about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.
Dr. Yilmaz Akyuz, Chief Economist of the South Center, was formerly the Director of the
Division on Globalization and Development Strategies at the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) when he retired in August 2003. He was the principal author and head of the
team preparing the Trade and Development Report, and UNCTAD coordinator of research and support to
developing countries (the Group-of-24) in the IMF and World Bank on International Monetary and
Financial Issues. He taught at various universities in Turkey and Europe before joining UNCTAD in
1984 and after his retirement, and published extensively in macroeconomics, finance, growth and
development. He is the second holder of the Tun Ismail Ali International Chair in Monetary and
Financial Economics at the University of Malaysia, established by Bank Negara.
The super rich are hi-jacking the state and manipulating the patriotism and prejudices of the
lower classes in order to destroy the people's democracy and steal the people's treasury. This is a
world-wide phenomenom. It's happening nation after nation all over the world right now.
They eat everything from krill to plankton to small fish, regardless of whether they speak whale.
They even have a specialized way of hunting where they gang up on schools of fish to try to eat them
all at once. It’s called bubble net feeding. The humpbacks divide up, some swirling around a group
of fish and some blowing air, such that the circling whales can drive their victims into a net made
of bubbles. This confuses the fish, trapping them inside, until one whale sounds the call and they
all rush in, mouths agape, swimming upwards through the teeming mass of fish.
[SOURCE:Sara Chodosh | Popular
Science | 15 March 2017]
Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 18h 20m 25s
Lee Camp is funny as shit
This quote comes from the previous video starting at 18:13.
[You] see White House, when a man really loves a corporate donor, and they get a private moment
together, a special moment, some candles lit maybe, a little flowers, lite music, [that's when] you
the "D". Alright, but not just out on public display.
Wow, I knew there would be a learning curve
for the Trump White House to figure out how to be quietly corrupt. But this is ridiculous.
Seriously, you don't put the head of Exxon-Mobil as Secretary of State, okay. You are suppose to put
in like a puppet, some dumb sap you [got] out on the street who is gonna do whatever you want, does
everything you say ... like George W. Bush, remember him [laughs in mimic of GW Bush's infamous
chuckle] ... remember that guy. Yea, he's pulling his nose in. Cover it up a little. Have some
class. These guys are going with the full Monte.
This part occurs at 24:20
I know we have grown accustomed to this stuff. Like, we are used to the fact that most American's
are struggling. We have grown habituated to it, and we have to fight that feeling that this is
normal. America is incredibly rich. Insanely rich ... there is a banana's amount of wealth in this
country and [yet] half of all Americans couldn't deal with a $500 emergency, because that money has
been sucked to the top one percent. That's not okay. This is not alright. And these assholes have
the nerve to go on TeeVee and brag about it. And brag about exploiting us.
I never thought I would ever miss the George W. Bush Republican administration, but good lord, I
actually believe Dubya had a few moral principles and is a decent human being at heart when
compared to this ruthless, heartless, inhuman gang of thugs that current inhabit the White House and
most of the Rethuglican party.
The rest of the video is riotous by the way. I would love to quote the rest. Lee Camp is on fire
Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 17h 47m 4s
Good discussion with Richard Wolff
Let me suggest to you a way of understanding this. Every technological invention, from time
immemorial to the present, justified itself on the grounds that by this new machine, by this new
gimmick, we could [get] more done with less effort, with less drudgery, with less drone-like work of
people ... and indeed those innovations, all of them, had that potential. But when they are put
into a capitalist economic system, here [is] where the problem arises. The people who put the
technology in [place] want to make profit out of it. So, for example, if a machine allows the
workers to do
twice as much as before, they FIRE half of the work force, and the remaining half [of the work
force] works with the
machine, produces as much as before, but the company realizes a fantastic profit because it doesn't
have to pay half the workers wages which they can keep for themselves. Nice story for the company.
Nice profit gain. But half the people are unemployed.
Here's an alternative. Let every worker do half as much work as he or she did before. Let's run the
working day 4 hours instead of 8. With a machine that does twice as much, 4 hours will get you just
as much as the 8 hour day used to, the workers will have [gained] an enormous amount of leisure [and
can] pay attention to their development, their families, to their communities. If we use technology
that way, we would use it to help the mass of people enjoy a better life RATHER THAN THE SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE ENJOYING A GREATER PROFIT. The problem was NEVER with technology. The
problem was with the system that decides how to use
The CAPITAL LETTERS and bold print are mine. The above quotation is from 9:41 to 11:35. Two
minutes. This is why you cannot rely on video media for your knowledge or information. Two minutes
is barely 2 paragraphs people. You need to READ.
