Bring on the Real Economists
Posted: September 7, 2012 Filed under: 2012 elections, U.S. Economy | Tags: Democratic economic record, income equality, jobs, joseph stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Romney/Ryan Soak the Middle Class Plan 18 Comments
I really loved the line in Obama’s acceptance speech on the Republican’s apple vinegar cure-all for everything that ails you. Take two tax cuts, throw out a few regulations, and call us in the morning! Here’s a great read. The NYT book review looks at the new books of Nobel prize winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. These out spoken economists speak truth to power. I just wish the current powers-that-be would listen.
…Washington is stuck in neutral. Worse than neutral; it is in reverse. As the last elements of the 2009 stimulus phase out, the initial flood of federal aid has slowed to a trickle. If no agreement is reached before early next year, the trickle will become a huge backward flow, as President Obama’s payroll tax cut and all the Bush tax cuts expire while automatic spending cuts agreed to in previous legislative sessions kick in. Already, Republican leaders are threatening to replay last year’s standoff over the debt ceiling. Meanwhile, state and local governments—prohibited from running sustained deficits, increasingly dominated by anti-spending forces—continue to cut aid to those out of work and slash programs that invest in the nation’s future while laying off teachers and other public workers. Without those layoffs, the current unemployment rate would probably be around 7 percent.
Against this backdrop, no book could be more timely than Paul Krugman’s End This Depression Now! Since the crisis began, Krugman has argued with consistency and increasing frustration that the United States has become caught not in a normal recession, but in a “liquidity trap.” Since interest rates are already at rock bottom, normal measures, such as easy credit, won’t work, and expanded government expenditures must play a central part in boosting anemic demand. Otherwise, the efforts of private citizens to pay down debts laid bare by the financial crisis will continue to hold the economy back.
We continue to see Republicans blame the current Democratic administration for an economy they wrecked and a lackluster recovery that they actively work to prevent from becoming better. Today’s job report is not what it should or could be. But, it’s not what the Republicans make it out to be either. History shows us that the Democrats have been the job creators.
In the eighteen months from the beginning of 2008 through the middle of 2009, a period fully shaped by the Bush economic program to which Republicans now want to return, (but before the Obama stimulus had a chance to take effect), approximately 7.5 million jobs were lost.
Over the most recent 18 months of the Obama administration, approximately 2.8 million jobs have been added.
That means that the average monthly job loss during the “difficult situation” before Obama’s policies took effect was 417,000. Over the last year-and-a-half, the average monthly job gain has been 155,000.
If Rep. Ryan and Gov. Romney see that as making a bad situation worse, it should tell us something about their “vision.”
Joseph Stiglitz has been focused on the huge income gap created by policies that funnel money to the highest income earners. His concern is of the US as a Banana Republic.
We may be the richest nation in the world, but poverty is higher and social mobility between generations lower than in other rich nations. In other respects, our model is bloated: we release far more carbon dioxide and use far more water on a per capita basis; and we spend far more on health care, while leaving tens of millions uninsured and achieving health outcomes that are mediocre at best.
The reason, according to Stiglitz, is that the vaunted American market is broken. And the reason for that, he argues, is that our economy is being overwhelmed by politically engineered market advantages—special deals that Stiglitz labels with a term familiar to economists: “rent-seeking.” By this, he means economic returns above normal market levels that are derived from favorable political treatment. In the most powerful parts of The Price of Inequality, Stiglitz chronicles the blatant tax and spending giveaways to big agriculture, big energy, and countless other sectors. Yet he also pointedly argues that much of the rent-seeking that plagues our economy takes a more subtle form, also familiar to economists: “negative externalities,” or costs that economic producers impose on society for which they don’t pay.
The spectacular profits of the energy industry, for example, rely heavily on the failure of regulation to incorporate fully the social and economic costs associated with environmental degradation, including climate change. Similarly, the increasingly aggressive activities of Wall Street—whether in the marketing of unsound mortgages, the use of excessive leverage, or the irresponsible use of derivatives—create huge risks for the economy as a whole. Yet these risks are largely not taken into account in the prices paid in financial markets. Without effective regulation, the costs are borne by all of us—most acutely by the struggling millions who have been pushed out of jobs.
