Paul Craig Roberts talks with Max Keiser about our financial condition

[Windpower]

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEPob3kQ-6g&feature=player_embedded


Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX7M3w02Bfw&feature=player_embedded

[cbc58]

Tks for this link.  I think alot of folks in the older generation (those in their 60's to 80's) can understand and relate to Mr. Roberts and his conclusions.   The part about being worse off than Russia before their collapse is hard to comprehend, but probably correct.

[peternap]

WOW!
That's impressive.
Thanks Windpower!

[Windpower]

You're welcome Peter and cbc

I think Max Keiser is really getting the message out

It was a little depressing about the long term unemployment outlook but not surprising

I just heard today on the radio that Hoover is re-starting up a factory (in Ohio IIRC) -- they brought back some jobs from China

Hoooray


well, maybe not, the factory jobs used to pay $20/Hr

now they are paying minimum wage  (at least most of the workers will qualify for food stamps .....)

Just like Keiser was saying they would do --- start leveling the wages between China and the US

[Native_NM]

Socialism and the Democratic agenda quit being fun for many Americans when they found out that by world standards, they were rich also.  There are about 7 billion souls on the planet.  There are about 300 million in American, or 4%.  World-wide, the richest 5% of all humans primarily live in the US, Canada, the UK, and Germany, Japan, and a few other select areas.  There are pockets of wealth in Asia, Africa, and South America, but most of the wealth is really in the US.   

In the US, the "working class" rally against the elite, and often point out that 5% of Americans own all the wealth.  "Spread the wealth", they cry.  In much of the world, they rally against the fact that America, a small nation with less than 5% of the WORLD population, controls most of the world's wealth.  According to the CIA factbook, 85% of the worlds wealth and GDP is owned by 20% of the population, and the US is the largest portion of that 20%.  Outsourcing is really no different than "spreading the wealth", on a macro scale.  If one takes the position that all business is owned and controlled by greedy Republicans (a false premise), then the GOP has done more to improve the lives of the poor than every Democratic program combined.  Since the 1960's and LBJ's Great Society, we have spent  TRILLIONS on poverty programs in the US, and yet the number in poverty is about the same.  The greedy business owners (The GOP?), have outsourced jobs that have ultimately resulted in huge increases in the GDP and standard of living in China, Vietnam, Africa, Malaysia, and even Mexico.  One BILLION people are better off today than they were 15 years ago because the "greedy" GOP outsourced jobs.  Interestingly, the average American today has a better standard of living than he did BEFORE outsourcing started 40 years ago.  Many items that we take as necessities today were luxuries to our parents.  Many average families have two cars, cell phones, and a closet full of clothes.  Americans living at the poverty level still have a higher standard of living than literally BILLIONS of other humans. 

I don't want to get into a protracted debate about this issue, but Democrats should stop and think that perspective is needed sometimes.  If their fundamental ideology is that of wealth redistribution and fairness for the common man, then they shouldn't be too concerned that some of those men [and women] happen to live in China or Africa, and want their piece of the "American" dream also.  They are no less human than the guy in Ohio or Detroit, MI.

This fact aside, there are plenty of good things the Democrats do, and the GOP also does some good things as well.  They both do a fair number of stupid things.  The point I am trying to make is that there is perspective to every issue.  This inconsistency with the Democrats has always bothered me, though. 

[rwanders]

Windpower, good explanation of some economic facts of life in 2011. Now what to do or can we do to make positive change for our economy? I suppose we could attempt to put the genii back in the bottle by erecting trade barriers--but,that has been long cited as one of the primary catalysts of the depression in the 30's. If true, that may make that suicidal for us.

What part did our tax policies play in this situation?  Quite a bit it seems, so maybe some of the tax law incentives feeding it must be changed--how can we enact incentives that will make it attractive for multinationals to repatriate profits back to the US? Lower corporate taxes? Hard to do in a political atmosphere where those corporations are vilified for doing what our tax laws evidently want them to do--don't believe that was an intended consequence but, that has been their effect. Don't know answer---if I find it---I'll run for POTUS.

What part have union wage, work rules and benefit packages played? Know what politicians and pundits have claimed but, not clear about real impact when productivity is factored in.

What part have our unilateral environmental laws and regulations played?  In some industries, a major factor, in others, not so much. Whether these laws/regs are needed, too much or too little is a separate issue from direct economic effects.

