Political Economy category archive
In denying Pennsylvania Republicans’ efforts to retroactively exclude mail-in (aka, “absentee”) ballots from the tally of the recent election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court went so far as to use the word “farcical” in their ruling.
The editorial board of the Bangor Daily News explains. A nugget:
“How have stocks remained so resilient in the face of such a severe shock? In part, it’s because of inequality. Stocks are overwhelmingly owned by the top 1 percent, which means speculation has been able to continue even as more people have lost their jobs than at any time since the Great Depression,” Boushey* wrote.
More at the link.
*Heather Boushey, president and CEO of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.
Bob Peckman explains at The Roanoke Times. Here are some of his main points; follow the link for an exploration of each.
From Trump’s recently revealed comments, I think we can assume that he was telling reassuring lies to avoid upsetting the economy.
Trump knows nothing about the economy of a society, only how a business can take money FROM society.
Notice that the author said “take money,” not “make money.” Methinks that choice of wording was quite deliberate.
Darcia F. Narvaez explores the human cost of what she refers to as “movement conservatism,” which is defined in detail in the opening of her article. She cites several specific examples from the research of Jonathan Metzl (citation at the link), arguing that the policies are rooted in racism, but ultimately rebounded to harm the white voters who supported them.
Follow the link for very specific examples, and, as you do, remember the words of Lyndon Johnson.
(Broken link fixed.)
Werner Herzog’s Bear is stretched to the limit.
And I’m sure he’s not much of an exception.
At Psychology Today Blogs, Vinita Mehta points out that the conventional wisdom as to the roots of Donald Trump’s support are not born out by facts (emphasis added).
It turns out that Trump supporters actually weren’t affected by foreign trade or immigration to a greater degree than his non-supporters. And, on average, they didn’t suffer from lower incomes and unemployment more than anyone else. Also remember that in 2016, overall economic conditions were improving.
So, why did Trump amass a larger following than expected?
She goes on to cite an article by Professor Thomas Pettigrew and to explore the five factors that he identifies as characterizing Trump’s core supporters, which include
1. Social Dominance Orientation
3. Relative (i. e., perceived–ed.) deprivation
5. Intergroup contact (or lack thereof–ed.)
I commend the entire piece to your attention.
David and Richard Wolff discuss the economic reasons why capitalism failed to protect the public from the pandemic.
I paid more in federal income tax last year than Donald Trump paid in the last decade.
Hell, I paid more in state income tax last year–oh, never mind.
Of course, the cultists will be in no way discombobulated, because Dear Leader is always right and never wrong.
Thom and Dr. Richard Wolff discuss the economic underpinnings of racial and ethnic discrimination and police brutality.
Mike Ellerbrock points to a number for factors to explain what he dubs “the lopsided evolution of income, wealth, and power during the last four decades.” Follow the link for a detailed discussion of each one.
- Stakeholders vs Shareholders.
- Workers’ Wages.
- Workplace Justice.
- Corporate Welfare.
- Market Concentration.
- Civic Leadership.