Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nothing in economics is as simple as looking at two variables. Everything is connected, and every action has a reaction, and unintended consequences. An economic house of cards was built to support Boomers' lifestyles and social agendas. It failed.

Those who set the social agendas were largely Silents, and those who bought houses using bad mortgages and used them as an ATM included many Xers.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Not my favorite choice - that would likely be somewhat in order: Mosler (MMT); Krugman; Romer; Yellen.

But in comparison to what? If the GOP suits were in charge it would be a Larry Kudlow; if the GOP baggers, it would be Rick Santelli. If that doesn't provide one a sense of "the difference" let alone giving you a panic attack, one would have to be totally lost in magic pony land or very high on some sort of animal tranquilizer.

Oh, and if you want to know more about Mosler, he was profiled in the NYT -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/bu...following.html

Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following

- which sort of takes the 'cute' way of soft trashing him because he is a (self-made) billionaire and designed race cars and catamarans. The reporter makes more serious charges about his losing big in a Russian hedge fund but fails to mention he wasn't there at the time of the lost. Also misquotes another big MMTer, Prof. Stephanie Kelton, that there isn't much MMT in economic literature. That prompted some attempts at correction -

http://softcurrencyeconomics.com/201...urnalist-lost/

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2...f-the-nyt.html

but it did create an effort to list some of the important academic papers on MMT -

http://alittleecon.wordpress.com/academic-mmt/

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - M. Gandhi

Spinning the web of deceit

The US-EU trade deal: don't buy the hype


In reality, this trade agreement is not about promoting prosperity for all, but powerful industry lobbies trying to dodge regulation

There has been a big push out of Washington to convince the public that an economic bonanza awaits us if we can just complete a trade deal with the European Union. This is complete nonsense, unless we define down bonanza to mean finding a quarter on the street.

The first point to recognize is that the promised pot of gold from this trade deal is illusory. Last week, the media held out the promise of an increase in US GDP of $122bn from the trade agreement. The facts that this referred to GDP in 2027, and that the $122bn would be in 2027 dollars, were absent from the discussion.

It also might have been worth mentioning that this $122bn was a best-case scenario in the study that was cited (pdf). This figure assumed that the trade agreement included all plausible reductions in tariff barriers.

The study also gave numbers for a deal that it described as "less ambitious" and, presumably, more realistic. Its projection of the increase in 2027 GDP in this scenario is 0.21% of GDP. That is roughly equal to a normal month's growth. Since it will take 14 years to achieve this gain, the boost to growth would be just 0.015 percentage points annually.

If that sounds too small to notice, you've got the picture. And just to be clear, this study was produced by an organization in the United Kingdom, the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR),* that is for the most part very supportive of the trade deal.

Conclusion:

The list of industry special interest groups that hope to gain from this deal could be extended at some length, but the point should be clear. This deal is first and foremost about providing powerful industry lobbies with an opportunity to circumvent the normal political process.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...th-europe-hype

- you and your 5th grader can both read.

And if you do, I promise that you both will know more about how our economy actually works than Obama, the entire Congress and nearly every economist except for a relatively few exceptions

The Smart Bunny's Guide to Debt, Deficit and Austerity

http://www.amazon.com/Bunnys-Deficit...s=arliss+bunny

"The Smart Bunny's Guide to Debt, Deficit and Austerity" assumes that you have a real life (meaning you aren't a wonk or a blogger) and that you have a half hour or less to figure out why all this stuff everyone is saying about debt, deficit and austerity is starting to smell like a five day-old fish. Author, Arliss Bunny, suspects that, unlike politicians and pundits, you might have actual brain activity. Melissa Irwin's hilarious illustrations may annoy Arliss but you will be entertained. "The Smart Bunny's Guide" is short, simple and truly brings the funny. What more could you ask from a book about economic policy? Seriously, how often has Paul Krugman made you laugh? Exactly. Read this book.

You can get it on your Kindle for free. Or for just $3 on any other device like your PC, laptop, table or cell phone.

Isn't it worth 3 bucks to be smarter that everyone else when it comes to economics?

Don't be a dumb bunny, get the book.



Read it and try to tell me I'm wrong.

