|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 12:22 PM EST |
A very large part of the problem of money in politics is the unintended
consequence of legislative attempts to remove money from politics. Limits on
individual contributions to candidates and parties gave rise to PACs and
Super-PACs. Once people gave to political parties or to candidates directly
those original limits caused all sorts of mischief.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 10 2012 @ 03:58 AM EST |
The new and better jobs of tomorrow will be created not by any such
abstract powers but by very real people—such as our own more entrepreneurial
neighbors, cousins, and children—working in big corporations made subject to
competition and working in small ventures launched specifically to compete.
These entrepreneurs will be able to do so only after we have used our
antimonopoly laws to clear away the great private powers that now stand in their
way.
When we get serious about this task, we will find that an entire
political economic model lies ready for our use—the one shaped largely by the
populists in Congress and the Roosevelt administration during the second New
Deal.
Before we can make use of this ready-made system for distributing
power and opportunity, however, we will first have to break up the intellectual
monopoly that has been forged over so much political economic policy making in
Washington today.
Barry C. Lynn and Phillip Longman, Washington Monthly[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 10 2012 @ 12:46 PM EST |
Paul Krugman is troubled by this chart [.PDF -
5. Labor share of nonfarm business sector output] from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics and is looking for explanations:
It’s another way to illustrate
that corporations are producing record profits while unemployment is still high
and workers get an unprecedented small share of GDP growth. But it also shows
the story about the prospects for workers would have been seen as very different
during the Internet bubble. The long term trend would have looked flattish, and
the uptick in worker share would have been consistent with all the hype about
the Web ushering in a golden era for “freeters” and small businesses, that it
would allow for rapid identification of and contracting with small firms,
reducing the advantage of big, integrated players (yours truly thought that
theory was bunk, but people believed a lot of crazy stuff in those
years).
The chart is particularly useful in identifying that a shift took
place after the dot com era and has accelerated (or alternatively, that trend
started in the early 1990s, was reversed in the dot com era, and picked up
decisively afterwards).
Krugman suggests three
culprits...
Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