Have our other labor laws and standards become part of problem? I feel like we may have or want to live with most of them----not willing to go back to child labor or sweatshop conditions. Can't fix everything. 

Can we "force" a change by punitive laws directed at the "evil corporations"?  Might be some political gain by using them as scapegoats for policy flaws but afraid that would only encourage those corporations to make their moves even faster and more comprehensive, losing even more jobs.

There are surely more examples of the root and contributing factors---figure all this gordion knot out and you can be next POTUS for sure. Our political system seems to have gotten very good at demonizing everyone involved and we lurch from election to election and scapegoat to scapegoat like some poor bear surrounded by a pack of hounds. It seems to be impotent when solutions are needed----much easier to stick it to the other side(s), get yourself elected or re-elected and keep on dancing.

We voters are not innocent victims here---we are enthusiastic participants in the political system--the first question always shouted by the media and pundits and us is; "Who is to blame for (fill in the blank)?" How can we change that to; "What can we do to solve (fill in here)?" We could always search for someone to blame later if we still need a head for our platters. Perhaps human nature is just too perverse to allow us to make that systemic change.

Obviously, I have no real answers----just questions.

Our President doesn't appear to even be willing to ask the questions, rhetorical performances and posturing is all he has shown us so far----yes, the "other side" only does encores for us. We're just going to have to hold on somehow I guess, and hope we can muddle through somehow. We've done that many times so we must like doing it that way.

[Windpower]

To be clear I have never implied or said that Corporations are "evil"

Corporations are not evil they are amoral, without any morals. They have very few goals: to get larger and more powerful and to return 'profits' to the owners and executives of the corporation.

The situation is that corporations are very large powerful entities that the supreme court has endowed with personhood.

They have no moral restraints in the pursuit of these goals and because they can purchase influence and lawmakers (now with almost total impunity thanks to recent supreme court rulings) they are close to unstoppable.

I am going to post the John Perkins interview here as well because I think he much more eloquent in his explaination of the empire that is making the top 1% in control of virtually all the wealth


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8171.htm

[Native_NM]

I think most companies share the morals and values of their officers and directors.  Companies don't do evil things, in certain instances people who run them do evil things through them by extension.   There are plenty of well-respected corporations, which really means they just have great management. 

[Native_NM]

It is interesting to listen to the news.  There is a war right here in America: a class war. Corporations are almost always portrayed in a negative light. Either the greedy oil company or evil defense contractor or uncaring health insurance company.

Corporations were granted "personhood".  I lecture occasionally on tax and economic issues.  I pose a question to the students:  "how many of you think it is immoral to take the standard deduction or any other legal deduction on your tax return?". I have never had one student tell me that it is wrong.  I then ask: "why is it wrong for a company to do the same thing?".  Gets them thinking every time.

[Windpower]

NM

A flawed analogy

This would be closer to current realities

"Would you think it was wrong to take a tax deduction that was written into law for you because you paid a bribe contibuted a few hundred thousand dollars to the reelection campaign of a certain congress committee chair person ?"

try asking that question next time

[dug]

I agree with Windpower that corporations are neither evil nor immoral, but simply amoral. A level headed person would not consider a shark evil or immoral if it eats a swimmer because it is only doing what it is designed to do. Doesn't mean you have to like sharks.

A successful corporation will take every legal advantage available, which I have no problem with, but because of their influence they have the ability to revise or create new laws. A corporation can only consider morals on financial terms or otherwise face being consumed by another shark.

[dug]

And one moral dilemma corporations face is placing our Country and it's citizens best interest above profit.

[rwanders]

NM

A flawed analogy

This would be closer to current realities

"Would you think it was wrong to take a tax deduction that was written into law for you because you paid a bribe contibuted a few hundred thousand dollars to the reelection campaign of a certain congress committee chair person ?"

try asking that question next time

Are you not making an unstated assumption that any such tax code item is the result of a corrupt bargain? I do believe that is called a "strawman argument"  because the question has been designed to elicit a preconceived answer----who wouldn't say no to such a question. in a courtroom, it is called "leading the witness".

I am sure some  tax deductions or other favorable tax treatments have been achieved that way----but not all----is the home mortgage interest the result of a corrupt bargain between home builders and govt or is it an appropriate way to encourage homeownership as a public good? Are tax incentives to buy more energy efficient appliances and materials a corrupt bargain with manufacturers or meant to achieve a legitimate public purpose? Depending on your ideological agenda or biases, either answer can be "correct". I think you have to ask about any such tax code item; "Is there a legitimate public interest served by the tax regulation?"  In some cases, there was at the beginning but as time goes by the public interest has changed----in some cases, your scenario is absolutely correct.

