Why your Internet connection is too slow | By: Steve Benen on Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 at 10:46 AM - PDT
In 2001, after the explosive growth of the Internet and online businesses in the 1990s, the United States had taken the lead online. In terms of percentage of the population with high-speed access, countries like Japan and Germany had half the penetration we did. France had less than a quarter.
Now, all three of those countries have passed us. We’re falling behind in providing high-speed access to the Internet, and just as importantly, our high-speed connections are much slower and more expensive than other countries.
...
And when the Bush administration put Michael Powell in charge of the F.C.C., the digital robber barons were basically set free to do whatever they liked. As a result, there’s little competition in U.S. broadband — if you’re lucky, you have a choice between the services offered by the local cable monopoly and the local phone monopoly. The price is high and the service is poor, but there’s nowhere else to go.
Effective market competition and effective regulation produced quality results. Then Bush took office.
Friday, July 27, 2007
"Refiners can neglect infrastructure, make too little gasoline, suppress inventories and still haul in record profits,"
Exxon Mobil Rakes in $10 Billion | Nationwide Average Price Falls to $2.94 | By Joe Benton | ConsumerAffairs.Com | July 26, 2007
The worlds largest publicly-owned oil company reported over $10 billion in quarterly profits as higher gasoline prices helped offset a decline in revenue from natural gas.
...
Exxon contends that gasoline production in the U.S. is at an all-time high and that the high gasoline prices are the result of high crude prices and record U.S. demand.
Consumer groups complain that the oil industry is deliberately restricting supply of gasoline to drive pump prices up and a consumer watchdog charged that the oil companies are manipulating prices.
"Refiners can neglect infrastructure, make too little gasoline, suppress inventories and still haul in record profits," said Judy Dugan, research director at OilWatchdog.
"Refiners restricted gasoline inventories instead of boosting them over the winter and early spring, then planned long maintenance shutdowns," she said.
"Even this spring's unplanned refinery outages were not just acts of fate. They are directly related to lack of modernization and quality of maintenance on aging equipment." ...
The worlds largest publicly-owned oil company reported over $10 billion in quarterly profits as higher gasoline prices helped offset a decline in revenue from natural gas.
...
Exxon contends that gasoline production in the U.S. is at an all-time high and that the high gasoline prices are the result of high crude prices and record U.S. demand.
Consumer groups complain that the oil industry is deliberately restricting supply of gasoline to drive pump prices up and a consumer watchdog charged that the oil companies are manipulating prices.
"Refiners can neglect infrastructure, make too little gasoline, suppress inventories and still haul in record profits," said Judy Dugan, research director at OilWatchdog.
"Refiners restricted gasoline inventories instead of boosting them over the winter and early spring, then planned long maintenance shutdowns," she said.
"Even this spring's unplanned refinery outages were not just acts of fate. They are directly related to lack of modernization and quality of maintenance on aging equipment." ...
legislation aims to stop an accounting technique known as ``earnings stripping'' to avoid US taxes ... Bush threatens veto ...
Democrats Propose Bill to Curb Companies' Tax Havens (Update1)| By Ryan J. Donmoyer and Alison Fitzgerald
July 25 (Bloomberg) -- House Democrats proposed legislation that would make it harder for overseas companies to use tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. profits, drawing immediate opposition from the Bush administration.
...
``This bill requires international tax dodgers to pay their fair share,'' said Doggett, a long-time critic of U.S. companies that establish nameplate offices in countries such as Bermuda to reduce their tax burden while continuing to operate in the U.S.
Doggett's proposal drags foreign companies with extensive operations in the U.S., such as Bermuda-based Accenture Ltd., Tyco International Ltd. and Transocean Inc. into a broader battle between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the Republican White House over a $300 billion farm bill that will be considered by the House of Representatives later this week.
His legislation aims to stop an accounting technique known as ``earnings stripping'' in which foreign companies make high- interest loans to their American subsidiaries, who are able to deduct interest. Debt service payments are routed to another unit of the corporation that is based in countries with no corporate tax rate, such as the Cayman Islands. A similar technique is used to route royalty payments for the use of intellectual property such as trademarks and copyrights.
...
Kenneth Dam, then-deputy Treasury secretary, told an audience of tax professionals on Nov. 14, 2002, that ``opportunities for earnings stripping through artificial deductions and income shifting'' may ``exploit the network of tax treaties the United States maintains around the world.''
North Dakota Representative Earl Pomeroy, a Democrat, said the Treasury Department identified the technique as a tax abuse five years ago. ``This `tax abuse' for foreign corporations became a `tax increase' as they scurried for reasons to kill the House farm bill,'' Pomeroy said in a statement. ...
...
Similar proposals have enjoyed Republican backing in the past. Former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, a California Republican, in 2003 supported legislation to stop companies from stripping earnings from their U.S. subsidiaries.
July 25 (Bloomberg) -- House Democrats proposed legislation that would make it harder for overseas companies to use tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. profits, drawing immediate opposition from the Bush administration.
...
``This bill requires international tax dodgers to pay their fair share,'' said Doggett, a long-time critic of U.S. companies that establish nameplate offices in countries such as Bermuda to reduce their tax burden while continuing to operate in the U.S.
Doggett's proposal drags foreign companies with extensive operations in the U.S., such as Bermuda-based Accenture Ltd., Tyco International Ltd. and Transocean Inc. into a broader battle between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the Republican White House over a $300 billion farm bill that will be considered by the House of Representatives later this week.