In 1971 the process of decoupling the currency from any backing was completed. At that point the growth of the money supply was in the hands of a private group of people, who proceeded to use that control to begin an asset transfer program from the bottom of the economy (the poor and middle class) to themselves (the uber-elite).

When you have control of money printing and the credit markets, you can arrange situations that create net inflows to you and your peers from everyone else in the country- and eventually the world if things continue to consolidate. Inflation has been the primary vehicle of this national pillaging. Taxation is a close second.

The dominant meme of inflation-as-panacea has run its course. We can now see the end result; the nation is gutted and is about to topple over. This, along with so-called "progressive" taxation has utterly destroyed the middle class, reducing tens of millions to poverty.

One of the most disappointing lies that people believe is the notion that everyone should have parity, which translates into agitprop phrases like "reducing inequality". It doesn't seem to matter to the speakers of those words that the reduction is not merely a lessening of distance between perceived monetary strata, it is an overall reduction everywhere; everyone's lives are reduced.

But it's a brilliant bit of social engineering because it plays to one of the most basic primate impulses; greed and its resulting jealousy. Rather that people pursuing their own goals, they are taught that it is enough that others are prevented from pursuing theirs. People are taught that striving is bad because others will have less (zero sum thinking), and that wealth-removing measures such as unfair taxation are a good thing. And it works well together as propaganda because it pushes all those biological buttons in many people. It creates a self-affirming feedback loop in the individual that renders us into like-minded groups, and ensures long-term dominance of the meme as well as its usefulness for driving people into worrying over useless political agendas. (If anyone thinks that problems can be solved by politicians at this point, there is little hope for them)

People have been discussing whether the US is fascist or something else. If the country's government, institutions, and private business are completely under the control of a rather small group of people, what does it matter what you call it? Does it matter if the corporations take over the government, or if the government takes over the corporations?

The larger view is that a few seek to dominate many. The particular method is of no importance. The only question is how Babel falls, in time.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

In 1971 the process of decoupling the currency from any backing was completed. At that point the growth of the money supply was in the hands of a private group of people, who proceeded to use that control to begin an asset transfer program from the bottom of the economy (the poor and middle class) to themselves (the uber-elite).

When you have control of money printing and the credit markets, you can arrange situations that create net inflows to you and your peers from everyone else in the country- and eventually the world if things continue to consolidate. Inflation has been the primary vehicle of this national pillaging. Taxation is a close second.

The dominant meme of inflation-as-panacea has run its course. We can now see the end result; the nation is gutted and is about to topple over. This, along with so-called "progressive" taxation has utterly destroyed the middle class, reducing tens of millions to poverty.

One of the most disappointing lies that people believe is the notion that everyone should have parity, which translates into agitprop phrases like "reducing inequality". It doesn't seem to matter to the speakers of those words that the reduction is not merely a lessening of distance between perceived monetary strata, it is an overall reduction everywhere; everyone's lives are reduced.

But it's a brilliant bit of social engineering because it plays to one of the most basic primate impulses; greed and its resulting jealousy. Rather that people pursuing their own goals, they are taught that it is enough that others are prevented from pursuing theirs. People are taught that striving is bad because others will have less (zero sum thinking), and that wealth-removing measures such as unfair taxation are a good thing. And it works well together as propaganda because it pushes all those biological buttons in many people. It creates a self-affirming feedback loop in the individual that renders us into like-minded groups, and ensures long-term dominance of the meme as well as its usefulness for driving people into worrying over useless political agendas. (If anyone thinks that problems can be solved by politicians at this point, there is little hope for them)

People have been discussing whether the US is fascist or something else. If the country's government, institutions, and private business are completely under the control of a rather small group of people, what does it matter what you call it? Does it matter if the corporations take over the government, or if the government takes over the corporations?

The larger view is that a few seek to dominate many. The particular method is of no importance. The only question is how Babel falls, in time.

