RSS

Tag Archives: economics

Bill Maher – Democrat State Economies vs Republican States

This is truly funny…And true.  Republican controlled states  which have implemented the tax cut, destroy public services mantra are in free fall economically. The two most prominent examples of which are Kansas and Louisiana. Even in those states which have good economies such as North Carolina, Republicans rip the wheels off, passing one stupid law after another like the anti-LGBT laws which still may cost North Carolina billions more.

 

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dealing With Segregation in NYC

In actuality, the most segregated school systems in America are in the Northern Big Cities. Hyper-segregation at the neighborhood level leads to segregated schools. This enforces, and supports different outcomes for black and white children. While black kids certainly don’t need white kids around to learn…It seems far too many school administrators and teachers need white kids around to teach.

Why Liberal New York City’s Schools Are Among the Nation’s Most Segregated

 

New York City’s public schools are among the most segregated in the country – a fact that flies in the face of the city’s history as a bastion of progressivism. For this podcast, I spoke with former ProPublica reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, now a New York Times Magazine staff writer, about her decision to delve deeply and personally into that paradox.

Hannah-Jones wrote about the public school her daughter attends in New York City, PS 307. The school is populated by poor children of color from nearby housing projects. It also became the site of community tension when predominantly white and well-off parents living nearby were pushed into its school zone to ease crowding at another school.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 28, 2016 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Republican Admits Conservative Lie…”It Never Trickles Down”

One of the Articles of Faith in the Republican party and of conservatives since Raygun is “Trickle Down Economics”. The idea that making the rich richer, means they in turn will create jobs. In a country where small business creates 3/5ths of all new jobs – it really should have been apparent 30 years ago that this was a scam.

Joe Scarborough finally lets the cat out of the bag…

Now all we need is for the paid Faux News harlots to come clean.

Joe Scarborough gives up the game: After 30 years, the GOP base realized ‘it never trickles down’

 

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough complained on Tuesday that the Republican Party was fracturing because it had advocated economic policies benefiting the richest Americans for the last 30 years with the promise that the wealth would “trickle down” to others — but it never did.

“The problem with the Republican Party over the past 30 years is they haven’t — and I’ll say, we haven’t — developed a message that appeals to the working class Americans economically in a way that Donald Trump’s does,” the former Republican lawmaker explained. “We talk about cutting capital gains taxes that the 10,000 people that in the crowd cheering for Donald Trump, they are never going to get a capital gains cut because it doesn’t apply.”

“We talk about getting rid of the death tax,” he continued. “The death tax is not going to impact the 10,000 people in the crowd for Donald Trump. We talk about how great free trade deals are. Those free trade deals never trickle down to those 10,000 people in Donald Trump’s rallies.”

“You sound like Bernie Sanders,” NBC’s Chuck Todd pointed out.

“But herein lies the problem with the Republican Party,” Scarborough complained. “It never trickles down! Those people in Trump’s crowds, those are all the ones that lost the jobs when they get moved to Mexico and elsewhere. The Republican donor class are the ones that got rich off of it because their capital moved overseas and they made higher profits.”

GOP strategist Nicole Wallace griped that Republicans “let Democrats paint our side as being on the side of Wall Street.”

According to Scarborough, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was losing because he still believed in conservatism as it was “defined by the donor class, as defined by the wealthiest Republicans.”

“The Republicans said, listen, we’re going to have all of these trade deals and tax cuts that benefit our wealthiest donor class, but we’ll give them the social issues,” Scarborough said of the last 30 years. “We’ll give them abortion, we’ll give them gay marriage, we’ll give them guns and they’ll vote for us.”

“What we’re finding this year is, they’ll even support a guy who says Planned Parenthood is good if he comes with an economic approach that they feels that could actually help them more in the future.”

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Some White Democrats Are Supporting Trump

It is all about race and economics…

Some of Trump’s strongest supporters are registered Democrats. Here’s why

Among Trump’s most loyal supporters are registered Dems who now identify as Republicans. There’s a reason for that

Many progressives believe that economic recessions and financial crises, by increasing economic anxiety among Americans, will bolster support for more liberal policies. Others believe that economic mismanagement by Republicans, either federally, or at the state level, will lead voters to support more left-leaning politicians. However, evidence suggests that financial crises actually bolster support for right-wing parties, and even Republicans whose governance is objectively disastrous can pull off re-election.

In the current cycle, a white nationalist is leading the GOP race, and garners much of his support from ideological moderates and self-identified Republicans who are registered Democrats.

Why?