Many examples of both can be found in the thousands of pages of the US Tax Code. And many, probably most of the corporations and individuals who take advantage of those clauses had nothing to do with getting them passed by congress---no contributions, no lobbyists. any such code items are beneficial to someone or some organizations and not all are profit making corporations or fat cats.

Windpower---you have rightly called me out at times for making too broad generalizations. You are right that corporations are usually amoral---so are many individuals. I think any of these tax code items can be used in an immoral or moral manner by any of us. "Personhood" for corporations does have relevance----how can the general requirements of the commercial laws be applied to contracts between 2 individuals and equally to contracts signed between one of the various forms of "legal personhoods" and individuals and even the governmental entities like cities, etc? They are treated by the law and the courts as personhoods too. Do you think we should deny that status in law only to individuals? How about churches, unions, political party organizations, charitable trusts, trusts set up by persons to manage their affairs or estates? We could list an endless variety of groups of people who have formed legal entities that have personhood status----it's done because it has proven to be a practical means to organize our human society. You are aware I'm sure that corporations and other legal personhoods can be and are prosecuted just like human beings for many criminal actions. If they could not be, how would you identify the guilty "person" to prosecute when a huge organization has acted in a criminal manner----which of the thousands of individuals involved in the action could be successfully singled out?  It would be virtually impossible.  

I do not offer these thoughts to disrespect you or your disgust with organizations whose collective acts can be reprehensible-----granting them legal personhood does grant them some benefits but, it also imposes most of the same responsibilities----we just need to demand that they are held to them.

To answer your question:  It is NOT wrong to claim equal protection of the law---it IS wrong to bribe lawmakers for votes and for them to sell them. It is NOT wrong to participate in political processes in accordance with law including speech, associations or contributions. Moral or Immoral?----a more difficult decision. Is it moral or immoral to use political influence over government to take money or property from one person and give it to another? Our answers to that question forms the philosophical basis of the arguments of the left and the right. We try to resolve that question through elections with no answer ever being final.

One hopes that our personal moral beliefs guide our political and economic actions and how we treat each other always. The golden rule may be an old saw but it can still cut a straight line for us.

RW

ps: I'm going to try and not be so long-winded. Obviously not there yet.

[dug]

You are right that corporations are usually amoral---so are many individuals.

I know this was in reply to Windpower but I just wanted to point out that though many people disregard moral behavior, only a sociopath is truly amoral.

Also it is perfectly legal for any individual or corporation to make campaign contributions, and of course elected officials must appease their backers. Since I can not compete financially with a large corporation, does that not give them an insurmountable advantage in regards to getting their man (or woman) into office?

[Native_NM]

NM

A flawed analogy

This would be closer to current realities

"Would you think it was wrong to take a tax deduction that was written into law for you because you paid a bribe contibuted a few hundred thousand dollars to the reelection campaign of a certain congress committee chair person ?"

try asking that question next time

Perhaps, but why drag the unions into this?  

By your reasoning, the hundreds of millions in bribes contributions the unions donate to keep the status-quo in power is bribe money, and the resultant pro-union legislation is immoral.   All those unions that took the Obamacare exemption are as immoral as Texaco for taking R&D tax credits, since the only reason the got the exemption is because of some well-placed and timely bribes contributions to Pelosi et al.  

[Native_NM]

And one moral dilemma corporations face is placing our Country and it's citizens best interest above profit.

Agreed, however that is an inherently human condition - self-preservation - and corporations are nothing more than "persons", by extension of the people who run them. 

[Native_NM]

To be clear I have never implied or said that Corporations are "evil"

Corporations are not evil they are amoral, without any morals. They have very few goals: to get larger and more powerful and to return 'profits' to the owners and executives of the corporation.

The situation is that corporations are very large powerful entities that the supreme court has endowed with personhood.

They have no moral restraints in the pursuit of these goals and because they can purchase influence and lawmakers (now with almost total impunity thanks to recent supreme court rulings) they are close to unstoppable.

I am going to post the John Perkins interview here as well because I think he much more eloquent in his explaination of the empire that is making the top 1% in control of virtually all the wealth


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8171.htm

According to the census folks, 80% of all the corporations in the US have less than 20 employees.  We often hear "half of all corporations don't pay taxes".  True, but S-corps don't pay tax.  Their owners are taxed directly.  It is a true but misleading statement , as it attempts to convey a different meaning - that half of the corporate profits are untaxed, which is not true. 