Some people's magic pony lands are more brutal than others -



- still utter horseshit, just brutal utter horseshit.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Some people's magic pony lands are more brutal than others -

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Very well said, but do you feel that the ongoing economic malaise will lead us to a time when many if not most of us outside the top quintile will be forced to find pleasure in the simple things in life which can make one happy and contented. Perhaps a return to prominence of the local church potluck supper? Do you feel we even can return to a simpler lifestyle in this uber-connected age?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Very well said, but do you feel that the ongoing economic malaise will lead us to a time when many if not most of us outside the top quintile will be forced to find pleasure in the simple things in life which can make one happy and contented. Perhaps a return to prominence of the local church potluck supper? Do you feel we even can return to a simpler lifestyle in this uber-connected age?

Maybe being forced to find pleasure in the simple things is a partial answer to many of our problems. Instead we make a god of over the top capitalism. In some ways, a simpler life, forced or chosen, would add more life to our living than all of the stuff we are told will make us happy.

Unfortunately, suffering will most likely have to be part of an awakening to the simpler life.

"We need to end the government cycle of feeding corporations--especially ones--that outsource, buy into political interests, auction off politicians, and tax dodge amongst a whole slew of corporate crimes that they have committed and have gotten away with. Yet, they still receive corporate welfare to fund their abuses, while the poor (real living people) are suffering almost daily."
....Occupy Wall Street

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

In 1971 the process of decoupling the currency from any backing was completed. At that point the growth of the money supply was in the hands of a private group of people, who proceeded to use that control to begin an asset transfer program from the bottom of the economy (the poor and middle class) to themselves (the uber-elite).

Welcome back from magic pony land. It's always good to hear your views.

I disagree though. Gold and silver have values that are set by markets and banks just as are federal reserve notes. No difference.

When you have control of money printing and the credit markets, you can arrange situations that create net inflows to you and your peers from everyone else in the country- and eventually the world if things continue to consolidate. Inflation has been the primary vehicle of this national pillaging. Taxation is a close second.

The pillagers are the huge corporations who have amassed wealth due to lowered taxation and permission to increase unemployment. Inflation has not been a problem since Reagan came in, and changed the policy to trickle-down economics.

The dominant meme of inflation-as-panacea has run its course. We can now see the end result; the nation is gutted and is about to topple over. This, along with so-called "progressive" taxation has utterly destroyed the middle class, reducing tens of millions to poverty.

I dunno; it seems with QE3 that inflation as panacea is just getting started! I don't know if it will work, but it might help by putting more money in the economy, and that means people will spend more and this will create jobs. That's the theory anyway, and with Republican control, it's the only theory that is allowed to operate. All the stimulus has been shut down. It was working; now the chief drag on the economy is public worker layoffs due to austerity.

One of the most disappointing lies that people believe is the notion that everyone should have parity, which translates into agitprop phrases like "reducing inequality". It doesn't seem to matter to the speakers of those words that the reduction is not merely a lessening of distance between perceived monetary strata, it is an overall reduction everywhere; everyone's lives are reduced.

Exaggeration is not logical. You don't need total parity in order to reduce inequality. We have a system that is far more unequal than even Americans want or think exists. More equality will mean people spend more money and this creates jobs.

But it's a brilliant bit of social engineering because it plays to one of the most basic primate impulses; greed and its resulting jealousy. Rather that people pursuing their own goals, they are taught that it is enough that others are prevented from pursuing theirs. People are taught that striving is bad because others will have less (zero sum thinking), and that wealth-removing measures such as unfair taxation are a good thing. And it works well together as propaganda because it pushes all those biological buttons in many people. It creates a self-affirming feedback loop in the individual that renders us into like-minded groups, and ensures long-term dominance of the meme as well as its usefulness for driving people into worrying over useless political agendas. (If anyone thinks that problems can be solved by politicians at this point, there is little hope for them)

If you make everyone poor except a few, the system falls. But that's the inevitable result of the libertarian philosophy you seem to believe in. Let wealth accumulate, you say, by people pursuing their goals. You also assume that the wealthy have earned it. The "striving" amounts to clever ways to expropriate and extort money from those who deserve it more, just because they are owners, financiers or CEOs. They don't deserve their salaries that are 300 times greater than the people who do their work. Not at all. Taxing some of it away is eminently fair, and it's the only way to keep the whole economy from becoming a banana republic. What other way is there?

And politicians are needed to make law and pass taxes. Good politicians are good people, and yes they solve problems. Many politicians today are corrupt in full or in part, but that is our fault, not theirs. If we elect politicians who support a money-dominated system, like GW Bush, then we fully deserve what we get-- corruption.

