Let's talk economy and less politics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRB7pg_Td04


This video is an hour long, I implore everyone to watch and think about what this economist has to say, from beginning to end.

My hope is that the discussion fostered here doesn't get split into two factions and we can listen to some of the detailed solutions this guy says should happen to our educational, and political campaign finance system, and how they relate to the health of the overall economy.

Do you agree or disagree with his comments and suggestions?

He also tends to crack a lot of jokes throughout the speech, so you should be pretty entertained (well hopefully).

 

monkjr

I’m a supporter of Keynesianesque economics, so I agree with a lot of what he says (and the couple of digs he has at Keynesians do seem to stand up) and thing is that we have discussed many of these things here the problem is that those who oppose this thinking OPPOSE IT but don’t really have any counter arguments.

Let me bullet point for a moment

Stimulus – it’s needed to prime the pump and get people buying in the short term but the long term problem is a free market centric system.

Healthcare - When you make profit out of sickness you want people to be sick you don’t go for prevention.

Globalisation – we got economic globalisation we need social globalisation.

falling wages - Many have I’ve tried to explain over about the real term fall in middle and low incomes (and the ways in which they often coped with in by going into debt) and the huge rise in the wealth of a few again the problem is free market ideas

Debate – the problem seems to be that many Americans don’t know what it is they seem to get offended when someone criticises their ideas.
Money in Politics – I like many think the big problem is the influence and power of wealth in the American system, but many on the right seem to want to increase it.

Education – tax cuts effect public education badly.

National debt – the right wingers don’t care that the Roosevelt debt was paid.

Tobin Tax a great fan try - http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/ It would be a great idea for a global tax.

 

I agreed with like 99% of what he had to say. Plus, there were tons of jokes.

The only big thing he left out was how $100 oil effects growth. It knocks around 2% off GDP growth.

 

"Thank you for your outburst" lol

 

I watched a few minutes before shutting it off. Typical NWO blather. It doesn't address any of the root causes of the problems being faced. It only suggests false solutions to problems that were artificially created to move us in the direction of a one world currency.

Let's talk about the Federal Reserve system and the manipulation of interest rates and the printing of money from nothing. That would be a real economic discussion.

 

Yeah see, you didn't even follow directions.

I said for all those commenting in this thread to watch the WHOLE thing BEFORE stating an opinion and even if you disagree with his views, look at the detailed commentary he says about how money in American campaigns is ruining the political process.


You totally disrespect and misunderstand the point of why I made this thread and you obviously took things personally which is why you couldn't respectfully watch the whole thing and truly listen to it.

 

Monkjr

Rat is an example (if extreme one) of the problem that we seem to face in looking at problems in a rational and reasonable way.

Many like him don’t want to discuss things rationally because doing so would quickly reveal just how irrational their ideas are and how they are likely to make bad situations worse.

I agree the question is how to go about removing the influence of wealth from a system that was set up to that influence?

Reich suggests public funding and that’s a good start but here is an edited post of mine on the subject from another thread

Campaign funding reform
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=475504

No pacs or super pacs allowed – only limited but free advertising slots allowed (in papers and on TV) for any party receiving 5% of vote (to begin with X number of signatures), and only for one month before a election no electioneering allowed at any other times.

Campaign donation wouldn’t go directly to the candidates but to the party and then distributed equally.

Corporation, companies, businesses and unions could make political contributions but only after secretly balloting their employees/members as to which party contributions should go to - using a PR system that allows for proportional contributions.

[edit]
The problem there is that the supporters of wealth will probably begin screaming about it being an attack on the constitution.

 

I like the idea of a global minimum wage level but that brings up the issue of global governance and again the supporters of wealth like Rat will start screaming conspiracy and/or ‘less government not more’ and so on.

Solutions are available but wealth know that if implemented they would undermine its power and will do everything in its power to stop them.

 

monkjr

You may be interested in this

When everything has been globalised except our consent, corporations fill the void. In a system that governments have shown no interest in reforming, global power is often scarcely distinguishable from corporate power
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/03/10/all-give-and-no-take/

 

We agree in premise, but on the details of your solution, my solution is a bit different from yours.

I don't have time to get into it now but I think a constitutional amendment is needed to support the right to vote, and political equality for all American citizens in the USA.

