Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Keiser Report: Blind Cult of America

I know reality isn't popular but if we don't start waking up, our reality is going start resembling a horrible nightmare we can't get out of. Check out this video!
http://rt.com/usa

Monday, April 4, 2011

This Is What Resistance Looks Like

This Is What Resistance Looks Like

The phrase consent of the governed has been turned into a cruel joke. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs. Civil Disobedience is the only tool we have left.
We will not halt the laying off of teachers and other public employees, the slashing of unemployment benefits, the closing of public libraries, the reduction of student loans, the foreclosures, the gutting of public education and early childhood programs or the dismantling of basic social services such as heating assistance for the elderly until we start to carry out sustained acts of civil disobedience against the financial institutions responsible for our debacle. The banks and Wall Street, which have erected the corporate state to serve their interests at our expense, caused the financial crisis. The bankers and their lobbyists crafted tax havens that account for up to $1 trillion in tax revenue lost every decade. They rewrote tax laws so the nation’s most profitable corporations, including Bank of America, could avoid paying any federal taxes. They engaged in massive fraud and deception that wiped out an estimated $40 trillion in global wealth. The banks are the ones that should be made to pay for the financial collapse. Not us. And for this reason at 11 a.m. April 15 I will join protesters in Union Square in New York City in front of the Bank of America.

(Read the rest of Chris Hedge's article at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/04)

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

As if the economy wasn't bad enough now...

The Economics of Global Warming

Melting glaciers, rising incomes, and food

The real global challenge facing us will be organizing to reduce carbon emissions and provide help to poor countries coping with climate change. The worst, but not the most likely, consequences of climate change could be rising sea levels: there is grounded ice in Antarctica that, if loosed from its moorings, is worth five or six meters of sea level, enough to sink Stockholm, Manhattan, or London, or to oblige them to build levees to escape inundation, and to oblige millions of Bangladeshis and others to abandon their homes and workplaces and to migrate. (Levees cannot save Bangladesh; they leave no escape for the freshwater floods that need to reach the ocean.)
The most likely consequences of climate change will be severe impacts on food production in the developing world. We can worry about urban heat waves, polar bears, and forest fires, but the worst effects are almost certainly going to be on food production in the poor countries, where half or more of the population depends on growing its own food.
Estimates of lost world product due to climate change are moderate because the poor have so little to lose. More than a billion people, maybe 2 billion, are estimated to live on less than the equivalent of $2 per day. If a billion of those poorest people lost half their income, it would be an overwhelming tragedy, a true catastrophe, worse than all the earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, landslides, and fires of the past decade happening every year. But those billion people together would lose only $365 billion per year. That is less than 1 percent of world income! They have so little to begin with that what they can lose doesn’t amount to much of a statistic. But they can lose tragically.
In a developed nation like the United States, or most of Europe, agriculture is less than 5 percent of gross national product; nearly all the rest of Western income is substantially impervious to climate, or may benefit slightly from warming. The U.S. has scientific assistance to agriculture and experience with climates and crops across the country, and can respond with appropriate changes in crops and techniques of cultivation. Developing countries currently have little, if any, such capacity to adapt.
World incomes will surely continue to rise, as will population. One of the notable changes in consumption with rising incomes is demand for meat. Already demand for meat in China is hugely increased in urban areas. The production of a single calorie of meat, depending on whether it is beef, pork, or chicken, requires four to 10 calories in animal feed. The shift toward meat will raise food prices everywhere; the rich may have to eat a little less meat, the poor will have to pay more for their rice and bread. Consumption inequalities between the world’s rich and poor will increase.
Population continues to increase in the developing world, though less than predicted. Unpredicted by demographers a couple of decades ago, declining population in almost every developed country leads not only to smaller populations, but to a shift in age structure toward the elderly. Even the developing world is undergoing, not uniformly, unexpected declines in fertility and birthrates. But still the populations of the developing world are increasing: more people to feed, and a likely shortfall in food production.
As an example, there is much alarm about the shrinking of glaciers worldwide, especially in Greenland, but also in the Alps and the Andes. But the problem is not glaciers. It is that what ought to be snowfall is sometimes coming as rain, and the snowpack that ought to wait until late spring or early summer to melt is, in fact, melting earlier; the result is that what traditionally has been available for irrigation is lost to the oceans before food crops can use the water. This is crucial in China, South Asia, Chile, Peru, Colorado, and California, and even the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East.
Climate change will be primarily a threat to the poor in poor countries. Understanding this may make it hard to persuade the non-poor in the developed world to take the problem seriously.
Maybe I shouldn’t be explaining this.
Schelling, a 2005 Nobel laureate in economics, is an emeritus professor at the Department of Economics and School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. He is the author of The Strategy of Conflict, among other books.

Monday, March 7, 2011

More truth than we really want to hear...

This Time We’re Taking the Whole Planet With Us

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_time_were_taking_the_whole_planet_with_us_20110307/

Posted on Mar 7, 2011

Saturday, January 29, 2011

So where's the outrage?

Not here apparently. According to the CIA World Fact Book and a blogger known as "Washinton's Blog" the U.S. actually has a higher rate of inequality than the Egyptians or the Tunisians. While this does not mean that the populations of either country live a more luxuriant lifestyle than the average American, it simply means that the gap that divides the wealthiest from the poorest is wider here than in those countries and continues to do so. Yet Americans are not the ones to rise up in protest. At least not yet...

naked capitalism


FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 2011

Guest Post: Inequality In America Is Worse Than In Egypt, Tunisia Or Yemen

Egyptian, Tunisian and Yemeni protesters all say that inequality is one of the main reasons they’re protesting.
However, the U.S. actually has much greater inequality than in any of those countries.
Specifically, the “Gini Coefficient” – the figure economists use to measure inequality – is higher in the U.S.
Gini Coefficients are like golf – the lower the score, the better (i.e. the more equality).
According to the CIA World Fact Book, the U.S. is ranked as the 42nd most unequal country in the world, with a Gini Coefficient of 45.
In contrast:
  • Tunisia is ranked the 62nd most unequal country, with a Gini Coefficient of 40.
  • Yemen is ranked 76th most unequal, with a Gini Coefficient of 37.7.
  • And Egypt is ranked as the 90th most unequal country, with a Gini Coefficient of around34.4.
And inequality in the U.S. has soared in the last couple of years, since the Gini Coefficient was last calculated, so it is undoubtedly currently much higher. (Emphasis on this sentence is the bloggers)
So why are Egyptians rioting, while the Americans are complacent?
Well, Americans – until recently – have been some of the wealthiest
people in the world, with most having plenty of comforts (and/or
entertainment) and more than enough to eat.
But another reason is that – as Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School demonstrate – Americans consistently underestimate the amount of inequality in our nation.
As William Alden wrote last September:
Americans vastly underestimate the degree of wealth inequality in America, and we believe that the distribution should be far more equitable than it actually is, according to a new study.
Or, as the study’s authors put it: “All demographic groups — even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy — desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.”
The report … “Building a Better America — One Wealth Quintile At A Time” by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School … shows that across ideological, economic and gender groups, Americans thought the richest 20 percent of our society controlled about 59 percent of the wealth, while the real number is closer to 84 percent.