Political Economy category archive

Thom takes a look at House Republicans’ plans to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Sam suggests the Fed thinks that the peons are getting too big for their breeches because said peons are not willing to sacrifice food and shelter for the greater good return to shareholders.

Methinks he has a point.

Aside:

The economic theory that Sam savages represents the poisonous economic theory of the Chicago School at its most poisonous–that somehow putting persons out of work promotes prosperity, a concept that I find oxymoronic in the extreme.

Prosperity for whom? Certainly not for those who end up in homeless camps because they cannot afford a place to live. Of course, one can’t have ugly homeless camps ruining the vista, so the next step is to bulldoze them and scatter their inhabitants.

Thereby we achieve the greater good return to shareholders.

The writer of a letter to the editor of The Roanoke Times points out that one thing is not like the other thing.

At the Portland Press-Herald, Judith Foster sums up the essence of “personal liberty” as defined by today’s Republican Party. A snippet; follow the link for the complete article.

So, back to personal liberty. What will “we the people” be at liberty to do? Work for the capitalists at whatever wage they choose, with as little in the way of benefits as possible.

Methinks that the writer of a letter to the editor of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer makes a good point.

Professor Richard Wolff suggests that the Fed’s actions to control inflation are misguided, ignore the influence of monopoly, and may be leading us down a road to stagflation. An excerpt from Professor Wolff’s comments:

Prices in this economy are set in this economy by employers. Less than one percent of the American people are employers. All their basic decisions . . . are to be governed by how that action impacts the bottom line. Why do what imflation? Because employers raise the prices.

Robert Reich calls out the con. A snippet:

Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke. The so-called “free market” has been distorted by huge campaign contributions from the ultra-rich. Don’t lionize the ultra-rich as superior “self-made” human beings who deserve their billions. They were lucky and had connections.

In reality, there’s no justification for today’s extraordinary concentration of wealth at the very top. It’s distorting our politics, rigging our markets, and granting unprecedented power to a handful of people.

Follow the link for his reasoning.

Forty years of Republicanomics have taken their toll.

Sam suggests that the Federal Reserve’s response to the current spike in inflation in the U. S. is based on economic theories that don’t apply in the current situation and may therefore make the situation worse.

A couple of days ago, I mentioned that I think the “Great Resignation” is more myth than movement. Now comes Laura Yuen, who argues at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that “Quiet Quitting” is much the same. Here’s a bit of what she says (emphasis added):

The problem with the concept of quiet quitting is that we’re all starting from different places. Burned-out perfectionists may choose to dial back their efforts from a 10 to a 7, and still manage to be the kind of high-performing colleagues or bosses who attract and inspire talent. The people who were never pulling their weight will adopt this term to slack off even more, making more messes for their teams, all under the guise of self-care.

The framing is also objectionable. Are setting professional boundaries and prioritizing your family, your relationships or your health really “quitting”? If you are performing all of your work duties, the very bullet points listed in your job description, how is that akin to not doing your job?

Read the rest. It is worth your while in these times when memes seem to obliterate evidence and tweets trump (you will pardon the expression) truth.