law still applies within the U.S. and reassert equality under the law — without delay and without exception.  The government must also provide a minimal level of care and benefits for those who pay into the system without allowing threats of violence to pull those resources to citizens of other nations or to be used disproportionately on those who rely solely on those benefits for generations without efforts to rise above those benefits.
In short, the government must cease working for others and once again work for its citizens and stop calling that "socialism."



Lagarde: World May Face a ‘Monopoly Problem’ in the Future

 

WASHINGTON—The rising power of a few corporate giants could weaken investment, deter innovation, and reduce the share of income paid to workers in advanced economies, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
While the overall macroeconomic effects of the rising “monopoly problem” have been modest so far, further increases in the market power of big companies could become increasingly negative if they were left unchecked.
The problem could take a bigger toll on economic growth and people’s incomes in the future, warned the IMF, which urged policymakers to keep the market competition strong.
Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde talked about the increasing concentration of market power in advanced economies. She said a small number of highly successful companies accounted for the “highest price markups.”
According to the IMF, the price markup—how much a company charges for its products compared with how much it costs to produce—is a good measurement of market power. When a company’s market power increases, it can maximize its profits by charging a higher price and reducing its output.
“In other words, there is a “winner-takes-most” dynamic at play—especially pronounced in the digital economy,” Lagarde said.
“I am not saying that we currently have a ‘monopoly problem.’ But I am saying that we should take appropriate measures—so that it does not become a problem.”
Increase in market power would lead a company to reduce its demand for capital and, therefore, its investment, according to the IMF study. It also stifles innovation, as the firm would have less incentive to innovate to stay competitive.
The study also found that increased market power since 2000 has accounted for at least 10 percent of the drop in the share of labor income in advanced economies.
Lagarde urged policymakers in countries such as the United States to take necessary measures to prevent the escalation of the problem in the future.
“That means reducing barriers to entry for new firms and reforming competition frameworks to ensure a level playing field in all sectors, whether traditional or high-tech,” she said.

A Problem in Advanced Economies

IMF studied the monopoly problem using data for nearly 1 million companies from 27 countries—both advanced and emerging markets—since the beginning of the 2000s.
According to the report, the price markup increases are more concentrated in advanced economies than in emerging markets. This increase in markups has taken place in most industries, with the largest among technology firms. And higher markups have been concentrated among a small number of companies.
Companies with the highest markups raised their average markup by more than 30 percent since 2000. These companies are more profitable and productive than their competitors. They also have more intangible assets like patents and software than others.
“In many markets, the rising market power of the more productive and innovative companies has been helped by their superior ability to exploit proprietary intangible assets, network effects, and economies of scale (reduced costs per unit as output increases),” the report stated.
“In the United States, for example, these high-markup companies have also expanded in size in relation to their low-markup counterparts, contributing to a larger increase in aggregate markups compared with Europe.”
The high markup companies may attempt to entrench their positions by building barriers to entry, such as high customer switching costs, therefore it is important for policymakers to ensure a level playing field among all companies, stated the report.
President Donald Trump has been vocal in his criticism of tech giants, particularly Amazon. In an interview in November 2018, he said his administration was looking into antitrust violations by Amazon, Google, and Facebook.
He has also repeatedly accused Amazon of scamming the U.S. Postal Service. And he has been critical of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post.

IMF Predicts No Recession

The 2019 IMF and World Bank Spring Meetings will be held in Washington on April 12 through 14.
In its January report, the IMF projected that the global economy would grow at 3.5 percent in 2019 and 3.6 in 2020.
Lagarde said that the global economy is at “a delicate moment.”
The IMF cut its global growth forecast twice since last October due to slowing Chinese economic growth, the U.S.–China trade war, and financial worries in emerging markets.
“But, to be clear, we do not see a recession in the near term,” Lagarde said. “In fact, we expect some pickup in growth in the second half of 2019 and into 2020.”
Global economic activity is set to benefit from the recent policy responses, such as the Federal Reserve’s “more patient pace of monetary policy normalization” and increased stimulus in China, according to her.
Follow Emel on Twitter: @mlakan

The very fabric of America is under attack ...

Our freedoms, our republic, and our constitutional rights have become contested terrain. The Epoch Times, a media committed to truthful, responsible journalism, is a rare bastion of hope and stability in these testing times.
While other media may twist the facts to serve political agendas, we deliver stories while upholding our responsibility to society.
We’ve reported truthfully on the current U.S. administration from the start. We reported on the real possibility of a Trump victory in 2016. We’ve led reporting on the Chinese communist threat since 2000; we have been exposing communist thought in our government, schools, universities, popular culture, and media; and we, like no other media, are rigorously investigating and exposing the unscrupulous agents working to subvert our society.
Stand with us in advancing a truly independent and truthful media—the way a free press was intended to be, as a cornerstone of the Republic. Your contribution allows us to continue piercing through the surface narratives of mainstream media, and provide you with a full picture.
Epoch Times editor-in-chief Jasper Fakkert urges you to support our independent media. We are asking you to help us raise $1 million to support our unique and truthful content.
Every contribution counts, big or small. We sincerely thank you for your continued support and encouragement in these critical times. The Epoch Times is published by The Epoch Times Association, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.



HAS AMERICA DESTROYED ITSELF MERELY TO MAKE THE RICH SUPER RICH?
 