Taxes are not unfair, unless they are not progressive, or excessive. But taxes are not excessive just because they are taxes, as you believe. The most unfair tax is a flat tax. Taxes are necessary, and should be paid willfully and without complaint. And if you can find ways to reduce your bill legally, more power to you too.

People have been discussing whether the US is fascist or something else. If the country's government, institutions, and private business are completely under the control of a rather small group of people, what does it matter what you call it? Does it matter if the corporations take over the government, or if the government takes over the corporations?

The larger view is that a few seek to dominate many. The particular method is of no importance. The only question is how Babel falls, in time.

And the Babel we have today is entirely and only a few capitalists allowed to accumulate wealth-- and wealth is power. The only alternative is for the people to rise up and take the wealth back, and the proper way to do this is through taxation and other measures of a peoples' government rather than a corporate state. The many have to take back the state, and make it operate under fair laws and administration. Mob rule and theft will not work. It has to be done by law. As Frederick Douglas said, agitate, agitate, agitate.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Welcome back from magic pony land. It's always good to hear your views.

I disagree though. Gold and silver have values that are set by markets and banks just as are federal reserve notes. No difference.

The pillagers are the huge corporations who have amassed wealth due to lowered taxation and permission to increase unemployment. Inflation has not been a problem since Reagan came in, and changed the policy to trickle-down economics.

I dunno; it seems with QE3 that inflation as panacea is just getting started! I don't know if it will work, but it might help by putting more money in the economy, and that means people will spend more and this will create jobs. That's the theory anyway, and with Republican control, it's the only theory that is allowed to operate. All the stimulus has been shut down. It was working; now the chief drag on the economy is public worker layoffs due to austerity.

Exaggeration is not logical. You don't need total parity in order to reduce inequality. We have a system that is far more unequal than even Americans want or think exists. More equality will mean people spend more money and this creates jobs.

If you make everyone poor except a few, the system falls. But that's the inevitable result of the libertarian philosophy you seem to believe in. Let wealth accumulate, you say, by people pursuing their goals. You also assume that the wealthy have earned it. The "striving" amounts to clever ways to expropriate and extort money from those who deserve it more, just because they are owners, financiers or CEOs. They don't deserve their salaries that are 300 times greater than the people who do their work. Not at all. Taxing some of it away is eminently fair, and it's the only way to keep the whole economy from becoming a banana republic. What other way is there?

And politicians are needed to make law and pass taxes. Good politicians are good people, and yes they solve problems. Many politicians today are corrupt in full or in part, but that is our fault, not theirs. If we elect politicians who support a money-dominated system, like GW Bush, then we fully deserve what we get-- corruption.

Taxes are not unfair, unless they are not progressive, or excessive. But taxes are not excessive just because they are taxes, as you believe. The most unfair tax is a flat tax. Taxes are necessary, and should be paid willfully and without complaint. And if you can find ways to reduce your bill legally, more power to you too.

And the Babel we have today is entirely and only a few capitalists allowed to accumulate wealth-- and wealth is power. The only alternative is for the people to rise up and take the wealth back, and the proper way to do this is through taxation and other measures of a peoples' government rather than a corporate state. The many have to take back the state, and make it operate under fair laws and administration. Mob rule and theft will not work. It has to be done by law. As Frederick Douglas said, agitate, agitate, agitate.

Regarding your last paragraph, does it seem to you that so far the populace doesn't seem to have the will to do what needs to be done? That is my take on it. The Occupy movement may have been a start but it seemed to fizzle due to lack of a charismatic leader.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Regarding your last paragraph, does it seem to you that so far the populace doesn't seem to have the will to do what needs to be done? That is my take on it. The Occupy movement may have been a start but it seemed to fizzle due to lack of a charismatic leader.

As I see it most people, perhaps rightly, feel that they have too much to lose by going totally anti existing system.
Now will this still be true when we get late into the 4t is another matter.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

In 1971 the process of decoupling the currency from any backing was completed. At that point the growth of the money supply was in the hands of a private group of people, who proceeded to use that control to begin an asset transfer program from the bottom of the economy (the poor and middle class) to themselves (the uber-elite).

