MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Capitalist economics is supposed to be a virtuous circle: companies generate profits which generate reinvestment, which generates employment, which boosts demand, which in turn generates higher profits. But what if profits don't generate reinvestment and companies simply hold onto the loot? What if "reinvestment" takes the form of financialization rather than real product development? What if boosting productivity means mechanization that leads to job losses, rather than job gains? What if the few job gains that do accrue, happen in countries with such depressed wages that middle-class workers in advanced economies (the ones who create the demand for high-cost, profitable products) simply cannot compete?
And what if, in order to disguise this phenomenon, policy makers attempted to bribe the public with free trade agreements that lowered the cost of imported electronics and plastic toys while quietly destroying domestic jobs? What if policy makers' next step in a failing wage environment was to boost asset prices like housing so that the currently middle-class homeowner could feel artificially wealthy, all while obliterating any prospect that the next generation could afford even a modest home in areas with strong job markets without help from their parents? What if the low-skill job market deteriorated to such an extent that young people needed an outrageously expensive college education or more--and only in the "right" fields--to attain any sort of job security, all while policymakers refused to lift a finger to help make that education more affordable? And what if policy makers made it easier for underwater Americans with failing wages to take on debt via credit cards, while doing nothing to prevent predatory lenders from taking advantage of them?
Comments
It shattered a long time ago. See Predator Nation by Charles Ferguson. Wall Street not only makes money whether stocks go up or down, Ferguson relates how they control the economics profession in the US. Testifying or writing papers criticizing them or their operations can literally end your career in economics because so many big shots in the field are on the take.
After Ferguson's movie 'Inside Job' on the 2008 meltdown, some universities like Columbia initiated the requirement for professors to list who they get money from when 'offf duty' from teaching, although the amounts paid are not listed.
Most other universities, like Harvard, have no such requirement.
These are the same economists who Congress calls in for testimony on whether more regulations, or raising taxes on Wall Street bonuses would be 'good' for the economy. Wall Street has everyone on payola, from government to academia. And the suckers on Main Street get the bill.
Columbia's Business School Dean, R. Glenn Hubbard, for instance lists 'other work' for:
Arcapita
Nomura Holdings America
Laurus Funds
Chart Venture Partners
Ripplewood Holdings
Consulting or Speaking Engagements at
Some Point During the Past Five Years:
U.S. Department of Justice
Airgas,
Alternative Investment Group,
American Century,
America’s Health Insurance Plans,
Apex Brasil,
Association for Corporate Growth,
Bank of America,
Bank of New York Mellon,
Barclays Services Corporation,
BGC,
BNP
Paribas,
Capital Research, Citigroup,
Compagnie Financiere Tradition,
Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank,
Fidelity, Franklin Resources,
Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs,
Intel, JP
Morgan Chase,
Microsoft,
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation,
NMS Group,
Oracle,
Pension Real Estate Association,
Real Estate Roundtable,
Reynolds American,
Royal Bank of Scotland,
Visa
Wells Fargo
_________________________________
Main Street ain't on the list.
by NCD on Fri, 08/02/2013 - 11:39pm
Nice essay.
He is right about the extreme solutions on offer and how difficult it is to even discuss possible alternatives.
A possible alternative I would like to see opened for discussion is how to turn what we should have learned from the financialization of our economy to broader public advantage. Things like sovereign wealth funds to generate government revenues instead of taxes. We should treat subsidies and venture capital grants to industry as equity or debt interest in those enterprises and should expect returns on them same as any private investor would; we should charge a miniscule transaction fee on every single economic transaction just like bankers do now; and as insurer of last resort, we really should be receiving rather than paying premiums.
These and many more possibilities are income-producing services the private sector uses to amass great wealth for a few. Why not rechannel some of it to the general welfare through GSEs with specific purposes (like TVA). An added advantage would be that they could be used to set industry benchmarks that the private sector would have to meet or exceed to compete and greatly reduce the need for private sector regulation.
The income from these and other goods and services should be designed to produce enough income (hopefully) to assure a basic living standard for every citizen.
People who need jobs need them because they have no other income. Change that and change the world. Not to worry, I expect people will still want and need work for a variety of reasons. Basic survival should not be one of them in a sane society.
Tired now.
by EmmaZahn on Sat, 08/03/2013 - 12:13pm