None of the economic gains are passed on to the workers. But that's just because workers are "losers"
who just weren't ruthless or smart or savvy enough to be one of the CEO's and financial magnates who
were able to suck all this wealth out of these incorporated business entities. In the minds of
these self-serving individuals who benefit from this dysfunctional economic system, your lot in life
is a sign of strength or weakness, rather than the gene pool lottery or luck.
Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 19h 30m 22s
This is how you do it
My response to a swarmy fool who played the "I'm a conservative" card and used it to justify
fascist, ideological stupidity.
WRONG. YOU MODERN CONSERVATIVES ARE EITHER
Why else are
you calling a collection of taxes into a fund that pays out retirement an entitlement? It's no
different than a savings account. Why are you saying "blame it on Bush" 9 years after Bush left
office? All you have is a bunch of old, moldy talking points and cute analogies about Thomas Paine
because you are clueless about how to create functional policy and have to justify the complete
takeover of the two party system by self-serving ideological billionaires. Get a clue man.
Notice that I am attacking the statements, not the person. I am not labeling the statements until
after I put them in context and bring up their silly irrelevance.
Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 18h 47m 42s
A comment from a comment section about Health Care economics
I don’t believe there are a significant number of policy makers who really believe that market
forces can bring the kind of efficiency to health care, that they can to commodities.
When I took undergrad Econ in college, in the eighties(!), the classes in which the basic concepts
of how “free markets” work are taught, always taught about the limited conditions required for the
theories to hold. The exceptions to the theories were just as much a part of the curriculum. Namely,
the undergrad in Econ 101 learns about “externalities, monopoly and monopsony power, problems of
asymetric information, problems with “goods” like health care that have very inelastic demand
curves, the problem of public goods.”
This is Econ 101. I suspect the only people who have a simplistic “market fundamentalist” view of
healthcare, are unsophisticated persons, with a conservative/libertarian instinct.
Paul Ryan is not such a person, and I believe that when Republicans, like him, speak with apparent
fealty to such simple minded notions, they are doing so as a cheap and easy form of Propoganda. To
persuade uninformed voters that their proposals have merit. That they are really looking out for the
good of the American people.
The reason I think this distinction matters, is that there are very real conflicts, of wealth,
power, prestige, that permeate human culture. The complicated systems that determine “who serves,
and who eats.”
They will cluelessly destroy something that was working because they are blind ideologues. But as
long as their rich donors get tax cuts, then problem solved. You losers should stop buying thousand
dollar i-phones and invest in those health care savings accounts instead -- for health insurance that
offers meagre coverage and expects you to pay a decent amount out of pocket while not paying for
These people are so stupid. Sean Spicer actually had a press conference where he put the Obamacare
bill and this current bill on the table and bragged about how much smaller in size the current bill
is. He claimed the larger stack of paper was evidence of government bureaucracy, without mentioning
that 6 pages of the smaller stack of paper were devoted to limiting poor people who win the lottery
getting health care tax credits. Really? That's what you are worried about? I didn't realize poor
people winning the lottery was driving health care costs.
Because they are con artists, and don't really care about trying to actually address the issues and
solve the health care problem. They are simply disguising a tax cut to the very wealthy as health
care reform. They drape
everything in this bullshit mantra of anti-government free-market fundamentalism, when it really is
just a costume for the savage incompetent, short-sighted greed of their wealthy donors. They are
clueless dopes selling nonsense with a bunk philosophy.
Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 13h 45m 10s
Modern music rocks
This band is one of the best post-2000 bands. Headed by the amazing guitarist Tosin Abasi, Animals
As Leaders rocks. A former student named Alex actually introduced me to this band. Thank you Alex. :-)
He's doing this on an 8 string guitar. Wow.
Here is Tosin Abasi on his 8 string electric guitar.
Here is "Wave of Babies"
Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 11h 15m 16s
The Health Care Debate in a nutshell
Paul Krugman explains the difference between Obamacare and the Republican replacement bill. The
bolded phrase is mine.