We argue that economic insecurity tends to increase feelings of racial resentment, and that white liberals and marginally attached Democrats are particularly susceptible to increased racial resentment during times of economic crisis. This racial resentment undermines support for liberal policies designed to provide protection to the poor in times of economic crisis. For those interested in building a coalition to support progressive policy goals to reduce economic inequality, the lesson is that attention must first be paid to the continuing problems of racism and racial inequality.

In a previous piece we showed that racial resentment, not economic peril, strongly affects support for the Tea Party and views on government spending. In a separate piece, we showed that racial resentment affects support for government action to reduce economic inequality, while economic peril has very little effect. Here, we explore how economic peril affects views of racial resentment and could be driving formerly independent or moderate voters toward Trump. Our analysis uses data from the 2012 American National Election Study, a wide-ranging survey of the political attitudes and behaviors of over 5,000 respondents. To measure feelings of economic insecurity we created a variable scale that combines five questions related to financial well-being — for example, whether an individual is worried about their finances. Racial resentment attitudes are measured with a scale created from five questions that characterize color-blind racial attitudes (for instance, “If Blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites”). We control for individual race-ethnicity, age, income, gender, geographic region, party identification, ideology, political knowledge, importance of religion, feelings toward illegal immigrants, and overt racial stereotypes.

We begin by exploring how the relationship between economic insecurity and racial resentment varies with individual race-ethnicity. The results, illustrated below, show that increased perception of economic insecurity is associated with increased levels of racial resentment, but only among whites. Among people of color, economic peril has no effect on attitudes of racial resentment.

Salon48.1

When we examine only whites to discover how economic peril interacts with resentment across partisanship and ideology, we find that the relationship between racial resentment and economic peril is particularly acute among white liberals and Democratic partisans. The graph below shows that conservatives and Republicans have higher levels of racial resentment compared to liberals and Democrats. Possibly because of this, increased perception of economic peril has no significant effect on racial resentment for Republicans and conservatives. However, the results show that increased sense of economic peril substantially increases racial resentment among both liberals and Democrats. At above-average levels of economic peril, the resentment attitudes of white Democratic partisans become almost indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Additionally, the attitudes of white liberals become indistinguishable from those of ideological conservatives. This may help explain one of the most confusing parts of the Trump phenomenon: his success with moderates, independents and even some liberals.

Salon48.2

The implications of this finding become clear when we examine the relationship between racial resentment and support for federal spending to aid the poor. The graph below shows that as resentment increases, white liberals and conservatives begin to have the same preferences on welfare spending. At the highest level of resentment, white liberals and conservatives have the same preferences on welfare. (We find that aid to the poor does not have this relationship, suggesting that welfare is racialized, while aid to the poor is not)…

Salon48.4

Read the Rest Here

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Housing Bust and the Destruction of Black Wealth

The 2005 Housing bust destroyed more black wealth than any event in American HIstory since slavery.

 

Black Americans Would Have Been Better Off Renting Than Buying

The first several years of the 21st century were relatively good ones for the housing market—at least on the surface. Homeownership climbed to around 70 percent, and all that demand meant lots of new construction and increasing home equity for existing owners. If someone was lucky enough to buy and sell before the market went bust, or if their home wasn’t in an area with catastrophic value loss, they probably increased their net worth just by keeping a roof overhead. Unless they were black.

“Becoming a homeowner was not a fruitful asset accumulation strategy for low- and moderate-income black families in the 2000 decade, in either the short- or medium-term,” write Sandra J. Newman and C. Scott Holupka, authors of a new study from Johns Hopkins University.

To come to that conclusion they looked at data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a representative survey of 5,000 American families. They find that white Americans with low net worth who bought during the boom years made out much better than black Americans who had the same timing and similar financial circumstances. Black families who bought in 2005 lost almost $20,000 of net worth by 2007, according to the paper. By 2011 those losses were more like $30,000. White homeowners didn’t have quite the same problem. Those who purchased in 2007 saw their net worth grow by $18,000 in two years, and then those gains eroded, leaving them with an increase of $13,000 by 2011. All told, the black families lost, on average, 43 percent of their wealth.

That news is perhaps to be expected given the inequities that exists in the housing market, including the quality of financing people have access to and the prospects of the neighborhoods they are buying into. The researchers note that neighborhood location, predatory loan practices, and how long families were able to hold on to homes all likely played a role in how white and black families fared during the early aughts.

Newman and Holupka also investigated how black families would have fared if they had chosen to rent instead of buy. In order to do that, they took a look at the net worth (that is all assets minus all liabilities) for families that did have a mortgage and families who didn’t. Generally, net worth for renters increases marginally each year—as workers get raises, or families pay down debt. For first-time homebuyers, those increases can be much faster, thanks to both the acquisition of a large asset and home value appreciation. But they found that in general black families would have been better off if they hadn’t bought homes at all.