Another "gold is the only real money" person? A unit of currency is worth what one can buy with it divided by the quantity. The Chinese yuan is worth something because one can buy good stuff with it. The money of Laos is practically worthless because Laos has practically no industrial activity and few resources to sell.

When you have control of money printing and the credit markets, you can arrange situations that create net inflows to you and your peers from everyone else in the country- and eventually the world if things continue to consolidate. Inflation has been the primary vehicle of this national pillaging. Taxation is a close second.

Since when are such tangible, marketable commodities as oil, steel, wheat, copper, paper, silicon chips, farm tractors, and factory equipment not wealth? Gold per person worldwide has fallen sharply since 1900 due to population growth greatly outstripping gold production, yet humanity is more prosperous. Could that have something to do with miracles of productivity, public investment in schools to streets and sewers, innovations in technology, and technologies from automobiles a hundred years ago to biotechnology today?

Good monetary policy authenticates the economic potential of a country. Bad economic policy undercuts it (deflation) or overshoots it (inflation).

The dominant meme of inflation-as-panacea has run its course. We can now see the end result; the nation is gutted and is about to topple over. This, along with so-called "progressive" taxation has utterly destroyed the middle class, reducing tens of millions to poverty.

Gutted? You exaggerate. The big problem is the intensification of economic inequality because economic elites have been able to grab more. Tycoons and big landowners have always been with us, and they have always been rapacious. Add to that private-sector management which has willingly served elites by treating subordinates badly and driving small-scale competition into oblivion, getting concessions from workers both white collar and blue-collar through threats of job loss even while productivity increases -- and corrupt politicians in the recent past who have fostered speculative booms based upon predatory lending instead of investments in plant and equipment that create jobs... if anything is gutted it is the moral compass of our economic leadership who demand political leadership that submits to its will.

Shylock, Scrooge, George Babbitt, and Simon Legree may be the heroes of our economic elites, but running an economy with such 'heroes' as guidance is one way to ensure that whatever one gets from an economy so managed is tainted.

Progressive taxation? Those at the apex of economic power include government contractors... and people who have a stake in enforcing contracts, keeping shipping lanes open, repressing shoplifting, and protecting "American interests abroad" from radicals who would expropriate property or even cease enforcing peonage have more at stake. Taxes on the poor literally take food off the table and heat out of the furnace, so taxing the poor to hire thugs to mow down people who resist plutocracy is grossly unfair. (That is how things go in before the government becomes unable to pay the cops and soldiers who then turn on those who quit paying them yet demand complicity in brutal deeds against the people).

One of the most disappointing lies that people believe is the notion that everyone should have parity, which translates into agitprop phrases like "reducing inequality". It doesn't seem to matter to the speakers of those words that the reduction is not merely a lessening of distance between perceived monetary strata, it is an overall reduction everywhere; everyone's lives are reduced.

Is the intensification of inequality a good idea? When the rewards for toil diminish, productivity can be obtained only through brutality -- the lash, figuratively or literally. Maybe people can be hanged or beaten for failing to meet quotas or challenging the authority of management as in Nazi Germany.

I have found that one of the most consistent patterns of social history is that the willingness of a political leadership to force its ways onto the rest of the world is inversely related to the desirability of the economic and political order. The Britain that we know from the novels of Charles Dickens was expanding its colonial empire. The Britain of the Fab Four was divesting itself of colonies. The Soviet Union long had a logo offering the prospect of the hammer-and-sickle upon the entire world, and Nazi Germany had designs for the creation of a slave order from Ireland to the Urals (at the least). Switzerland, a very livable country, had none of that. Better a livable small country than an Evil Empire.