There needs to be an official platform for candidates to advertise themselves and tell the public what they're about, and that advertisement needs to have inter-party competition, and multi-party competition.


I know that to combat gerrymandering, the state of California adopted something called the "Open primary", which allows multiple members of the same political party to run against each other.

This is good because it shows that even though individuals wear the same party label, what they support might be significantly different, and would allow in theory the best candidate to win, and stale incumbent politicians will have to work harder or be replaced by the new guy.

Incumbents, have statistically been known to get re-elected time after time, just because they're in the public's face more and because people go with what they know.

It also addresses the fallacy, that a party's label means the principles behind that party are static. They aren't they are dynamic and change with the times at a slow and detailed level that matter over time.

 

How about this as an amendment?

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

But, wait a minute, that's the 24th amendment of our Constitution. I have no idea what you mean by "political equality", and what about all American citizens outside of the USA?

Equality appears to have become the most misused word in the English language.

 

Indie

I have to remind people here that you have suggested in the past that wealth be given extra voting power so it could block the will of the majority.

It makes me wary of your supposed commitment to the democratic process.

 

Monkjr

Sorry but I’m not sure what you mean by this?

Paid for by whom and what about things like PAC’s or private political advertising? If there were no limits on those then you haven’t really reduced the influence wealth could have in the electoral process.

To me this is alright in a two party dominated system with a first past the post election system.

That’s because with only two parties there could be widely differing views because there is nowhere else to go (so for example you could have one political party that included in it socialist and right of centre capitalists).

I would aim for a multi party system under a proportional representative election system. The socialist would have their own party as would the right of centre capitalists.

 

Private funding for campaigns would have to stop, and would have to come from public taxation, probably on a graduated proportional tax, in the same way that income tax is levied currently in the USA.

But there can be no loopholes to reduce or escape this tax, and it should affect businesses as well.


Another method or solution entirely is that the Amendment in the Constitution to address campaign finance reform, would allow for a special kind of currency for the sole purpose of election campaigns, and are not tied to the rest of the economic dollar system, and can be more merit based in terms of politicians using critical thinking to draft better policies in response to the nation's problems.


Sites like youtube, can have official government channels where campaign ads would run.

Because let's be honest, those who don't vote, just ignore those TV campaign ads anyway. Those who are interested in voting will go seek information out.

 

Monkjr


So you’d ban non-political groups or individuals from advertising and remove political advertising from TV? What about the 1st amendment implications?

 

Which is why any change has to be an amendment to the Constitution, which will of course need to specifically specify in detailed accounts, how the 1st Amendment would be affected when it comes to campaign financing, and so specific language can be used in the law won't have negative affects on the rest of what the 1st Amendment already does for everybody else in other situations that aren't about politically donating $.

So like at a detailed level such an amendment would state:

1. Front lawn signs saying vote for ___ for ___ would be okay.

2. But spamming inaccurate or slanted TV campaign ads in swing state districts at certain hours of the day would be banned.

3. Political action groups and private corporate lobbyists and their donations must be public knowledge if allowed, and should also be capped at ____ amount of money per flesh and body human individual.


^So those kind of changes, none of this anonymous stuff that keeps things in shadow.

 

How is this discussion related to the economy?

 

You really don't see the connection between how money affects elections, and legislation which therefore affects the economy?

I thought you were smarter than this Individual you surprise me or are trying to spite me deliberately.

Finance laws and executive policy are influenced by who funded the politician now sitting on certain committees and the executive branch.

 

So you're saying the economy cannot be discussed without involving politics? If so, then WHY did you title this thread "Let's talk economy and less politics"?

Not trying to spite you at all, simply asking a question since YOU created the thread.

The centralization of power into the hands of the Federal government provides a single source from which the exercise of power can be purchased. If not by campaign contributions, other means will be put to use. Power, when concentrated is more easily abused. The 10th amendment was created with that in mind.

 

The title says less, not no or none.


Ultimately yes the intention of the thread was meant to discuss economic theories and the philosophy that went into each theory.


Politics is tied into that and we went off on a tangent about how money from corporations and private doners dominate policy or any 1-2 economic theories that drive policy at a given point in time.



We can come back to the main discussion now.

We got sidetracked because people wanted clarification on my former posts.