His legislation aims to stop an accounting technique known as ``earnings stripping'' in which foreign companies make high- interest loans to their American subsidiaries, who are able to deduct interest. Debt service payments are routed to another unit of the corporation that is based in countries with no corporate tax rate, such as the Cayman Islands. A similar technique is used to route royalty payments for the use of intellectual property such as trademarks and copyrights.
...
Kenneth Dam, then-deputy Treasury secretary, told an audience of tax professionals on Nov. 14, 2002, that ``opportunities for earnings stripping through artificial deductions and income shifting'' may ``exploit the network of tax treaties the United States maintains around the world.''
North Dakota Representative Earl Pomeroy, a Democrat, said the Treasury Department identified the technique as a tax abuse five years ago. ``This `tax abuse' for foreign corporations became a `tax increase' as they scurried for reasons to kill the House farm bill,'' Pomeroy said in a statement. ...
...
Similar proposals have enjoyed Republican backing in the past. Former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, a California Republican, in 2003 supported legislation to stop companies from stripping earnings from their U.S. subsidiaries.
economic wreckage she sensed was coming ... she went back to college ... it didn't help .. food boxes 28,000 .. 250,000 going to 300,000
As wages fall, workers slip from middle class | By Tim Jones | Tribune national correspondent | July 25, 2007
Amid the demise of manufacturing jobs, the birthright of a nice home, college for the kids is under siege
... which is why she went back to college to pick up a degree that would insulate her from the economic wreckage she sensed was coming.
It didn't help. When the end neared for her auto parts assembly plant last year, Seaton, 52, walked off the loading dock, armed with a bachelor's degree. In January she began work as a mental health caseworker for a third less money.
Seaton is paid $9.45 an hour, less than what her 21-year-old daughter earns as a truck dispatcher.
...
... thousands of manufacturing workers who lost their jobs are absorbing the bitter reality that their new jobs almost always pay substantially less than their old ones did.
Dayton's poverty rates are soaring, and the middle-class birthright of a comfortable home, college for the kids and maybe a cabin by the lake is under siege. Mortgage foreclosure rates are among Ohio's highest. A Dayton food pantry operated by the AFL-CIO handed out 28,000 boxes of food in 2005. Last year that number exploded to almost 250,000, and labor officials expect the figure to top 300,000 this year.
"This is not a union issue, it's a community issue," said Kristie McElfresh, vice president and director of AFL-CIO Community Services of Greater Dayton. "The gap between the haves and have-nots is huge, and there's nobody in the middle."
...
Dayton is among dozens of cities, big and small, where wages have slipped or stagnated while poverty rates have jumped. A common remark heard from industrial workers around the Midwest is echoed by 33-year-old laborer Ken Fitzwater, who expects to lose his $30-an-hour job at a Dayton Delphi plant later this year.
...
Amid the demise of manufacturing jobs, the birthright of a nice home, college for the kids is under siege
... which is why she went back to college to pick up a degree that would insulate her from the economic wreckage she sensed was coming.
It didn't help. When the end neared for her auto parts assembly plant last year, Seaton, 52, walked off the loading dock, armed with a bachelor's degree. In January she began work as a mental health caseworker for a third less money.
Seaton is paid $9.45 an hour, less than what her 21-year-old daughter earns as a truck dispatcher.
...
... thousands of manufacturing workers who lost their jobs are absorbing the bitter reality that their new jobs almost always pay substantially less than their old ones did.
Dayton's poverty rates are soaring, and the middle-class birthright of a comfortable home, college for the kids and maybe a cabin by the lake is under siege. Mortgage foreclosure rates are among Ohio's highest. A Dayton food pantry operated by the AFL-CIO handed out 28,000 boxes of food in 2005. Last year that number exploded to almost 250,000, and labor officials expect the figure to top 300,000 this year.
"This is not a union issue, it's a community issue," said Kristie McElfresh, vice president and director of AFL-CIO Community Services of Greater Dayton. "The gap between the haves and have-nots is huge, and there's nobody in the middle."
...
Dayton is among dozens of cities, big and small, where wages have slipped or stagnated while poverty rates have jumped. A common remark heard from industrial workers around the Midwest is echoed by 33-year-old laborer Ken Fitzwater, who expects to lose his $30-an-hour job at a Dayton Delphi plant later this year.
...
Found superior American [social, job] mobility to be—a myth ... stingy leave policies ... quarter get no vacation, sick pay ...
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 by TruthDig.com | While Europeans Holiday, Americans Toil | by Marie Cocco
If you’re reading this while on vacation, great for you. If you’re reading this at work, having just finished a vacation or a five-day weekend cobbled together around last week’s celebration of Independence Day, I hope the time off was as spectacular as the fireworks.
If you won’t get another day off work until December’s holiday season, you’re not alone. Americans and vacations just don’t mix.
This may surprise those who have just spent hours stranded at airports or idling in a hot line for a ride at an amusement park. But a quarter of American workers get no paid vacation or paid holidays. And on average, those private-sector workers who do get paid time off are granted only nine vacation days and six paid holidays each year, according to government statistics analyzed by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
The liberal-leaning think tank analyzed paid vacation and holiday leave policies among the U.S. and nations with comparably developed economies—the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The predictable portrait is one of the United States as a nation of workaholics—a syndrome related less to the archetype of a striving executive than it is linked to government policy.