But it's a brilliant bit of social engineering because it plays to one of the most basic primate impulses; greed and its resulting jealousy. Rather that people pursuing their own goals, they are taught that it is enough that others are prevented from pursuing theirs. People are taught that striving is bad because others will have less (zero sum thinking), and that wealth-removing measures such as unfair taxation are a good thing. And it works well together as propaganda because it pushes all those biological buttons in many people. It creates a self-affirming feedback loop in the individual that renders us into like-minded groups, and ensures long-term dominance of the meme as well as its usefulness for driving people into worrying over useless political agendas. (If anyone thinks that problems can be solved by politicians at this point, there is little hope for them)

We have economic elites who believe in their own acquisitive desires that would gladly stifle those in the rest of us. If they could get away with it they would engineer an economic mess that compels people to sign peonage contracts -- maybe enforceable even to the extent of making the responsibilities of the children of peons hereditary. That is serfdom, if not slavery. The result would be a command society much like the manorial order of the middle ages in which those who own the assets demand as much toil as is physically possible while keeping people on the edge of starvation -- and enforcing their economic demands with torture and murder if starvation isn't efficient enough in dispatching people.

People have been discussing whether the US is fascist or something else. If the country's government, institutions, and private business are completely under the control of a rather small group of people, what does it matter what you call it? Does it matter if the corporations take over the government, or if the government takes over the corporations?

The larger view is that a few seek to dominate many. The particular method is of no importance. The only question is how Babel falls, in time.

The Roman Empire fell because the barbarians promised (and delivered) farmland to the peasants who had no stake in the Roman economic order that by then served only the economic elites -- in return for complicity in the elimination of the economic elite and the looting of the luxuries of the elites (and rape of aristocratic girls). People with no stake in the system are a fifth column for anyone who would topple the rotten order.

Wealth disparity

How we see economics isn't always as broad as it needs to be. Bernie gives us a larger view. IMHO, that is the attribute of a genuine representative of the people.

Richest 300 Persons on Earth Have More Money Than Poorest 3 Billion

As we repeatedly focus on wealth inequality in the United States (i.e.; just four hundred persons in the US have as much in assets and income as the bottom 50% of Americans), a video points out the even more extreme global wealth disparity

There are many reasons for this. Take for example institutional sources that contribute to this trend. The World Bank, for interest, oversees "loans" to developing nations. But by creating long-term indebtedness, these struggling counties end up owing at least $600 billion dollars in interest on loans whose principals have, in essence, already been paid off in actual dollars.


These usorious interest rates end up in the hands of the bankers and the shareholders of the financial institutions that are inter-related with the World Bank through the nations that govern it, particularly the United States which calls the shots. Criticisms of the World Bank focus on how it creates financial conditions that result in debt dependency of the nations that borrow from it, therfore negatively impacting the economic prospects of the vast majority of its residents.

Bottom line

The post-colonial era has actually accelerated economic injustice on a worldwide basis. What's done in the name of helping the world's poor (by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) is often really only a process of capturing markets too weak to fight back and indebting them to the masters of wealth without recourse. This has become abundantly clear in the World Bank's policies of "structural adjustment" for the developing world, which might be best phrased as "you pay us the interest on our loans and impose austerity on yourselves. It will be good for you."

Sound familiar?

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsro...8-decd3ce624dd

Originally Posted by Deb C

Maybe being forced to find pleasure in the simple things is a partial answer to many of our problems. Instead we make a god of over the top capitalism. In some ways, a simpler life, forced or chosen, would add more life to our living than all of the stuff we are told will make us happy.

Unfortunately, suffering will most likely have to be part of an awakening to the simpler life.

There is much I can say in response to this one, but for now it may suffice to say that doesn't it seem obvious that technology has become the modern-day golden calf? And isn't it why when all the babble of job losses and lack of full employment arises, the MSM refused to cite the impact of technology as cause and effect?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

There is much I can say in response to this one, but for now it may suffice to say that doesn't it seem obvious that technology has become the modern-day golden calf? And isn't it why when all the babble of job losses and lack of full employment arises, the MSM refused to cite the impact of technology as cause and effect?

While technology may be part of the problem, outsourcing, temp jobs and part time work, are also to blame. Many corporations will make a profit at any cost. But that cost is usually at the expense of the employee.

Prosperity gospel has, in part, been responsible for the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality. This is a far cry from the sermon on the mount.