Weeding out these and other forms of rent-seeking would thus promote both efficiency and equity, and Stiglitz provides a broad list of reform ideas, ranging from strict regulation of financial markets to more effective anti-trust laws. Yet he is most passionate about the need for political reform. Either those at the top will realize that things must change, or, he suggests, the kinds of popular revolts sweeping Middle Eastern nations will come to the United States.
Clinton has some intriguing facts on his side. Aside from a rounding error, his historical numbers are accurate (figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the tally under Democrats since 1961 rounds to 41 million, not 42 million). I crunched the numbers a few different ways to see if Clinton was cherry-picking the best numbers. His figures measure job gains from the month a president took office until the month he left. Since it takes a year or so for any president’s policies to go into effect, I also measured job gains from one year after each president took office till one year after he left. Here’s the score by that measure: Democrats: 38 million new jobs, Republicans, 27 million.
Clinton only mentioned private-sector jobs, so I pulled the data for all jobs, including government. Again, the Dems have a big edge, accounting for 48 million new jobs, compared with 31 million for Republicans. If you push the boundaries out one year for each president, the gap narrows to 44 million new jobs under Democrats, and 34 million under Republicans.
Other measures also show that the economy performs better under Democratic presidents. Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist for S&P Capital IQ, conducted an analysis recently showing that GDP, stock prices, and corporate earnings have all increased more under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
The S&P 500 stock index, for example, has risen 12.1 percent per year under Democratic presidents since 1900, and just 5.1 percent under Republicans. Since 1949, GDP has grown 4.2 percent per year under Democrats and 2.6 percent per year under Republicans. The same trend extends to corporate profits, which have grown 10.5 percent under Dems and 8.9 percent under Republicans.
The irony is obvious, since Republicans are considered the business-friendly party, while “tax and spend” Democrats are regarded as redistributionists eager to transfer wealth from those who have it to those who don’t.
We need to hold the Republicans responsible for all the evil they have done recently. I’m rejecting them all up and down the ticket this fall because I want a healthy economy and they never really deliver that.
peej
Carissa
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
grayslady
mablue2
NW Luna
peggysue22
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Ani’s update to a great song:
Great — exactly what the guy at the Intersection was saying — all of his hand letter signs had choices. He was asking “which side are you on”.
take a look at this and tell me what you think …
http://www.saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/mormonism/the-mormon-plan-for-america-and-the-rise-of-mitt-romney
It’s the site of an ex mormon that’s now a fundie … it’s got some weird oaths in it that evidently they take when being sanctified …
Unfortunately that is the inside information on the Mormon’s concept of “Kingdom of God”.
Similar to the information at this link — also the author is now an evangelical christian.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2226.cfmhttp://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2226.cfm
However, it is the evangelical Christians who have studied two books of the bible — Daniel and Revelations — which deal with the “End Times”.
One of the ten commandments where God tells Moses to “have no other Gods” blah blah.
The Christian heaven is nothing at all like the Mormon heaven. The more I study and discuss with ex-Mormons the more I am convinced that the LDS really is not an American Christian Religion.
I spent two years in a Fundamentalist College and had to take religion classes — so we covered the subject of the End Times in great detail. There is so little similarity between what the Christian Bible actually says and the Mormon theology. Were Fallwell and the other Moral Majority men so ignorant — or were they willing to make deals with the devil in order to bring on the “End Times”.
If anyone thinking of voting for Romney reads the information on the website — either DAK’s link or the link above — and still votes for Romney. . . . .
[I am working on a comparison of the Christian End Time theories with that of the Mormons — the more I research the more I am convinced that there are few similarities. Words used by both have very different meanings. ]
Romney is flat out dangerous with his cult religion which is basically anti American. The Mormons want to establish a Theology. And their version of all things Mormon will be forced on the world. This is what their theology teaches.
