Blind faith in Free Markets caused the ECONOMIC CRISIS
Blind faith in Free Markets caused the ECONOMIC CRISIS
Government Austerity (Small/Miniarchy Government) DOES NOT BRING PROSPERITY!!
France elects Socialist Hollande as new leader, Europe faces new direction
PARIS - France handed the presidency Sunday to leftist Francois Hollande, a champion of government stimulus programs who says the state should protect the downtrodden — a victory that could deal a death blow to the drive for austerity that has been the hallmark of Europe in recent years.
"Austerity can no longer be inevitable!" Hollande declared in his victory speech after a surprising campaign that saw him transform from an unremarkable figure to an increasingly statesmanlike one. He will take office no later than May 16.
Speaking to exuberant crowds, Hollande portrayed himself as a vehicle for change across Europe. (AND HOPEFULLY A VEHICLE FOR CHANGE IN THE USA AS WELL!)
"In all the capitals ... there are people who, thanks to us, are hoping, are looking to us, and want to finish with austerity," he told supporters early Monday at Paris' Place de la Bastille. "You are a movement lifting up everywhere in Europe, and perhaps the world."
How MittRomney made his money matters i.e., his judgement,
"The presidency of the United States is not just about a track record or success but about judgment. A person's judgment determines their choices and how Romney chose to make his money should be of utmost importance in the upcoming elections. Bain Capital may have been wildly successful with Romney as CEO but that success came at a heavy price for the companies that collapsed under the weight of Bain's investment methods.
The president must not just be an effective leader but a statesman with a broad view of the world. To demonstrate that quality, one needs to exhibit responsibility, judgment and sometimes personal sacrifice in many areas of life, including business. Mitt Romney chose to make his fortune in a way that might not be unethical but is still irresponsible and mercenary. He had a right to do that but the tradeoff is that he must now take responsibility for his choice. The philosophy that made Bain and its CEO wealthy is also destructive for our economy and nation, and that makes Romney a bad match for the White House
The allure of Romney as president is based on the mythology of the "CEO" in our culture. Americans vest considerable faith in corporate leaders, mainly because they drive our capitalist system and prosperity. That is valid but in electing a president we should make the crucial distinction between a capitalist system and a nation. A country is a much more complex enterprise than a business. While Bain Capital does not need to worry about poverty, disease, hunger, terrorism, education, culture or science unless they can profit from doing so, America definitely does. The takeaway is that the rules and priorities which create success in business may not be appropriate for the more challenging task of running a country.
By the market's benchmarks, a CEO who can meet quarterly earnings targets and boost a company's market value is considered a success. Nowhere in those benchmarks are any that gauge a CEO's ability to meet the needs of stakeholders other than investors; such as employee welfare or social impact and certainly not the environment or America's reputation in the global community.
Those things may not be a CEO's problem, but are the responsibility of the president. A president cannot just crunch numbers and make policy on the back of a short-term gain -- the leader of the free world must consider the effects of any decision that he makes not just on the present generation but on future generations; not just on business but on society; not just on the rich and the middle class but on the poor as well. That is a daunting task that requires not only exceptional intelligence but empathy for all Americans, and also the courage to make unpopular decisions.
Alas, it is these last two requirements for the presidency that Romney cannot meet.
Hypocrite Mitt Romney Created Prosperity Through Debt
By: Ray MedeirosMay 5, 2012
The Republicans have been focused on the national debt and deficit ever since they couldn’t control the purse strings of the nation. Before this, the Republicans had full control and even the Vice President, Dick Cheney said, “deficits don’t matter”. This is obvious an about face to their current mantra.
They have told the American people that you can not create prosperity by going into debt. The problem with their theory is the Republican presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, did exactly this.
Mitt Romney was in the business of leveraged buy outs. What is this? A leveraged buyout is essentially using debt to buyout a business for a potential profit and increasing personal prosperity.
This is how it works in its simplest terms. Mitt Romney’s company would purchase, through debt, a controlling interest in a company’s equity or value. The assets of the acquired company are used as collateral for the debt he used to initially buy the company in the first place.
So by initially going into short term debt, he used the debt to potentially increase long term personal and business prosperity. The same theory works with government debt, as long as that debt is directed toward creating jobs.
On a personal level, Americans do this all the time, whether it may be going into debt to purchase a home or start a business. The short term debt can increase long term prosperity.
Mitt Romney’s private business history proves that progressives have been correct and the supply side conservative economic model doesn’t work. Debt creates prosperity, whether it is accumulated by the public or in the private sector.
Restricting debt or credit stalls prosperity and economic growth. A great example of this can be seen through the 1980s. Back in the early 1980s, the interest rate was extremely high and borrowing money was very expensive. This initiated the economic recession of the early 1980s. In fact former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volker said in 1979, “The standard of living of the average American has to decline.”
By the mid 1980s borrowing became very easy, thanks to Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. The American consumer was able to easily borrow against future wages. This spurred the economic growth of that decade. Think about how easy it was to obtain a credit card in those days. Today, the consumer is now paying for the borrowing of those easy credit days and can not handle more. We are in what many economists are calling a phase of “deleveraging”.
So, in closing, if Mitt Romney was not able to acquire and accumulate debt to purchase businesses, he would not have been successful in business and would have not been prosperous at all.
This is what happened with the current economy. There were many Republicans, along with many conservative Democrats, who didn’t want to use debt as leverage to create jobs, like Mitt Romney did in the private sector. They restricted the “credit” of the United States and stifled economic growth.
The buck stops with Congress
By WARREN BEYER
We are all wondering what is happening in the stock market, or what is going on with the price of gasoline at the pump. I suggest neither President George W. Bush or President Barack Obama should be blamed for these two things.
The Congress of the United States should accept the blame and the responsibility for much of the economic hurt in this country.
The speculators on Wall Street artificially inflate the price of a great many commodities and resources, gasoline being only one. Their access and hoarding tens of millions of barrels is what raises the price at the pump. The Congress of the U.S. has, for years, allowed the oil companies and their Wall Street cronies to control the market.
I spoke to the office of a New York state senator and he gave me a contrived answer as to why the prices at the pump were so high. His office told me the prices are sticky on the way down and slippery on the way up.
That was it! After a two-year study that was their finding. Hard to believe.
Does anyone in this country know what it actually cost to produce one gallon of unleaded gas? I don't. Try and find out. The answer is not there for you and I. Why not?
The last 20 years of government, state and federal, has seen the Congress make the tax laws to accommodate those who pay for their elections. Why else would oil companies, steel companies, auto companies, chemical and drug companies contribute to both sides. And no, they no longer have to disclose their contribution amounts or to whom they contribute. You can thank the Supreme Court for that one.
No, Justice Clarence Thomas did not break his silence and say something.
Can we, as a free people, continue down this path of economic Orwellian control. I think not. The ugly specter of class distinction is growing and the powers at the top are allowing us to fight it out for the small change. Write your Congressman, call him on the phone, tell him what you think. This is your country not a possession of theirs that they can control with impunity.
Can we blame the presidents for some things? Yes, of course. But the arrogant Congress of the U.S. has proven that party politics and feathering their nest comes first. The health-care debate is easy to fix. Give the American people whatever Congress gives itself.
Does it make any sense that a person would run for office and spend $10 million or $20 million for a job that pays a few hundred thousand? Of course not. It's the control of the law that determines who can really control the economy.
Follow the money (like Deep Throat said) and you will find the guilty party, the disloyal and the treasonous.
Dont forget to vote. It's your only real power.
Teaparty FOR OBAMA @ObamaTeaParty: Dear Patriot,
Obama and his community organizers have been working day and night to recruit and train volunteers to gear up for this fall’s battles. The left is targeting Tea Party favorites like Scott Walker, Allen West and Steve King. And of course, Obama’s well-oiled campaign machine is already firing on all cylinders recruiting thousands of volunteers in every state.
The Tea Party for Obama is not sitting still. We are in the midst of the largest grassroots recruitment and training program in the history of our movement. We have abandoned the prestigious Leadership Institute to hold cutting edge grassroots training programs for tea party volunteers all across America.
Our goal is to support the Obama machine and his legions of intelligent allies on the ground this fall. We are supporting the plans to recruit more Tea Party for Obama leaders, train more Tea Party for Obama activists, and educate more Tea Party for Obama voters than ever before. True Tea Party members support Obama.
Please pray for The Tea Party for Obama today so we can fully realise this aggressive program to save America from closed-minded, partisan evil.
Each grassroots training session will empower regular Americans by providing insight on how to recruit volunteers, register voters, turn out the vote and prevent election fraud. This is state of the art enlightenment for ordinary citizens who have never really been involved in politics before but know our country is heading for disaster if they don’t act now.
Our goal is to understand the issues in every single state and wish for thousands upon thousands of Tea Party for Obama volunteers to show support for our President.
That includes finding an issue, paying fair taxes, etc. The upcoming campaign will be extremely intensive, hands on affairs involving the very latest in organizational tactics and technology. You are hard-working taxpayers who have families and often have been hit very hard by an ineffective, obstructionist Congress.
If this program to empower regular Americans to help get this country back on track and maintain our constitutional principles is as popular as we anticipate, it won’t cost us a single dime.
I believe this program is critically important to the Tea Party for Obama movement and most importantly our country. Barack Obama and his allies have political trainers criss-crossing the country. If we help, we can be certain of victory. In a campaign of huge staffs of professional trainers and massive budgets, grassroots understanding of issues is free.
I want to urge you to support the Tea Party for Obama by spreading the word. NO DONATIONS PLEASE. We rely on the energy and mouths of our collective to get the word out.
Thank you in advance for all your help!
For Liberty, for the Constitution, for Obama
Co-Founder and National Coordinator
Tea Party For Obama
Economics101: Consumer Demand is the single force that creates jobs
Economics101: Sale of Supply (Goods and Services) is the result of the force of Demand
Economics101: Production of Supply (Goods and Services) is the result of the force of Demand
Economics101: Perishing Supply (Goods and Services) is the reslut of the lack of Demand
Economics101: Purchasing Ability (earnings) of consumers create Demand therefore jobs
Economics101: Cutting Purchasing Ability (earnings) to consumers shrinks Demand, Kills jobs
Economics101: Cutting earnings for the poor and middle class shrinks Demand, kills jobs
Economics101: Cutting Government Programs for the poor and middle class shrinks earnings, shrinks Demand, Kills jobs
Economics101: Government Spending on Programs for the poor and middle class increase earnings, increase Demand, creates jobs
Economics101: Tax Cuts for the poor and middle class increase earnings, increase Demand, creates jobs
Economics101: Tax Cuts for the Wealthy creates Wealth for such Wealthy, Wealthy will save it or invest it on their own Interest
Economics101: Wealthy may invest in Jobs (only if there is Demand)Wealthy will save or invest in themselves (when no Demand for their products)
Economics101: Wealthy are motivated by self-interest and profits, not by social interests, they don't need to be loyal to the Nation
Economics101: Wealthy only invest in jobs if they magnify their profits and WHERE their profits are magnified
Economics101: Wealthy will invest in jobs in geographical areas where their profits can be maximized, no need to be loyal to the Nation
Economics101: Wealthy will invest in jobs in the Nation only if the Nation can guarantee their magnification
Economics101: Wealthy will not invest in jobs in the Nation for the sake of the Nation but for their own sake
Economics101: Benefits to the Wealthy results in more wealth for the Wealthy, they are not committed to return the benefit to the Nation
Economics101: Wealth does not create jobs by itself, it does only if accompanied by consumer demand for the products they sell
Economics101: Government rewards to the Wealthy only increases their wealth without any guarantee return of benefits to the Nation
Economics101: Government Tax Cuts to the Wealthy only increases their wealth without any guarantee return of benefits to the Nation
Economics101: Government Spending balances out Private Sector restraint on Supply Investments based upon lack of Demand
Economics101: Government Spending balances out reduces Private Sector "lack of Confidence" on the surge of Demand
Economics101: Private Sector "Lack of Confidence" is not because of Government Taxation or Regulation but because of Lack of Demand
Economics101: Austrian Economics is based on Blind Faith on Free Markets but not on
Economics Scientific facts or data
Economics101: Austrian Economics is based on Assumptions not Facts
Economics101: Hayek's Economics is based on Blind Faith on Free Markets but not on
Economics Scientific facts or data
Economics101: Keynes's Economics is based on pragmatic Scientific facts or data
Economics101: Blind Faith on the goodness of Free Markets is a religion not a sound
Economic scientific fact
Economics101: Free Markets by themselves (Competition and Price setting) only contribute to the wealth of the Stronger DIRECTLY
Economics101: Free Markets by themselves (Competition and Price setting) benefit the poor and middle class only INDIRECTLY
Economics101: Free Markets by themselves ARE RISKY AND THEIR BENEFITS ARE ONLY COINCIDENTAL NOT ASSURED
Economics101: Free Markets by themselves CANNOT SOLVE THE NATION'S PROBLEMS since this is not their intention
Economics101: Free Markets by themselves are frail and fail often when WEALTH is MAGNIFIED for the STRONGER few and not for ALL
Economics101: Free Markets succeed ONLY THRU GOVERNMENT BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND BALANCING THE INTERESTS OF ALL
Economics101: Free Markets by themselves cycle Economic growth Up and Down depending on the stability/instability of Supply and Demand
Economics101: When Free Markets cycle Economic growth Down (Too much Supply Too little Demand), Government needs to Spend to cycle growth up
Economics101: When Free Markets cycle Economic growth Up (Too much Demand, Short Supply), Government needs to restraint Spending
Economics101: Austerity on Government spending only works on a strong balanced Economy
Economics101: Austerity on Government spending does not work on a weak Economy, Austerity makes Economy weaker (shrinks Demand)
Economics101: Government Deficit (Debt greater than Revenue) OK when stimulating/balancing a down economic cycle
Economics101: Government Deficit is paid by the returned benefit of stimulating economic grow of a down economic cycle (increase Demand)
Economics101: Government Deficit (Debt greater than Revenue) BAD when economic cycle is up (Waste contributing to higher taxes shrinking Demand)
Economics101: Government Deficit DOES NOT MATTER for FUTURE GENERATIONS - for a MONETARILY SOVEREIGN NATION
Economics101: Government Deficit DOES MATTER if contributing to wasteful spending that will shrink Demand by increasing taxes
Economics101: Government Jobs increase (earnings) increase Aggregate Demand/contribute to the Wealthy's confidence On Demand and create jobs
Economics101: The President DOES NOT DIRECTLY OWN THE ECONOMY so much since he DOES NOT CONTROL THE BUDGET
Economics101: The Party Policies that create a Recession or Depression OWN SUCH ECONOMY until these are reversed
Economics101: Congress DIRECTLY OWNS THE ECONOMY very much since it CONTROLS THE BUDGET
Economics101: The government impact on the Economy is primarily the result of Congressional behavior, secondarily of Executive behavior
Economics101: The government impact on the Economy is primarily the result of Congressional policies, secondarily of Executive policies
Economics101: Supply Side Government Policies (Tax Benefits for Corporations) work only on normal economies not in a weak ones
Economics101: Demand Side Government Policies (Government Spending/Tax Benefits for Middle Class/poor) work mostly on weak economies
Social Democracies in Europe with their Social program do better than those with Austerity
I’ve been hearing two claims, both false: that Europe’s woes reflect the failure of welfare states in general, and that Europe’s crisis makes the case for immediate fiscal austerity in the United States.
The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. For example, Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of taking his inspiration from European “socialist democrats” and asserted that “Europe isn’t working in Europe.” The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But the facts say otherwise.
It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits — including universal health care — and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well — if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure” — spending on welfare-state programs — was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.
Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.
For the last year or two, Europe has been implementing, in real time, exactly the policies that Romney and congressional Republicans fervently believe are the best strategy for boosting economic growth. It’s called “austerity,” and it means cutting deficits, slashing spending, and chipping away at all those goodies the social welfare state provides.
And guess what? It’s not working. Compared with the United States, Europe is in shambles.
Unemployment is rising across the continent. Just this week, the United Kingdom, which has pursued an austerity regime so severe that it makes House Republicans drool with lust, slipped back into recession. In France, the socialist candidate for president (and likely winner), François Hollande, has been campaigning against austerity. Italy’s prime minister, Mario Monti, is expressing qualms. The latest news out of Brussels, according to the Daily Telegraph, suggests “a major shift in economic strategy” as fears spread “that excessive fiscal tightening will inflict unnecessary damage on a string of eurozone countries.”
The evidence keeps amassing. Maybe, just maybe, John Maynard Keynes was right: Cutting government spending in the face of a weak economy is a recipe for further decline.
Daily Kos: Open thread for night owls: Why are the Europhobes silent when Mitt Romney promotes austerity?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/29/1086494/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Why-are-the-Europhobes-silent-when-Mitt-Romney-promotes-austerity- via @dailykos