The major exponents of the Prosperity Gospel, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, Benni Hin, Creflo Dollar and Eddie L. Long, all of whom – except for Osteen – have been investigated by the United States Senate Committee on Finance for improper use of donations, justify their unconventional beliefs through the creative interpretation of a few biblical passages:

John 10:10: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly"

Philippians 4:19: "My God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus"

Or the more New Age version

In recent times the movement has shed its old moniker and adopted the more fashionable name of “Positive Thinking” or “Laws of Attraction”; yet it has continued to produce best selling books such as “The Secret” by Rhonda Byrne, “Who Moved My Cheese?” by Spencer Johnson and “Harmonic Wealth” by James Arthur Ray (currently standing trial for having caused the death of 2 people at his sweat lodge retreats).

Then there's the *austerity* gospel

Anybody living in America in the past 15 years and under 40 years of age has probably proffered, or heard statements such as: “Believe and you can achieve”, “You are the maker of your reality”, “You have to stay positive”, “If you don't like your life, invent a new one!” and, of course, “Money happens”.

Some of those aphorisms are so outlandish it is hard to imagine how they could ever have become pearls of wisdom for so many, yet a closer look at the current state of the nation may yield the answer.

Political establishment

Moreover, a significant portion of the political establishment believes America to be the apex of human civilization, which makes them impervious to recognizing any of its structural weaknesses, and prone to blaming the downtrodden themselves for their own misfortune.

Furthermore, the clever media engineering of awe inspiring rags-to-riches stories - even when the evidence would point to the contrary - creates a sense of inadequacy and embarrassment in the general population which, unable to stand the pressure, seeks refuge in magical promises of future bliss through the manipulation of supernatural powers.

So as long as the population stays unaware that the system is rigged, they will believe in the hocus pocus spin. This isn't to say that believing in yourself and going the extra mile is always futile, but for the most part, hard work doesn't always produce riches for some. But what also needs to be taken into consideration, is that luck, inheritance and helping hands along the way, contribute to some finding prosperity.

Conclusion

Belief in the Prosperity Gospel - which is in essence a form of magical thinking - in conjunction with a paucity of opportunities, produces a class of “hopeful millionaires in permanent waiting” with the systematic tendency to careless spending, oversized debt, low education, high propensity for unreasonable risk taking, and diminished class mobility. All bolstered by the firm belief that it is just a matter of time before God will replenish their bank account.

The pastors and televeganlists who use their pulpits to preach this irresponsible message, corrupts Christian teachings, contribute to the enduring material deprivation of the working class and retard much needed social reforms.

“Ten Christians will say that God told them to buy a house.” says Fernando Garay, a pastor in Charlottesville, Virginia “In nine of the cases, it will go bad. The 10th one is the real Christian.” And the other nine? “For them, there’s always another house.”

Lets just hope God remembers them on Holy Saturday.

http://www.examiner.com/article/jerr...reat-recession

Detroit Bankruptcy:

​"Sen. Sanders said the city that once led the world in automobile manufacturing declined as a result of U.S. trade policies that sent American factory jobs overseas. “What you're seeing in Detroit is the result of horrendous trade policies that have gone on for decades which resulted in the shutdowns of tens of thousands of factories in America,” Sanders said Saturday on The Ed Show on MSNBC."

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Should Not Become Law

The answer is no, the TPP should not become law. As people become aware of the TPP, more are working actively to stop it. The TPP is much more than a trade agreement. It will give transnational corporations greater control over our food, Internet access, medicines and health care, and degrade the environment, regulation of banks and wages.
Indeed corporations will have absolute power over virtually every aspect of our lives. The agreement is being negotiated among a dozen Pacific Ocean countries but is open for other countries to join through a new "docking provision."
One major advantage we have over past trade legislation battles is that we now have vast experience with trade agreements and the evidence is stark – corporate trade agreements are bad for the economy, the environment and workers.

Recently released government trade data for 2012 show these agreements kill jobs and increase trade deficits. In countries where the US has a trade agreement, the trade deficit has grown by more than 440 percent, while in countries where there is no agreement, the deficit has declined by 7 percent.

The increased deficits from trade agreements resulted in the loss of nearly 1 million US jobs based on the administration’s net exports-to-jobs ratio. This was evident with NAFTA, which cost the US 692,000 jobs. Wages in poor countries are much lower than for US workers. So it will not be surprising to see massive US job losses as well as falling wages as Americans compete with slave-wage jobs around the world.