[rwanders]

Also it is perfectly legal for any individual or corporation to make campaign contributions, and of course elected officials must appease their backers. Since I can not compete financially with a large corporation, does that not give them an insurmountable advantage in regards to getting their man (or woman) into office?

Dug,  is a corporation not just a voluntary association of many, sometimes millions, of individuals who have pooled their financial strength in order to harness the power of capital? Are there not many other associations of individuals who have joined together to harness their collective political strength? A few examples: The NRA, The NAACP, The various Tea Party's, Common Cause, Move On---the list is almost endless---Unions, all the political parties through the years, etc, etc, etc.

The strength of our Republic, our political system is the ability, the inalienable right, of any of us to freely associate, to gather together and pool our strength and votes to petition the Congress for redress of grievances, new laws, repeal of old ones, and yes, special treatment. The NRA is not a corporation, just an association of individuals with common interests who are rarely rivaled as influential "lobbyists".  I grew up on Capitol Hill, father was Congressman. He, like all the politicians , received donations from many sources-----the groups who could muster support from real voters such as the NRA, wielded a lot more influence than any corporations could with mere $$.

Dollars are nice and useful in a political campaign but, you can't win an election without the voters--sometimes corporate and other $$ can greatly influence an election but there are many examples of incredibly rich individuals who spend immense personal funds and still lose. (see California senate race of 2010 for one).

Who among is not merely one person?

RW

[Windpower]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558

For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

[Native_NM]

So if Windpower lived and worked in Texas all year (where there is no state income tax) I wonder if he would voluntarily pay California an extra 10% of his income at year-end simply because he happened to mail his tax return from a post office box located in California....I bet not.

[rwanders]

 

Windpower!  

I knew there were some things we could agree on 100%---a shameful and disturbing state of affairs that cries out for a change----perhaps some form of alternative minimum tax like the AMT I have had to pay for several years.

RW

[rwanders]

NM, If the situation was as you assume, I would agree with you. However, the way I understand how it's done is profitable contracts are assigned by GE to various off shore subsidiaries so the profits are not booked in the US parent. Then those $$$ are retained on their non-US firms balance sheet in countries with low or non-existent tax burdens and are also sheltered from US accounting requirements. They owe no taxes unless the $$ are brought into the US---insult and more injury to our economy.   

The 3.2 B in refundable tax credit to GE is really galling---may be legal but, it's really galling.

RW 

[Native_NM]

NM, If the situation was as you assume, I would agree with you. However, the way I understand how it's done is profitable contracts are assigned by GE to various off shore subsidiaries so the profits are not booked in the US parent. Then those $$$ are retained on their non-US firms balance sheet in countries with low or non-existent tax burdens and are also sheltered from US accounting requirements. They owe no taxes unless the $$ are brought into the US---insult and more injury to our economy.   

The 3.2 B in refundable tax credit to GE is really galling---may be legal but, it's really galling.

RW 

Not quite.  There are strict rules.  Everything you wanted to know that the MSM or Fox won't tell you.  No spin, just facts:

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40545/000119312511047479/0001193125-11-047479-index.htm

Look to the Notes on Income Taxes

[Windpower]

Committee for Economic Development (you have heard of this group, right ?)

http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=9666.0

[dug]

Dug,  is a corporation not just a voluntary association of many, sometimes millions, of individuals who have pooled their financial strength in order to harness the power of capital? Are there not many other associations of individuals who have joined together to harness their collective political strength? A few examples: The NRA, The NAACP, The various Tea Party's, Common Cause, Move On---the list is almost endless---Unions, all the political parties through the years, etc, etc, etc.

Doesn't seem a fair comparison. If I contribute money to the NRA for example I know exactly for what cause it is being used to progress, which in this case would be the protection of gun rights. If I take a job with GE that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with their political views or agenda, just trying to earn a living. The #1 goal of GE is to increase revenue, presumably the other organizations you mentioned are non profit.

So the end result of all this is a small group of people wielding extraordinarily unproportional political pull in regards to shaping policies that favor them financially.

Jeffrey Immelt's vote should carry the exact same weight as mine, but of course it doesn't which is wrong IMO.

Money may not necessarily buy an election, but lack of it will damn sure lose one.