The structure of the Affordable Care Act comes out of a straightforward analysis of the logic of
coverage. If you want to make health insurance available and affordable for almost everyone,
regardless of income or health status, and you want to do this through private insurers rather than
simply have single-payer, you have to do three things.
Regulate insurers so they can’t refuse or charge high premiums to people with preexisting conditions
Impose some penalty on people who don’t buy insurance, to induce healthy people to sign up and
provide a workable risk pool
Subsidize premiums so that lower-income households can afford insurance
So that’s Obamacare (and Romneycare before that): regulation, mandates, and subsidies. And the
result has been a sharp decline in the number of uninsured, with costs coming in well below
expectations. Roughly speaking, 20 million Americans gained coverage at a cost of around 0.6 percent
Republicans have nonetheless denounced the law as a monstrosity, and promised to replace it with
something totally different and far better. Which makes what they’ve actually come up … interesting.
For the GOP proposal basically accepts the logic of Obamacare. It retains insurer regulation to
prevent exclusion of people with preexisting conditions. It imposes a penalty on those who don’t buy
insurance while healthy. And it offers tax credits to help people buy insurance. Conservatives
calling the plan Obamacare 2.0 definitely have a point.
But a better designation would be Obamacare 0.5, because it’s really about replacing relatively
solid pillars with half-measures, severely and probably fatally weakening the whole structure.
First, the individual mandate – already too weak, so that too many healthy people opt out – is
replaced by a penalty imposed if and only if the uninsured decide to enter the market later. This
wouldn’t do much.
Second, the ACA subsidies, which are linked both to income and to the cost of insurance, are
replaced by flat tax credits which would be worth much less to lower-income Americans, the very
people most likely to need help buying insurance.
Taken together, these moves would almost surely lead to a death spiral. Healthy individuals,
especially low-income households no longer receiving adequate aid, would opt out, worsening the risk
pool. Premiums would soar – without the cushion created by the current, price-linked subsidy formula
— leading more healthy people to exit. In much of the country, the individual markets would probably
The House leadership seems to realize all of this; that’s why it reportedly plans to rush the bill
through committee before CBO even gets a chance to score it.
[SOURCE:Paul Krugman | New York
Times | 7 March 2017]
If you want to make health insurance available and affordable for almost everyone...
Which is exactly the point. They don't want to make health insurance available and affordable for
almost everyone. These Rethuglicans like to co-opt their ideology into a surrogate view
for all business, economic markets, private enterprise, and entrepreneurial economics. Yet they
actually are just zealots for the greedy interests of a few oligarchs, stupidly mangling every
attempt at sensible legislation because they are just spokespersons for what their paymasters want.
They are cheerleaders and con artists. Most of them truly do not have a clue about how to
govern or create any policy analysis beyond lame bullet-points which are crafted more to manipulate
and disguise than to actually explain or delineate choices and ideas.
Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 11h 0m 10s
They are frauds
I love Paul Krugman. He has a way of making his point without offending people. Although all
ideologues consider having a different opinion to be offensive, if you can give a reasonable
explanation for your viewpoint, then you should be politely respected. Those who castigate with
loose adjectives and political labels are children.
[H]as [Paul] Ryan ever put together major legislation with any real chance of passage? Yes, he made
for himself with big budget proposals that received adoring press coverage. But these were never
remotely operational — they were filled not just with magic asterisks — tax loophole closing to be
determined later, cost savings to be achieved via means to be determined later — but with elements,
like converting Medicare into a voucher system, that would have drawn immense flack if they got
anywhere close to actually happening.
...[H]e has never offered real plans for overhauling social insurance, just things that
sound like plans but are basically just advertisements for some imaginary plan that might eventually
be produced. Actually pulling together a coalition to get stuff done? Has he ever managed that?
What I’d say is that Ryan is not, in fact, a policy entrepreneur. He’s just a self-promoter, someone
who has successfully sold a credulous media on a character he plays: Paul Ryan, Serious, Honest
Conservative Policy Wonk. This is really his first test at real policymaking, which is a very
different process. There’s nothing strange about his inability to pull off the real thing, as
opposed to the act...
In other words, maybe this looks like amateur hour because it is. Ryan isn’t a skilled politician
inexplicably losing his touch, he’s a con artist who started to believe his own con; Republicans
didn’t hammer out a workable plan because there is no such plan, and anyway they have no idea what
that would involve.
[SOURCE:Paul Krugman | New York
Times | 10 March 2017]