Trash the TPP: Why It's Time to Revolt Against the Worst "Trade Agreement" in History

Some of the most heinous parts of the TPP are provisions to set up rigged trade tribunals. In these tribunals, corporations can sue governments for the loss of “expected future profits.” This means that if a country passes an environmental or a health law that will cost the corporation money, the corporation can sue for the expected profits it stands to lose. The suit will come before a trade tribunal where a three-judge panel, made up mostly of corporate lawyers on temporary leave from their corporate jobs, will decide the case.

Bottom line

The TPP is a battleground for defining democracy in the 21st century and determining whether corporations will be our masters, or whether the people will rule. It is an epic conflict between people and transnational corporations, one the people can win, if we join together to stop the TPP

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/trash-....OqPzWcDN.dpuf

Originally Posted by herbal tee

As I see it most people, perhaps rightly, feel that they have too much to lose by going totally anti existing system.
Now will this still be true when we get late into the 4t is another matter.

This story gets very explicitly into what I was talking about. Would love comments from the folks here about this one.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-libert...e-afraid-speak

Regarding Seattleblue's long post, the most important mechanism for transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top by far has been forcing down real wages. Nothing else is even seriously in the running, including any of the credit, interest, inflation, and other factors that SB mentioned all put together.

Regarding discussion of the proposed trade agreements with the EU and the TPP: let's consider a best-case scenario as the economy globalizes. What should we strive for? Continued national atomizing without any international regulation of trade at all? But that allows international corporations to bypass national governments and render them impotent to regulate the economy, as none have the necessary jurisdiction.

Globalization will continue, and we will evolve international governing bodies to oversee it because that is a practical necessity. This cannot be resisted. What can perhaps be resisted is the undemocratic character of these governing bodies. Insisting that they be answerable to the people of the nations they connect rather than to the corporations is where we should direct our efforts.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Prosperity gospel has, in part, been responsible for the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality. This is a far cry from the sermon on the mount.




Or the more New Age version



Then there's the *austerity* gospel




Political establishment



So as long as the population stays unaware that the system is rigged, they will believe in the hocus pocus spin. This isn't to say that believing in yourself and going the extra mile is always futile, but for the most part, hard work doesn't always produce riches for some. But what also needs to be taken into consideration, is that luck, inheritance and helping hands along the way, contribute to some finding prosperity.

Conclusion




http://www.examiner.com/article/jerr...reat-recession

But haven't we by now reached the point in our development where, outside of at least the top quintile in wealth , we are convinced it is a rigged game and that there are very few true "winners"? Our economy is so frightfully uneven that the cause and effect seems to be that we lack the will to take on tasks that require persistent and continuous effort which should be tackled now yet are put off until seemingly the 12th of Never.

One problem is that we have a poor fix on what it means to be a "winner." Also, people have a poor grasp of probabilities and a poor understanding of how many people can be wealthy.

What do we want our economy to do? Do we want it to maximize the chance of becoming truly wealthy, so that the largest possible number of people achieve that distinction? Or do we want it to maximize the chance of rising out of the ranks of the working poor into the middle class? The reality is we can't do both of these at once, because they're contradictory and mutually exclusive.

The reason why is that people rise out of poverty and reach middle-class status, almost always, by finding a good job or successfully creating a small business: by working, in other words. But people become truly wealthy by investing well and seeing a good return on those investments.

Both high-wage jobs and successful small businesses cut into the returns on investments. High-wage jobs are a cost of business and reduce the profitability of the big corporations, and successful small businesses compete with the big corporations and reduce their market share. It's in the interests of the investor class to hold wages down and to maximize barriers to small business success. They use their influence over the government to do just that. As a result, opportunities to rise into the middle class have dropped over the past thirty years, while opportunities to become rich have expanded and there are more millionaires and billionaires than ever before. Even so, the rich still represent a tiny fraction of the population and always will. It's impossible for everyone to be rich, or even most people, or even as large a slice as one percent. ("The 1%" is a good political slogan but an exaggeration. The rich constitute a little over 1/2 of 1%.)

If we want to restore the middle class in this country, we will have to sacrifice the pipe dream of getting rich. Otherwise, we'll continue to vote against our real interests, like a gambler who doesn't understand that the odds will always favor the casino.