According to the data white families who rented would have ultimately gained $6,600 between 2005 and 2011—less than they earned as homeowners, but still a nice gain. But for black families the choice to rent instead of buy could have moved them from negative to positive net worth. In two years, between 2005 and 2007, wealth would have increased to $1,300, and it would have hit $2,700 by 2011.

Those gains, to be certain, aren’t astronomical, but they are also certainly more promising than the tens of thousands in disproportionate losses that black homeowners experienced and are still trying to overcome. For black homeowners, there were never enough financial gains to offset the massive losses they sustained. But sadly, renting may not be much of a solution. In most places, rent just keeps on rising, which means fewer options for families already struggling to build wealth.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 11, 2015 in American Greed

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

How Slavery Built America

Saw this one on my Amazon Reading List, downloaded it – and have been reading through it the last week or so on my way to work on the subway.  Historian Edward Baptist’s treatise on how slavery made America has been greeted with both strong objection from the usual suspects as well as hailed for it’s detailed treatment of a complex historical subject, the ramifications of which still impact American Society today. What Baptist documents is what us students of American History have suspected for a very long time, but until this book – no one really documented it and brought it out front.

What Baptist succinctly points our and documents is the “capitalism” which grew this country from it’s founding in the early 1600’s to an industrial powerhouse owes it roots, and its foundation to slavery. Far from the oft repeated “land of economic opportunity”, slavery generated over half of this country’s economic might, and the worth  of slaves alone constituted over 1/6th of the total wealth of the nation prior to 1860. This one smacks the”Southern Myth” regurgitated by conservative right wingers dead between the eyes.

The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism

 

Part of a book review by the NY Times. Follow the link for the whole article.

A Brutal Process

‘The Half Has Never Been Told,’ by Edward E. Baptist

For residents of the world’s pre-­eminent capitalist nation, American historians have produced remarkably few studies of capitalism in the United States. This situation was exacerbated in the 1970s, when economic history began to migrate from history to economics departments, where it too often became an exercise in scouring the past for numerical data to plug into computerized models of the economy. Recently, however, the history of American capitalism has emerged as a thriving cottage industry. This new work portrays capitalism not as a given (something that “came in the first ships,” as the historian Carl Degler once wrote) but as a system that developed over time, has been constantly evolving and penetrates all aspects of society.

Slavery plays a crucial role in this literature. For decades, historians depicted the institution as unprofitable and on its way to extinction before the Civil War (a conflict that was therefore unnecessary). Recently, historians like Sven Beckert, Robin Blackburn and Walter Johnson have emphasized that cotton, the raw material of the early Industrial Revolution, was by far the most important commodity in 19th-century international trade and that capital accumulated through slave labor flowed into the coffers of Northern and British bankers, merchants and manufacturers. And far from being economically backward, slave owners pioneered advances in modern accounting and finance.

Edward E. Baptist situates “The Half Has Never Been Told” squarely within this context. Baptist, who teaches at Cornell University, is the author of a well-­regarded study of slavery in Florida. Now he expands his purview to the entire cotton kingdom, the heartland of 19th-­century American slavery. (Unfortunately, slavery in the Upper South, where cotton was not an economic staple, is barely discussed, even though as late as 1860 more slaves lived in Virginia than any other state.) In keeping with the approach of the new historians of capitalism, the book covers a great deal of ground — not only economic enterprise but religion, ideas of masculinity and gender, and national and Southern politics. Baptist’s work is a valuable addition to the growing literature on slavery and American development.

Where Baptist breaks new ground is in his emphasis on the centrality of the interstate trade in slaves to the regional and national economies and his treatment of the role of extreme violence in the workings of the slave system. After the legal importation of slaves from outside the country ended in 1808, the spread of slavery into the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico would not have been possible without the enormous uprooting of people from Maryland and Virginia. Almost one million slaves, Baptist estimates, were transported to the cotton fields from the Upper South in the decades before the Civil War.

The domestic slave trade was highly organized and economically efficient, relying on such modern technologies as the steamboat, railroad and telegraph. For African-Americans, its results were devastating. Since buyers preferred young workers “with no attachments,” the separation of husbands from wives and parents from children was intrinsic to its operation, not, as many historians have claimed, a regrettable side effect. Baptist shows how slaves struggled to recreate a sense of community in the face of this disaster.