In the rest of the industrialized world, a month or more of paid vacation is typical, and often required. Many Americans know that. And there are can-you-top-this supplements to this surfeit of paid time off. Such as: In Austria, workers who labor at “heavy night work” get two or three extra days off. Also in Austria—as well as in Sweden and New Zealand—workers are actually paid at a higher rate when they’re on vacation than when they’re at work.
In France, workers get extra paid time off if they take some of their vacation days outside of the summer season. In Norway, those 60 and older get extra time off. And of course, your vacation could be ruined if you get sick while you’re away. So Sweden guarantees that if a worker becomes sick while on leave, the days of the illness don’t count against vacation time.
Stingy leave policies in the United States go hand and hand with weekly work hours that exceed those in many industrialized countries. And they parallel skimpy sick leave and family leave policies that give millions of Americans no effective safety net when illness or emergencies strike. Nearly half of private-sector workers—57 million people—have no paid sick days, according to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a chief sponsor of a measure to require at least some sick days for employees who work more than 30 hours per week. The problem is particularly acute for low-wage workers, more than three-fourths of whom get no paid leave when they are ill.
In theory, all this hard work is supposed to spark a more robust economy that is, in turn, an engine of greater upward mobility than what is found in the supposedly coddled precincts of, say, the European Union. But lately, it hasn’t. An ongoing, bipartisan study of intergenerational economic mobility conducted jointly by conservative and liberal-leaning researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts has found the myth of superior American mobility to be—a myth. ...
If you’re reading this while on vacation, great for you. If you’re reading this at work, having just finished a vacation or a five-day weekend cobbled together around last week’s celebration of Independence Day, I hope the time off was as spectacular as the fireworks.
If you won’t get another day off work until December’s holiday season, you’re not alone. Americans and vacations just don’t mix.
This may surprise those who have just spent hours stranded at airports or idling in a hot line for a ride at an amusement park. But a quarter of American workers get no paid vacation or paid holidays. And on average, those private-sector workers who do get paid time off are granted only nine vacation days and six paid holidays each year, according to government statistics analyzed by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
The liberal-leaning think tank analyzed paid vacation and holiday leave policies among the U.S. and nations with comparably developed economies—the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The predictable portrait is one of the United States as a nation of workaholics—a syndrome related less to the archetype of a striving executive than it is linked to government policy.
In the rest of the industrialized world, a month or more of paid vacation is typical, and often required. Many Americans know that. And there are can-you-top-this supplements to this surfeit of paid time off. Such as: In Austria, workers who labor at “heavy night work” get two or three extra days off. Also in Austria—as well as in Sweden and New Zealand—workers are actually paid at a higher rate when they’re on vacation than when they’re at work.
In France, workers get extra paid time off if they take some of their vacation days outside of the summer season. In Norway, those 60 and older get extra time off. And of course, your vacation could be ruined if you get sick while you’re away. So Sweden guarantees that if a worker becomes sick while on leave, the days of the illness don’t count against vacation time.
Stingy leave policies in the United States go hand and hand with weekly work hours that exceed those in many industrialized countries. And they parallel skimpy sick leave and family leave policies that give millions of Americans no effective safety net when illness or emergencies strike. Nearly half of private-sector workers—57 million people—have no paid sick days, according to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a chief sponsor of a measure to require at least some sick days for employees who work more than 30 hours per week. The problem is particularly acute for low-wage workers, more than three-fourths of whom get no paid leave when they are ill.
In theory, all this hard work is supposed to spark a more robust economy that is, in turn, an engine of greater upward mobility than what is found in the supposedly coddled precincts of, say, the European Union. But lately, it hasn’t. An ongoing, bipartisan study of intergenerational economic mobility conducted jointly by conservative and liberal-leaning researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts has found the myth of superior American mobility to be—a myth. ...
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
America's new faith-based guns-and-butter policy is hurting both guns and butter ... "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." [!!!??]
AUL B. FARRELL | Goldman Sachs guru warns of war-debt failure | By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch | Last Update: 7:02 PM ET Jul 23, 2007
Is America becoming a global credit risk? How to get back on track
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Subprimes downgraded. Will Moody's downgrade America's debt next? Actually, that's already happening; our credit rating is collapsing with the dollar.
Foreign banks are dumping dollar reserves, while we gorge on cheap toys and bad pet food. Actually, our biggest "terrorist" threat is internal: Distorted values are downgrading our nation's "creditworthiness." We're like out-of-control kids with stolen credit cards, spending our future with no plans to repay.
...
Conclusion: "One central, constant theme emerges: sound national finances have proved to be indispensable to the country's military strength" and long-term national security
...
America's new faith-based guns-and-butter policy is hurting both guns and butter. The war is costing us $12 billion a month. Hormats examined the Congressional Budget Office's projections for domestic costs: "In 2006, spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the federal debt amounted to just under 60% of government revenues" and "if they continue on their current path, they will account for two-thirds by 2015."
* Social security from $550 billion to $960 billion
* Medicare from $372 billion to over $900 billion
* Medicaid from $181 billion to $390 billion
Worse yet, these commitments will continue skyrocketing in later decades. The CBO projects the federal debt rising from 40% of GDP to 100% in the next 25 years: "Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security."
...
In my opinion, the turning point occurred in late 2002. Remember, the Afghan War was hot. America was in recession and a bear market. The surpluses of the 1990s rapidly disappeared. Corporate scandals were damaging our global standing. Washington was pushing a second round of tax cuts. And the Iraq invasion was imminent.
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, true to Hamiltonian principles, warned the White House of a coming fiscal crisis. The vice president retorted: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." (Hormats tells me Reagan never said that.) Soon after, Cheney "fired" O'Neill ... and Hamilton's principles of sound war financing were dead.
Unfortunately, Washington's radical new faith-based financing is sabotaging national security. America's unsustainable deficits are making us extremely vulnerable to terrorists whose goal is to "attack the United States, perhaps with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons capable of killing enormous numbers of people and seriously disrupting the American economy," targeting a "major port or transportation center."
Hormats says America is now "relying on faith over experience, hoping that sustained growth will erase deficits and that the ballooning costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be manageable in the coming decades without difficult reforms."
Is America becoming a global credit risk? How to get back on track
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Subprimes downgraded. Will Moody's downgrade America's debt next? Actually, that's already happening; our credit rating is collapsing with the dollar.
Foreign banks are dumping dollar reserves, while we gorge on cheap toys and bad pet food. Actually, our biggest "terrorist" threat is internal: Distorted values are downgrading our nation's "creditworthiness." We're like out-of-control kids with stolen credit cards, spending our future with no plans to repay.
...
Conclusion: "One central, constant theme emerges: sound national finances have proved to be indispensable to the country's military strength" and long-term national security
...
America's new faith-based guns-and-butter policy is hurting both guns and butter. The war is costing us $12 billion a month. Hormats examined the Congressional Budget Office's projections for domestic costs: "In 2006, spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the federal debt amounted to just under 60% of government revenues" and "if they continue on their current path, they will account for two-thirds by 2015."
* Social security from $550 billion to $960 billion
* Medicare from $372 billion to over $900 billion
* Medicaid from $181 billion to $390 billion
Worse yet, these commitments will continue skyrocketing in later decades. The CBO projects the federal debt rising from 40% of GDP to 100% in the next 25 years: "Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security."
...
In my opinion, the turning point occurred in late 2002. Remember, the Afghan War was hot. America was in recession and a bear market. The surpluses of the 1990s rapidly disappeared. Corporate scandals were damaging our global standing. Washington was pushing a second round of tax cuts. And the Iraq invasion was imminent.
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, true to Hamiltonian principles, warned the White House of a coming fiscal crisis. The vice president retorted: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." (Hormats tells me Reagan never said that.) Soon after, Cheney "fired" O'Neill ... and Hamilton's principles of sound war financing were dead.
Unfortunately, Washington's radical new faith-based financing is sabotaging national security. America's unsustainable deficits are making us extremely vulnerable to terrorists whose goal is to "attack the United States, perhaps with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons capable of killing enormous numbers of people and seriously disrupting the American economy," targeting a "major port or transportation center."
Hormats says America is now "relying on faith over experience, hoping that sustained growth will erase deficits and that the ballooning costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be manageable in the coming decades without difficult reforms."
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Yet one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: market capitalism itself
Health Costs Screw Business, Too | he victim Sicko won't acknowledge. | By Timothy Noah | Posted Monday, July 2, 2007, at 2:01 AM ET
...
... Yet one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: market capitalism itself.
I refer not to health insurers, nor to health-maintenance organizations, nor to for-profit hospitals, but rather to businesses outside the health-care sector that are saddled with the growing cost of providing health insurance to their employees. This obligation puts American companies at a disadvantage with respect to foreign competitors whose governments provide health care. The most obvious victim, ironically, is a company Moore knows very well: General Motors. Because of health-care obligations, the automaker that Moore pilloried in his first film, Roger and Me, is fighting for its life.
...
It's tempting to demonize business for whittling away at health-care benefits, but over the past two decades the cost to business of providing those benefits has roughly doubled, to a great extent because health insurers and hospitals now employ vast bureaucratic armies to fight over medical bills. Health-care costs are now outrunning income gains by about 3 percentage points. This means that for the typical worker, raises are, for the foreseeable future, an artifact of the past. That's terrible news for labor, but it's terrible news for bosses, too, because it robs them of a necessary tool to get employees to perform good work.
...
...
... Yet one significant victim of America's market-based health-care system is left out: market capitalism itself.
I refer not to health insurers, nor to health-maintenance organizations, nor to for-profit hospitals, but rather to businesses outside the health-care sector that are saddled with the growing cost of providing health insurance to their employees. This obligation puts American companies at a disadvantage with respect to foreign competitors whose governments provide health care. The most obvious victim, ironically, is a company Moore knows very well: General Motors. Because of health-care obligations, the automaker that Moore pilloried in his first film, Roger and Me, is fighting for its life.
...
It's tempting to demonize business for whittling away at health-care benefits, but over the past two decades the cost to business of providing those benefits has roughly doubled, to a great extent because health insurers and hospitals now employ vast bureaucratic armies to fight over medical bills. Health-care costs are now outrunning income gains by about 3 percentage points. This means that for the typical worker, raises are, for the foreseeable future, an artifact of the past. That's terrible news for labor, but it's terrible news for bosses, too, because it robs them of a necessary tool to get employees to perform good work.
...
the destruction of the US economy, though far advanced, is still largely unknown ....
Goodbye to the city upon a hill and to its fabled economy | By Paul Craig Roberts
“We shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”
— John Winthrop
America is being destroyed. Many Americans are unaware, others are indifferent, and some intend it. The destruction is across the board: the political and constitutional system, the economy, social institutions including the family itself, citizenship, and the character and morality of the American people.
...
06/25/07 "ICH " -- -- Those who rely on the Internet for information are aware that the Bush regime has successfully assaulted the separation of powers and civil liberty. Both Bush and Cheney claim that they are not bound by laws that impinge on their freedom of action or that interfere with their ideas of the power of their offices. Bush has issued presidential directives that permit him to make himself a dictator by declaring a national emergency. Cheney asserts that his handling of secret documents is not subject to oversight or investigation or bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information.
The foundation of social organization — marriage, family, and parental control over children — is disintegrating.
Mass unassimilated and illegal immigration has destroyed the meaning of American citizenship and forced large numbers of Americans into unemployment. For example, Steve Camarota at the Center for Immigration Studies reported on June 20 that state employment data show that in the first six years of the 21st century 218,000 high school graduates in the state of Georgia have been employment- displaced by immigrants. [Employment Down Among Natives In Georgia] Moreover, wages have stagnated, putting the lie to the claim that there is a shortage of workers. If there were a labor shortage, wages would be bid up and rising.
...
A Google search will call up enough information to make the case for these points many times over. However, the destruction of the US economy, though far advanced, is still largely unknown. It is to this subject that we turn.
For a number of years Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services and I have documented from BLS nonfarm payroll jobs data that the US economy in the 21st century no longer creates net new jobs in tradable goods and services. In the 21st century, job growth in “the world’s only superpower” has a definite third world flavor. US job growth has been limited to domestic services that cannot be moved offshore, such as waitresses and bartenders and health and social services.
These are not jobs that comprise ladders of upward mobility. Income inequality is worsening, and education is no longer the answer.
The problem is that middle class jobs, both in manufacturing and in professional occupations such as engineering, are being offshored as corporations replace their American workforces with foreigners. I have called jobs offshoring “virtual immigration.”
The latest bombshell is that even those professional jobs that remain located in America are not safe. There is a vast industry of immigration law firms that enable American corporations to replace their American workers with foreigners brought in on work visas.
For years Americans have been told that work visas are only issued in cases where there are no Americans with the necessary skills to fill the jobs. Americans have been reassured that safeguards are in place to prevent US companies from using the work visas to replace their American employees with foreigners paid below the prevailing US wage. Now, thanks to a video placed on “YouTube” by a US law firm, Cohen & Grigsby, marketing its services, we now know that it is easy for US companies to legally evade the “safeguards” and to replace their American employees with lower paid foreigners. ...
...
Only a few economists, such as myself and Charles McMillion, noticed the inconsistency between alleged high rates of productivity and GDP growth on one hand and stagnant real median incomes and rising income inequality on the other. Somehow the US economy was having GDP and productivity growth that was not showing up in growth in the incomes of Americans.
Thanks to economist Susan N. Houseman and the March 22 issue of Business Week, we now know, as I reported in the print edition of CounterPunch (June 1-15, 2007) and online at VDARE.com and Online Journal, that much of the growth in US productivity and GDP was an illusion created by statistics that mistakenly attributed productivity gains achieved abroad to the US economy.
With the ladders of upward mobility for Americans dismantled by offshoring and work visas, with the very real problems in mortgage and housing markets, with the very real stress put on the US dollar’s reserve currency role by Bush’s trillion dollar war that is financed by foreigners, with the downward revisions in US GDP and productivity growth that are now mandatory, and with a variety of other problems that I haven’t the space to deal with, the fabled US economy is a thing of the past.
Just like America’s prestige. Just like the world’s goodwill toward America. Just like American liberty. ...
“We shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”
— John Winthrop
America is being destroyed. Many Americans are unaware, others are indifferent, and some intend it. The destruction is across the board: the political and constitutional system, the economy, social institutions including the family itself, citizenship, and the character and morality of the American people.
...
06/25/07 "ICH " -- -- Those who rely on the Internet for information are aware that the Bush regime has successfully assaulted the separation of powers and civil liberty. Both Bush and Cheney claim that they are not bound by laws that impinge on their freedom of action or that interfere with their ideas of the power of their offices. Bush has issued presidential directives that permit him to make himself a dictator by declaring a national emergency. Cheney asserts that his handling of secret documents is not subject to oversight or investigation or bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information.
The foundation of social organization — marriage, family, and parental control over children — is disintegrating.
Mass unassimilated and illegal immigration has destroyed the meaning of American citizenship and forced large numbers of Americans into unemployment. For example, Steve Camarota at the Center for Immigration Studies reported on June 20 that state employment data show that in the first six years of the 21st century 218,000 high school graduates in the state of Georgia have been employment- displaced by immigrants. [Employment Down Among Natives In Georgia] Moreover, wages have stagnated, putting the lie to the claim that there is a shortage of workers. If there were a labor shortage, wages would be bid up and rising.
...
A Google search will call up enough information to make the case for these points many times over. However, the destruction of the US economy, though far advanced, is still largely unknown. It is to this subject that we turn.
For a number of years Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services and I have documented from BLS nonfarm payroll jobs data that the US economy in the 21st century no longer creates net new jobs in tradable goods and services. In the 21st century, job growth in “the world’s only superpower” has a definite third world flavor. US job growth has been limited to domestic services that cannot be moved offshore, such as waitresses and bartenders and health and social services.
These are not jobs that comprise ladders of upward mobility. Income inequality is worsening, and education is no longer the answer.
The problem is that middle class jobs, both in manufacturing and in professional occupations such as engineering, are being offshored as corporations replace their American workforces with foreigners. I have called jobs offshoring “virtual immigration.”
The latest bombshell is that even those professional jobs that remain located in America are not safe. There is a vast industry of immigration law firms that enable American corporations to replace their American workers with foreigners brought in on work visas.
For years Americans have been told that work visas are only issued in cases where there are no Americans with the necessary skills to fill the jobs. Americans have been reassured that safeguards are in place to prevent US companies from using the work visas to replace their American employees with foreigners paid below the prevailing US wage. Now, thanks to a video placed on “YouTube” by a US law firm, Cohen & Grigsby, marketing its services, we now know that it is easy for US companies to legally evade the “safeguards” and to replace their American employees with lower paid foreigners. ...
...
Only a few economists, such as myself and Charles McMillion, noticed the inconsistency between alleged high rates of productivity and GDP growth on one hand and stagnant real median incomes and rising income inequality on the other. Somehow the US economy was having GDP and productivity growth that was not showing up in growth in the incomes of Americans.
Thanks to economist Susan N. Houseman and the March 22 issue of Business Week, we now know, as I reported in the print edition of CounterPunch (June 1-15, 2007) and online at VDARE.com and Online Journal, that much of the growth in US productivity and GDP was an illusion created by statistics that mistakenly attributed productivity gains achieved abroad to the US economy.
With the ladders of upward mobility for Americans dismantled by offshoring and work visas, with the very real problems in mortgage and housing markets, with the very real stress put on the US dollar’s reserve currency role by Bush’s trillion dollar war that is financed by foreigners, with the downward revisions in US GDP and productivity growth that are now mandatory, and with a variety of other problems that I haven’t the space to deal with, the fabled US economy is a thing of the past.
Just like America’s prestige. Just like the world’s goodwill toward America. Just like American liberty. ...
Monday, July 16, 2007
Buffett revealed his puzzlement ...only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate ... those who work for him ... pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes
Buffett talks tax reform with Sen. Clinton | By David Ellis, CNNMoney.com staff writer | June 27 2007: 12:22 AM EDT
Berkshire Hathaway chairman suggests greater taxes for private equity firm managers and super rich to presidential hopeful.
...
Speaking to several hundred supporters of the U.S. Senator from New York, Buffett revealed his puzzlement that he was taxed at a lower rate than many of the lesser-paid individuals working for his company.
Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.
To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation's wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates.
"I'm willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay," said Buffett. ...
Berkshire Hathaway chairman suggests greater taxes for private equity firm managers and super rich to presidential hopeful.
...
Speaking to several hundred supporters of the U.S. Senator from New York, Buffett revealed his puzzlement that he was taxed at a lower rate than many of the lesser-paid individuals working for his company.
Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.
To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation's wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates.
"I'm willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay," said Buffett. ...
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Only the combination of policies to address both innovation and income inequality can build a stronger and more durable economy.
Productive Dialogue vs. Name Calling Posted July 5, 2007 10:21 AM (EST)
...
Considering the economic performance of the past few years illustrates the challenges facing the U.S. economy and points the way for policy to intercede. Specifically, growth in this business cycle stayed below average and was carried by an unsustainable debt boom. Between March 2001 and March 2007, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.6 percent, compared to 3.3 percent in the past. This growth was based on an unsustainable increase in debt. Since March 2001, household debt relative to disposable income increased over four times faster than in the 1990s. Eventually families stopped borrowing to finance consumption, resulting in less growth.
A healthier path would have been income-based growth, but income growth has been weak by all accounts. For instance, from March 2001 to March 2007, real hourly wages grew by just 2.7 percent, real weekly wages only by 2.1 percent, and average monthly job growth was the lowest since the Great Depression. Moreover, the share of private sector workers with a pension dropped from 50.3 percent in 1995 to 45.0 percent in 2005 and the share of people with employer-provided health insurance fell from 63.6 percent to 59.5 percent at the same time.
With consumption fuelled by unsustainable debt growth, businesses held back on investment. Total investment peaked at 10.7 percent of GDP during the current business cycle, 1.9 percentage points lower than the last investment peak. Instead, the average share of before-tax profits devoted to share repurchases and dividend payouts was the largest of any business cycle.
If it hasn't already done so, this low level of investment may ultimately contribute to permanently slower productivity growth. Researchers have recently raised questions about the measured strength of productivity growth, with Susan Houseman stating that productivity growth inappropriately included input costs that have been offshored, and Dean Baker arguing that what matters for future living standards is the productivity growth that actually adds new value to the economy. This debate over the accurate measurement of productivity growth does not detract from the fact that productivity growth has rapidly declined to less than 2 percent in 2006.
...
Also, business investment requires sustainable consumption growth via stronger income gains. While increases in income inequality have been well documented, observers such as Jacob Hacker, Elizabeth Warren, and Jeff Madrick have also highlighted the growing inequality of opportunity that has resulted largely from increased household debt, slow income growth, and declining insurance coverage. For instance, the share of families that could sustain an economic emergency equal to three months' income gradually rose throughout the 1990s but fell sharply after 2000, so that by 2003 all gains of the 1990s had been erased. This likely contributed to the sense of financial uncertainty that is evident in polls and may leave fewer families willing to take risks, e.g. start a business or pursue more education. Policies that could help raise middle-class security and create new opportunities include more portable health and pension benefits, more equitably distributed incentives for personal saving, and more support for training in addition to a higher minimum wage, more opportunities to join unions, and more progressive taxes.
Only the combination of policies to address both innovation and income inequality can build a stronger and more durable economy. ..
...
Considering the economic performance of the past few years illustrates the challenges facing the U.S. economy and points the way for policy to intercede. Specifically, growth in this business cycle stayed below average and was carried by an unsustainable debt boom. Between March 2001 and March 2007, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.6 percent, compared to 3.3 percent in the past. This growth was based on an unsustainable increase in debt. Since March 2001, household debt relative to disposable income increased over four times faster than in the 1990s. Eventually families stopped borrowing to finance consumption, resulting in less growth.
A healthier path would have been income-based growth, but income growth has been weak by all accounts. For instance, from March 2001 to March 2007, real hourly wages grew by just 2.7 percent, real weekly wages only by 2.1 percent, and average monthly job growth was the lowest since the Great Depression. Moreover, the share of private sector workers with a pension dropped from 50.3 percent in 1995 to 45.0 percent in 2005 and the share of people with employer-provided health insurance fell from 63.6 percent to 59.5 percent at the same time.
With consumption fuelled by unsustainable debt growth, businesses held back on investment. Total investment peaked at 10.7 percent of GDP during the current business cycle, 1.9 percentage points lower than the last investment peak. Instead, the average share of before-tax profits devoted to share repurchases and dividend payouts was the largest of any business cycle.
If it hasn't already done so, this low level of investment may ultimately contribute to permanently slower productivity growth. Researchers have recently raised questions about the measured strength of productivity growth, with Susan Houseman stating that productivity growth inappropriately included input costs that have been offshored, and Dean Baker arguing that what matters for future living standards is the productivity growth that actually adds new value to the economy. This debate over the accurate measurement of productivity growth does not detract from the fact that productivity growth has rapidly declined to less than 2 percent in 2006.
...
Also, business investment requires sustainable consumption growth via stronger income gains. While increases in income inequality have been well documented, observers such as Jacob Hacker, Elizabeth Warren, and Jeff Madrick have also highlighted the growing inequality of opportunity that has resulted largely from increased household debt, slow income growth, and declining insurance coverage. For instance, the share of families that could sustain an economic emergency equal to three months' income gradually rose throughout the 1990s but fell sharply after 2000, so that by 2003 all gains of the 1990s had been erased. This likely contributed to the sense of financial uncertainty that is evident in polls and may leave fewer families willing to take risks, e.g. start a business or pursue more education. Policies that could help raise middle-class security and create new opportunities include more portable health and pension benefits, more equitably distributed incentives for personal saving, and more support for training in addition to a higher minimum wage, more opportunities to join unions, and more progressive taxes.
Only the combination of policies to address both innovation and income inequality can build a stronger and more durable economy. ..
link income inequality to many various social problems, like higher mortality rates, crime, welfare, substance abuse and educational problems
Steve's note: The following article describes two important studies (from Harvard and Berkeley) that impressively link income inequality to many various social problems, like higher mortality rates, crime, welfare, substance abuse and educational problems. It explains why the growing inequality of the Reagan Years, described in detail on this web site, played such a critical role in worsening our nation's social problems. An extremely important read!
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND HEALTH | By Peter Montague
...
What is not so obvious is that the health of the poor is harmed in proportion to the size of the gap between rich and poor. It isn't the absolute level of poverty that matters so much as the size of the gap between rich and poor. In other words, "...what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society," according to an editorial in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL April 20th.[5] Two recent studies of the U.S. indicate that this is so,[6,7] and they are not the first to make the case.[8,9]
The two recent studies, published in April in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, examine all 50 states within the U.S. Each study defines a measure of income inequality and compares it to various rates of disease and other social problems. Both the studies -- one from Harvard and one from University of California at Berkeley -- conclude that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chances that people will be sick and die young. It isn't the absolute level of wealth in a society that determines health; it is the size of the gap between rich and poor. Let's look at some of the details:
George Kaplan and his colleagues at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income received by the less well off 50% of households.[6] It ranged from about 17% in Louisiana and Mississippi to about 23% in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most EQUAL distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the most UNEQUAL distribution of income.
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and a greater percentage of people without medical insurance. Again, the gap between rich and poor was the best predictor, not the average income in the state.
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
The Harvard researchers used a slightly different measure of inequality, called the Robin Hood index.[10] The higher the Robin Hood index, the greater the inequality in the distribution of income. The researchers calculated the Robin Hood index for all 50 states and then examined its relationship to various measures of health and well being.
They found that the Robin Hood index correlated with the overall age-adjusted death rate. Each percentage point increase in the Robin Hood index was associated with an increase in total mortality of 21.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The Robin Hood index was also strongly associated with the infant mortality (death) rate; with deaths from heart disease; with deaths from cancer; and with deaths by homicide among both blacks and whites.
The Harvard team concludes that reducing inequality would bring important health benefits. For example, if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%.
These studies are important because they confirm work that has previously found a relationship between income inequality and health, using data of good quality from all 50 states.[11] Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth[12] has been increasing in the U.S. for about 20 years.[13,14,15,16] In 1977 the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured 16.8% of the nation's entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was capturing 18.9%. During the 4-year Clinton presidency the wealthiest 5% have increased their take of the total to over 21%, "an unprecedented rate of increase," according to the British ECONOMIST magazine.[17]
...
The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by extraterrestrial beings. It has been created by the policies of governments: taxation, training, investment in children and their education, modernization of businesses, transfer payments, minimum wages and health benefits, capital availability, support for green industries, encouragement of labor unions, attention to infrastructuire and technical assistance to entrepreneurs, among others. In the U.S., government policies of the past 20 years have promoted, encouraged and celebrated inequality. These are choices that we, as a society, have made. Now one half of our society is afraid of the other half, and the gap between us is expanding. Our health is not the only thing in danger. They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. ...