Viking Economics by George Lakey

by Melville House

This week, we’re excited to be publishing Viking EconomicsGeorge Lakey’s look at how the Nordic countries, in a very short span of time, managed to move past many of the problems faced by nations like the US and UK today — problems with inequality, infrastructural weakness, the cost of education, and personal freedom. Today, the people of DenmarkIcelandNorway, and Sweden enjoy widely-shared prosperity, low crime rates, reliable infrastructure, affordable education, great personal freedoms — some of the highest standards of living in the world.
Particularly as both the US and the UK face some of our biggest challenges in a generation — and, in both cases, under new leadership — Viking Economicsoffers some crucial examples of how we might get some things right.
Here’s a brief excerpt to read on the longship ride over to your local bookstore to buy a copy; please try not to get herring on it.


Like most Americans today, Norwegians a century ago didn’t like the results of a wealth gap: the hunger and poverty, the crime, elderly friends warehoused or left in isolation, young people without hope of a good job. Norwegians also didn’t like the attitudes that went with inequality: an inclination toward arrogance among higher-income people and the feeling among lower-income people that they were losers, defeated by the system.
Early in the twentieth century, Norway had the formal institutions of parliamentary democracy, but ordinary people were not empowered: they did not set the direction of their society. The direction was set, instead, by the economic elite, through the political parties they dominated and the businesses they ran. Career options were limited, and there was little social mobility.
The differences between then and now are striking: If you’re a Norwegian teenager today and the job you’re interested in pursuing doesn’t require higher education, you can choose among good public vocational courses. If you learn better in a hands-on apprenticeship mode, publicly supported programs help you do that. If, instead, you prefer to develop a talent in art or music, or follow a career at sea or in engineering, you can attend a free post-secondary school.
Paid maternity and paternity leave (including for adoptive parents) is built into the system, and your job is held until you return. After the leave is over, child support is increased if you choose to be a full-time parent. If your choice is to go back to work, affordable childcare is available.
Extensive, subsidized public transport means that you probably won’t need a car to get to work. High educational standards prevail in big-city schools, as well as in the suburbs. Small towns receive subsidies to make them attractive for people who might otherwise feel forced to live in a city for cultural amenities, again increasing your options. The economy subsidizes family farming both for its own sake and for food security, so farmers can earn a reasonable income, another freedom denied in many industrialized countries.
The government offers free vocational counseling, education, and job-training resources for people seeking a career change, and entrepreneurialism is encouraged through free health care and a public pension for all: In Norway, you have the freedom to fail without becoming a failure.
Money doesn’t dominate the political system, so citizens are freer to participate meaningfully in political life—and they’re more likely to be exposed to newspapers with a variety of points of view, because journalism is subsidized to avoid a narrowing of perspective. According to Freedom House, in 2013, Norway was tied with Sweden at number one in the world for freedom of the press. Denmark was sixth, and Iceland was tenth. (The United States was twenty-sixth.) Indeed, this approach to public life has a long lineage in the region: Sweden was the first country in the world to establish freedom of the press—in 1766.
The Nordics are among the longest-living people in the world, and older citizens continue to benefit from an economy designed for personal freedom. The Global Watch Index studied ninety-six countries and rated Norway as the best place to grow old, followed closely by Sweden. The pension system enables you to live at home with health aides or in a senior living facility. You don’t need to fear hunger or lack of medicines or of health care. Every small town has a music and culture center where you can enjoy the arts and pursue your hobbies.
The crime rate is very low, partly because societies with high equality tend to experience less crime. Even in their largest city, Norwegians enjoy a remarkable degree of freedom from fear about personal safety.
Designing an economy that supports freedom and equality pays off in happiness, judging from the Vikings’ descendants making the top ten in the UN’s International Happiness Index. In 2015, the ratings showed Denmark, Iceland, and Norway sharing first place with Switzerland, while Sweden was close to its cousins.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), composed of thirty-four of the most-developed nations, compared life satisfaction experienced by the people in each country in 2013. The OECD found Norway second, Iceland third, Sweden fourth, and Denmark fifth.
And yet in spite of all this security and support, the Nordic yen for adventure has not disappeared. Americans, too, have a strong yearning for both freedom and equality, so the Nordic desire for both isn’t surprising. What is surprising, though, is that they went ahead and built an economy to serve those values. That’s the story in this book.
Like their Viking ancestors, the moderns made mistakes in their explorations. Iceland’s financial collapse of 2008 was a spectacular error, and, as I’ll describe, back in the 1980s, the Norwegians and Swedes made a series of serious economic mistakes. The Nordics haven’t built a utopia: Norwegians see themselves as “a nation of complainers,” and this book doesn’t shy away from the challenges that face them and their Nordic cousins.
Still, it’s useful for us as outsiders to observe the Nordics’ expeditions and to use them to reflect on our own situations. There are many important lessons to be learned.




Part of Trump tax bill bonanza for the 

wealthy


"The $100 billion figure is not so much a record as it is another dimension in corporate plunder."


“It has been estimated that the cost of an iPhone, retailing for around $650 to $700, is made up of $220 for the components and $5 for the labor of assembly.”

"In the past week, at least one prominent Republican, 

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, has publicly admitted that 

the tax bill was sold under false pretenses."


TRUMPERNOMICS: The Trickle Up to the Rich Economy


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/congress-passes-tax-windfall-for-super.html

 "It will, in fact, no more provide decent-paying jobs and improved wages than the previous tax “reforms” carried out over the past three-and-a-half decades. The Reagan tax cuts of 1981 and 1986, Bill Clinton’s capital gains tax cut in 1997 and George W. Bush’s tax “reform” of 2001 were all part of a ruling class offensive against the working class, which included sweeping attacks on wages, jobs, pensions, education, health care, housing and other social benefits."


No comments: