It was. Warren is a gem.
1 Like
Thank you. I had been struggling to formulate an answer that clear and convincing. Now I just second yours.
1 Like
Oh yes. And I wouldn’t mind seeing her in the VP debate. I wouldn’t mind that at all.
1 Like
Simple fix: repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley and reinstate those provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated commercial and investment banking. Before 1999, the U.S. could have let the financial houses go down without sinking the rest of the economy. Then again, most probably wouldn’t have been so bold as to engage in such risky investment practices.
2 Likes
The “economic conservative, social liberal” trope reminded me of this article suggesting there is no such thing. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/7-things-people-who-say-theyre-fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal-dont
It’s not too difficult to pinpoint where the U.S. economy went wrong for the middle class. What is needed is a rollback to 1980, before supply-side replaced Keynes as the primary economic model, the progressive income tax was scrapped and deregulation and union-busting became the rage. Repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which created the conditions for the 2008 collapse, and invest in alternative energy which would make the U.S. less vulnerable to the inflationary pressures created by the OPEC embargo in 1973-74. None of what has happened over the last three-and-a-half decades is a surprise; many of us well-versed in macroeconomics predicted the consequences of Reaganonomics, but couldn’t win the rhetorical battle at the time against the flag-wavers.
4 Likes
The “rising tide” theory has always struck me as odd. A Tsunami is also a rising tide, one that is concentrated more greatly toward the top, and sinks all the boats beneath it. The rising tide only lifts all boats when it rises evenly, which it doesn’t when 90% of GDP growth goes to only 1% of the populace.
3 Likes
“Invisible hand” true believers overlook the other writings of Adam Smith, the creator of the theory:
“When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.”
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
The purpose of banking regulations was to oblige “all of them to be more circumspect in their conduct, and by not extending their currency beyond its due proportion to their cash, to guard themselves against the ruinous runs, which the rivalship of so many competitors is always ready to bring upon them”. He added that by “dividing the whole circulation into a greater number of parts, the failure of any one company, an accident which, in the course of things, must sometimes happen, becomes of less consequence to the publick.”
4 Likes
You’re missing one important point about the buying of shoes. It’s not that the non-wealthy buy more shoes, but in far greater numbers. A rich person may buy a pair of $150 shoes every year, but the 99-percenters who buy the $20 shoes are in the aggregate creating nearly $2,000 in demand.
We’re not done.
Wealth should not be concentrated in the hands of casinos like Citigroup.
3 Likes
Mansplaining is not whenever a man says something you don’t like. It is when a man explains something to a woman about women.
This is just garden variety condescension.
1 Like
I’m calling it now, if Hillary wins, Jamie and a few of his good pals will be going bye bye via the Warrenator.
2 Likes
Translation Dimon see’s the possibility of jail time.
Oh yeah… Good catch…
That’s the first person I thought of when reading Manziel’s tripe.
~OGD~
I’m not sure what you are talking about, and it isn’t exactly about shoes, alright.
This is about the fact that rich people, by and large, spend less money than the average poor person.
If that’s your position, you’re wrong. Rich people individually spend quite a bit more than others. In the aggregate they don’t, because of their low numbers, and they spend a smaller percentage of their income in consumer goods.
Okay…answer me this- are you or someone you know wealthy? Are you or someone you know part of that “one percent?” Because, unless you speak from absolute personal experience, I can tell you that the majority of the wealthy people I have known, don’t spend as much as everyone thinks they do. Oh, they invest, they spread the money amongst themselves, but they don’t actually buy as a whole as much as people think they do.
That really needed to be a one-fingered salute to Jamie-kins et al.
I agree, “mansplaining” is a pejorative on par with “slut shaming”, and one could easily see Dimon’s same words being directed at a man. The intent is to demean the messenger in order to negate the message. Poor choice of words.
In fact, the old New England liberal Republicans were far more liberal than just about anyone left in the Democratic Party, except for Warren and Sanders.