The sellers of slaves, Baptist insists, were not generally paternalistic owners who fell on hard times and parted reluctantly with members of their metaphorical plantation “families,” but entrepreneurs who knew an opportunity for gain when they saw one. As for the slave traders — the middlemen — they excelled at maximizing profits. They not only emphasized the labor abilities of those for sale (reinforced by humiliating public inspections of their bodies), but appealed to buyers’ salacious fantasies. In the 1830s, the term “fancy girl” began to appear in slave-trade notices to describe young women who fetched high prices because of their physical attractiveness. “Slavery’s frontier,” Baptist writes, “was a white man’s sexual playground.”

The cotton kingdom that arose in the Deep South was incredibly brutal. Violence against Native Americans who originally owned the land, competing imperial powers like Spain and Britain and slave rebels solidified American control of the Gulf states. Violence, Baptist contends, explains the remarkable increase of labor productivity on cotton plantations. Without any technological innovations in cotton picking, output per hand rose dramatically between 1800 and 1860. Some economic historians have attributed this to incentives like money payments for good work and the opportunity to rise to skilled positions. Baptist rejects this explanation.

Planters called their method of labor control the “pushing system.” Each slave was assigned a daily picking quota, which increased steadily over time. Baptist, who feels that historians too often employ circumlocutions that obscure the horrors of slavery, prefers to call it “the ‘whipping-machine’ system.” In fact, the word we should really use, he insists, is “torture.” To make slaves work harder and harder, planters utilized not only incessant beating but forms of discipline familiar in our own time — sexual humiliation, bodily mutilation, even waterboarding. In the cotton kingdom, “white people inflicted torture far more often than in almost any human society that ever existed.” When Abraham Lincoln reminded Americans in his Second Inaugural Address of the 250 years of “blood drawn with the lash” that preceded the Civil War, he was making a similar point: Violence did not begin in the United States with the firing on Fort Sumter.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 1, 2014 in American Greed, Black History

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Destruction of America

This is America on  conservatism.

They gave tax cuts to millionaires…

They gave tax cuts to billionaires…

They gave tax cuts to companies shipping American jobs overseas…

And then they “deregulated” Wall Street and the banks to steal.

Home of the Brave, Land of the Free, Land of Opportunity?

Not anymore.

A steady fall since Raygun economics.

The myth of the American Dream

The American Dream is supposed to mean that through hard work and perseverance, even the poorest people can make it to middle class or above. But it’s actually harder to move up in America than it is in most other advanced nations.

It’s easier to rise above the class you’re born into in countries like Japan, Germany, Australia, and the Scandinavian nations, according to research from University of Ottawa economist and current Russell Sage Foundation Fellow Miles Corak.

Among the major developed countries, only in Italy and the United Kingdom is there less economic mobility, according to Corak.

The research measures “intergenerational earnings elasticity” — a type of economic mobility that measures the correlation between what your parents make and what you make one generation later — in a number of different countries around the world.

Economists aren’t certain exactly why some countries have a greater degree of mobility than others, but they do point to certain similarities.

Greater current inequality: The more unequal a society is currently, the greater the chance that the children will be stuck in the same sphere. This is because wealthy families are able to provide things like tutors and extracurricular activities — and the time to pursue them — that poorer families often cannot.

Also, education matters a lot more now than it did 100 years ago in terms of getting a good job.

“The rich can pump a lot more money into their kids’ future,” said Corak.

This helps explain why counties like China, India and many South American nations also exhibit relatively little economic mobility.

Families: Having a stable home life is also associated with the ability to climb the economic ladder, said Corak. The United States tends to have higher rates of divorce, single-parent homes, and teenage pregnancy than many other industrialized counties.

Social policies: Counties that redistribute wealth — through, say, higher taxes on the richand more spending on the poor — tend to have greater social mobility, said Francisco Ferreira, an economist at the World Bank.

This is especially true when it comes to education spending. Critics have long contended that the U.S. system for funding education — where school funding is largely based on property taxes — perpetuates inequality far more so than a system that taxes the whole country for schools, then redistributes that money to the districts that are most needy.

If why Americans have a harder time making it into the middle class is a bit of a mystery to economists, why Americans cling to the belief that it’s still easy to do is even more baffling.

It could be because, during the late 1800s and early 1900, the United States was a much more mobile country than Britain, said Jason Long, an economist at Wheaton College in Illinois.

“It’s clear that Americans still believe that America has exceptional mobility, and that’s not true,” said Long. He calling it “vexing” that “lots of people could be systematically mistaken about verifiable, factual information.”

But no society has total mobility. Class is always going to be somewhat correlated to one’s upbringing, Corak noted.

 
 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: