Posts tagged Economy
GOP demands that GOP policies not be adopted. Demand it!!
Aug 4th
This really has to start showing up in Democratic ads!
Base Details
Aug 2nd
The English poet Siegfried Sassoon writes ironically about the eagerness of old men to send young men and women to die in war. Sassoon (English, as I said, despite his German first name) was himself one of those young men, losing his life in the First World War. Hearing the eagerness of old men like McCain and Gingrich to fight yet another war simultaneously, one can see that not much has changed.
Republican seamanship
Aug 1st
In two recent interviews Alan Greenspan—yes! THAT Alan Greenspan!—has said on national television that the Republican plan to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest fraction of Americans would be “disastrous.”
Sam Stein wrote about it on Huffington-Post :
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being “disastrous” for the economy.
In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.
“They do not,” said Greenspan.
I couldn’t help thinking of a Stephen Crane poem (as I often do). My apologies for the alterations, Mr. Crane:
The founders of the nation
fashioned the ship of democracy carefully.
With the infinite skill of an All-Master
Made they the hull and the sails,
Held they the rudder
Ready for adjustment.
Erect stood they, scanning their work proudly.
Then — at fateful time — shameful civic discord arose,
And the founders turned, heeding.
Lo, the ship, at this opportunity, slipped slyly,
Making cunning noiseless travel down the ways.
So that, forever rudderless, it went upon the seas
Going ridiculous voyages,
Making quaint progress,
Turning as with serious purpose
Before stupid winds.
Meanwhile Republicans on the ship began to pass the opium pipe.
Heedless of the looming rocks,
they dreamed of free lunch, voodoo economics,
huffing and puffing and seeing our enemies cower.
And there were many among our enemies
Who laughed at this thing.
In respect to business, how small is “small”?
Jul 30th
I’ve written about this before, but I was stimulated to return to the topic by what Mike Pence said in defense of continuing the disastrous Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest fraction of our population:
I wrote the following as a comment to the blog entry where I found his remarks on Crooks and Liars:
The casualness with which the term “small business” is tossed around does everyone a grave disservice.
Let’s play George Lakoff’s little game. I say, “Quick! Don’t think of a small business!” In your mind’s eye you immediately see a small business. Now here’s where it get’s interesting: I ask you to describe what you’re seeing.
The great majority of persons would describe something like my friend Scott’s small deli, or the mom and pop optical shop where I get my glasses, or the hardware franchise with its 8-10 employees where I shop for nuts and bolts and shovels and such.
But compare that typical image to the U.S. government’s definitions of “small business.” Couple of examples. Depending on the field a “small business” might…
• have 1000 employees
• do $35.5 million in business per year
• have a net worth of $175 million
No conscientious person should ever use the term “small business” without qualifying what she or he means by it.
Republicans say: If you’re unemployed, it’s your fault!
Jul 20th
Good news! The Democrats finally got the unemployment bill passed.
Image and Identity #1
Jul 13th
A course I taught regularly the last few years of my career was titled “Image and Identity.” We explored ways that “entities” (persons, companies, organizations, etc.) use imagery of all types to try to lead perceivers to infer an image of what the “entity” is like. The effort might be honestly motivated, but either successful or not. It might also be dishonestly motivated, intended to deceive or at least manipulate. But, again, it might be either successful or not.
I enjoyed that exploration, and a majority of my students have told me they profited from it — officially, unofficially, often anonymously. I miss the exploration, and I miss the students. Can’t relive the past, but I can at least continue practicing the exploration. And I will! 
While buying some wine, my wife encountered a promotion for a newly-launched gin, including a free sip and a very attractive price. She sipped; she liked; and she purchased. As soon as she got home, she showed me the gin and told me how smooth it was. How could I resist taking a sip? And, of course, how could I resist analyzing the image this new gin was trying to project?
A reminder: “Straight” gin is essentially a re-distillation of neutral spirits, juniper berries, and, optionally, a selection of herbs. The flavor depends on the choice of berries and herbs, I assume. And the “smoothness” on the number and quality of the filterings. But having a good-tasting, smooth quality isn’t enough to make a gin successful. It also needs the proper “image.”
The name chosen for the product is New Amsterdam Gin. The bottle isn’t colored, like Bombay blue or Tanqueray green. It isn’t either round or square. Rather, it’s … Rats! What happened to that solid geometry I studied? Anyhow, imagine a steep four-sided pyramid, pointed end cut off, and turned upside down.
Traditionally gin was distilled in the Low Countries of Europe. Like the Netherlands and the city of Amsterdam. So this gin is called “Amsterdam.” But not just “Amsterdam,” as in the the Netherlands. “NEW Amsterdam,” as in the original name of New York City. Why? Well, proponents of various supposed origins for the Martini cocktail will never agree. But most theories focus on New York City — perhaps even the Knickerbocker Hotel (“Knickerbocker” being the name by which early New Yorkers were known. As in “New York Knicks,” you know?)
The “cocktail” was born during prohibition, and it’s associated with New York. Prohibition? New York? Art Deco/Moderne? Yeah. Major New York manifestations of Art Deco? The absolute gem is the Chrysler Building. The runner-up is the Empire State Building. Yeah, I know. The latter was for a long time the tallest building in the world, and movies have made its observation level the site for everything from everything from lovers’ trysts to the gateway to Olympus. So it’s tight-assed angularity has prevailed. So it goes.
So the gin is called “New Amsterdam.” The bottle mimics Art Deco design. The company’s website features the Empire State Building. As the French say, “Regard!”
The rich get richer. What a shock!
Jul 12th
Last survey I read about suggested that the vast majority of tea baggers fall in that middle fifth, the light blue line. So where do they focus their blame and resentment? On the top 1% or top fifth? No, of course not. They resent those who been worst off in this economy, right along.
Well, there are theories to explain this.
Has the time finally arrived?
Jul 8th
I tend to be pessimistic. Nevertheless, call the effort futile if you wish, but I’m gonna keep on trying. I hope others will join me.
“We create our own reality.”
Jul 8th
I purchased from Amazon the book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. (For the record, I spread my custom among many merchants, focusing on the little guys rather than the chains.) The subtitle speaks for itself: “How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.”
Amazon kept nagging, and finally I agreed to write a review. I was teased into doing so by a New Yorker cartoon, where a guy was boasting to friends about how five people had found his review helpful. So I thought it would be a lark. I gave the book 4 stars out of 5. It seriously impressed, but didn’t provide an orgasm.
Here’s the review:
In 2004 Ron Suskind quoted a White House aide as saying that guys like Suskind belong to “the reality-based community”; that is, persons who “believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of discernible reality.” But, the aide continued, “That’s not the way the world works anymore.… We create our own reality.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html)
That would make a dandy epigraph for this book.
Oreskes and Conway fully document the way a-political scientists and ingenuous progressives have trusted that “discernible reality” would speak for itself. Meanwhile, corporations and their conservative political allies have been undermining that “discernible reality” and creating their own substitute. Successfully.
In short, the corporations and movement conservatives have eaten the lunch of the overwhelming majority of scientists. Ironically, to steal the lunch they have used a select group of their own cat’s paw scientists. These are legitimate and in some cases highly accomplished scientists. So what’s the problem?
These select scientists have acted on the basis of political persuasion, personal grudges, and generous funding of their work by industry and politically financed front groups. (At the very least this is a serious conflict of interest.) Not infrequently they have testified on topics well beyond their areas of specialization, and in some cases have continued to do so long after they had ceased to do active, peer-reviewed research.
A source of satisfaction for the wealthy and politically conservative. A call to action for the majority of scientists and of political progressives. Worth reading, regardless of persuasion.