Here’s the blurb about the book My Kingdom Come: The Mormon Quest for Godhood
Publication Date: February 15, 2012
To a Mormon, happiness may be Family Home Evening, and families may be forever, but becoming an actual god is the ultimate goal of every member of the church. Mormons believe the reason for coming to earth from the planet near the great star Kolob is to gain bodies for our spirit beings and to be tested. To become gods, they need to be Mormons, to go through the temple to learn the signs and tokens for entry to the celestial glory and to be obedient unto death to the holy prophet. Everything else is tied to, and wraps around, this one goal. Today, Mormon Mitt Romney is a major candidate for the White House. A man who would be god. An entire chapter is devoted to the Mormon Plan for America and the rise of Mitt Romney. It is a warning and a must read for every Christian. Ed Decker is the International Director of Saints Alive in Jesus, a ministry that actively brings the gospel of grace to those lost in the darkness of cultic bondage. He is a former Mormon who spent twenty years of his adult life as a member of the LDS church before becoming a Christian. He was a member of the “Holy Melchizedek” priesthood, a “Temple Mormon” and active in leadership in local LDS churches. Ed has spent the next 30 years researching and writing about Mormonism.
Why on earth would women support this patriarchal cult religion? It is all about the male/man/GOD — and about Mormon males becoming gods — which is against one of the 10 Commandments. Women don’t get to the male Mormon heaven unless their husband pulls them up through the super secret veil.
CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT CULT
Yesterday while on the road (skipping the great toga party) the resident liberal who holds up signs at the huge intersection had great ones up on all corners.
“Fund Health care nor Warfare” — Then there was one about electing more women to political office on another corner. This guy is spot on — he makes his own signs and thinks up wording which makes you look twice. (first I read “warfare” as “welfare” and had to double check the word. He takes some of the GOPig chants and turns them back at the GOP.
Imagine if the US had Universal Health care. But no — and neither Clinton nor 0bama came away as champions of Medicare.
THis bit on memorandum:
Ed Kilgore / Washington Monthly:
Entitlement Trouble — Digby noticed it. I noticed. Maybe you noticed it, too: the one time Bill Clinton didn’t get rousing applause from the Democratic Convention audience last night was when he made a favorable reference to the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
Discussion: Hullabaloo, Library Grape and NationalJournal.com
————–
0bama is not to be trusted either on this subject.
It seems like we are fighting ALL the old fights — Social, Economic and Labor. In Economics — the GOP is trying to force the US into a massive depression.
Why so both Clinton and 9bama want to give up the fight and turn on Medicare — putting that on the “table”?
If 0bama isn’t willing to fight for what is right — then why the hell did he lie and cheat to get that job 4 years ago and now he fighting again with a pretty speech like any other pretty speech.
Too bad he doesn’t have the best of the best Economic advisers — he merely has a few hacks who tell him what he wants to hear.
The sign read —
Fund Health Care NOT WARFARE
Gallup catches an Obama bounce in the 3 and 7 day polling averages.
Obama Bounces Up to 52% Approval, 48% to 45% Over Romney
I wasn’t just reading andrew sullivan saying that it was a significant thing. He’s calling it the Clinton Bump.
Obama now at 52%, a real breakthrough – esp since Gallup has been leaning GOP. More striking: it’s highest since ’09: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/the-gops-difficult-path-to-victory.html …
I would give a lot to see Rmoney’s internal polling. He is targeting eight states: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire. No Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Wow, he’s targeting NH but not WI. A really odd mix, but they aren’t asking me. His path to 270 looks pretty sucky,
On top of that, he endorsed Steve King today in Iowa. Looks like a “bring out the base” strategy of some sort.
He has to rely on white nut jobs. Every one else hates him.
Romney pulled out of PA quite a long time ago. Either he knows he can’t win there or he believes the voter suppression will give him the state.
The Pledge of Allegiance is a “uniquely Republican thing”. YeeHaw it’s a wingnut.
Guess the wingnuts forgot that the Pledge of Allegiance, written by a Christian pastor in 1892, did not have “under god” in it. And it wasn’t an official pledge until Congress made it so in 1942 — still without “under god.” The deity wording was inserted in 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
This is OT but important. There’s a petition to get CNN to fire Erick Erickson. They already have 100,000 signatures. I signed it.
http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/erickson/?akid=170.366452.Fqqaii&rd=1&t=4
http://my.firedoglake.com/teddysanfran/2012/09/06/mitts-mom-on-her-husband-george-he-was-a-refugee-from-mexico-on-welfare/
That is really a must read — plus some of the comments are worth taking the time to see how Mitten’s dad was able to survive with help. In other words his own father did not build Rome all by himself.