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND HEALTH | By Peter Montague
...
What is not so obvious is that the health of the poor is harmed in proportion to the size of the gap between rich and poor. It isn't the absolute level of poverty that matters so much as the size of the gap between rich and poor. In other words, "...what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society," according to an editorial in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL April 20th.[5] Two recent studies of the U.S. indicate that this is so,[6,7] and they are not the first to make the case.[8,9]
The two recent studies, published in April in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, examine all 50 states within the U.S. Each study defines a measure of income inequality and compares it to various rates of disease and other social problems. Both the studies -- one from Harvard and one from University of California at Berkeley -- conclude that the greater the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chances that people will be sick and die young. It isn't the absolute level of wealth in a society that determines health; it is the size of the gap between rich and poor. Let's look at some of the details:
George Kaplan and his colleagues at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income received by the less well off 50% of households.[6] It ranged from about 17% in Louisiana and Mississippi to about 23% in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most EQUAL distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the most UNEQUAL distribution of income.
This measure of income inequality was also tested against other social conditions besides health. States with greater inequality in the distribution of income also had higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of incarceration, a higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps, and a greater percentage of people without medical insurance. Again, the gap between rich and poor was the best predictor, not the average income in the state.
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
The Harvard researchers used a slightly different measure of inequality, called the Robin Hood index.[10] The higher the Robin Hood index, the greater the inequality in the distribution of income. The researchers calculated the Robin Hood index for all 50 states and then examined its relationship to various measures of health and well being.
They found that the Robin Hood index correlated with the overall age-adjusted death rate. Each percentage point increase in the Robin Hood index was associated with an increase in total mortality of 21.7 deaths per 100,000 population.
The Robin Hood index was also strongly associated with the infant mortality (death) rate; with deaths from heart disease; with deaths from cancer; and with deaths by homicide among both blacks and whites.
The Harvard team concludes that reducing inequality would bring important health benefits. For example, if the Robin Hood index were reduced from 30% to 25% (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25%.
These studies are important because they confirm work that has previously found a relationship between income inequality and health, using data of good quality from all 50 states.[11] Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth[12] has been increasing in the U.S. for about 20 years.[13,14,15,16] In 1977 the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured 16.8% of the nation's entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was capturing 18.9%. During the 4-year Clinton presidency the wealthiest 5% have increased their take of the total to over 21%, "an unprecedented rate of increase," according to the British ECONOMIST magazine.[17]
...
The growing gap between rich and poor has not been ordained by extraterrestrial beings. It has been created by the policies of governments: taxation, training, investment in children and their education, modernization of businesses, transfer payments, minimum wages and health benefits, capital availability, support for green industries, encouragement of labor unions, attention to infrastructuire and technical assistance to entrepreneurs, among others. In the U.S., government policies of the past 20 years have promoted, encouraged and celebrated inequality. These are choices that we, as a society, have made. Now one half of our society is afraid of the other half, and the gap between us is expanding. Our health is not the only thing in danger. They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. ...
States with greater inequality ... less education, less books, worse reading, low birth weight, violent crime, disabilities, higher medical care costs
Thursday, May 03, 2007 | Poverty Can Make You Get Sick and Die
Several studies prove it. The policies of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and the GOP, in general, have harmed Americans by attacking the public health, increasing death rates as a result.
...
What might have been common sense has been left to researchers to prove: poverty and poor health go hand in hand. Poverty means many things to a growing number of people but two factors are obvious: bad nutrition and unhealthy living conditions. Indeed, every step down the economic ladder worsens overall health.
There is yet another factor. The latest research leads to the conclusion that the mere fact of inequality increases mortality rates. This is an increase having nothing to do with nutrition or living conditions. It is a matter of inequality in and of itself.
Some of these conclusions may be found in two studies published by the British Medical Journal. The conclusion is impossible for conservatives and Social Darwinists to refute: The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society. There is the possibility, of course, that America's privileged elite, Bush's base, doesn't really care about the health of society. As they might say in London's East End: Oi'm awlroight, Jack!
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
- Peter Montague, Economic Inequality and Health
Several studies prove it. The policies of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and the GOP, in general, have harmed Americans by attacking the public health, increasing death rates as a result.
...
What might have been common sense has been left to researchers to prove: poverty and poor health go hand in hand. Poverty means many things to a growing number of people but two factors are obvious: bad nutrition and unhealthy living conditions. Indeed, every step down the economic ladder worsens overall health.
There is yet another factor. The latest research leads to the conclusion that the mere fact of inequality increases mortality rates. This is an increase having nothing to do with nutrition or living conditions. It is a matter of inequality in and of itself.
Some of these conclusions may be found in two studies published by the British Medical Journal. The conclusion is impossible for conservatives and Social Darwinists to refute: The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society. There is the possibility, of course, that America's privileged elite, Bush's base, doesn't really care about the health of society. As they might say in London's East End: Oi'm awlroight, Jack!
Interestingly, states with greater inequality of income distribution also spent less per person on education, had fewer books per person in the schools, and had poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills, and lower rates of completion of high school.
States with greater inequality of income also had a greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight; higher rates of homicide; higher rates of violent crime; a greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities; a higher proportion of the population using tobacco; and a higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Lastly, states with greater inequality of income had higher costs per-person for medical care, and higher costs per person for police protection.
- Peter Montague, Economic Inequality and Health
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)