Ed, Yes. Time will tell. But the solution to our economic dilemmas requires bold thinking.
SECOND INCOMES and HUMAN INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS can make a huge contribution. Mark Mark Goldes Co-Founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax ________________________________________ From: Edmund Storms [stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 1:14 PM To: Mark Goldes Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment Thanks Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what the people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because they predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. In fact the difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman sees no problem with the status quo while the people I read are in a panic. I expect we will have to wait and see who is right once again and then pick up the pieces afterward. Perhaps if Krugman et al. are wrong again, they can be ignored next time. Ed On Jan 27, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Mark Goldes wrote: > Ed, Here is a clear answer regarding the deficit that recently > appeared in a Krugman column in the NY Times > > "Mr. Obama’s clearly deliberate neglect of Washington’s favorite > obsession was just the latest sign that the self-styled deficit > hawks — better described as deficit scolds — are losing their hold > over political discourse. And that’s a very good thing. > > Why have the deficit scolds lost their grip? I’d suggest four > interrelated reasons. > > First, they have cried wolf too many times. They’ve spent three > years warning of imminent crisis — if we don’t slash the deficit now > now now, we’ll turn into Greece, Greece, I tell you. It is, for > example, almost two years since Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles > declared that we should expect a fiscal crisis within, um, two years. > > But that crisis keeps not happening. The still-depressed economy has > kept interest rates at near-record lows despite large government > borrowing, just as Keynesian economists predicted all along. So the > credibility of the scolds has taken an understandable, and well- > deserved, hit. > > Second, both deficits and public spending as a share of G.D.P. have > started to decline — again, just as those who never bought into the > deficit hysteria predicted all along. > > The truth is that the budget deficits of the past four years were > mainly a temporary consequence of the financial crisis, which sent > the economy into a tailspin — and which, therefore, led both to low > tax receipts and to a rise in unemployment benefits and other > government expenses. It should have been obvious that the deficit > would come down as the economy recovered. But this point was hard to > get across until deficit reduction started appearing in the data. > > Now it has — and reasonable forecasts, like those of Jan Hatzius of > Goldman Sachs, suggest that the federal deficit will be below 3 > percent of G.D.P., a not very scary number, by 2015. > > And it was, in fact, a good thing that the deficit was allowed to > rise as the economy slumped. With private spending plunging as the > housing bubble popped and cash-strapped families cut back, the > willingness of the government to keep spending was one of the main > reasons we didn’t experience a full replay of the Great Depression. > Which brings me to the third reason the deficit scolds have lost > influence: the contrary doctrine, the claim that we need to practice > fiscal austerity even in a depressed economy, has failed decisively > in practice. > > Consider, in particular, the case of Britain. In 2010, when the new > government of Prime Minister David Cameron turned to austerity > policies, it received fulsome praise from many people on this side > of the Atlantic. For example, the late David Broder urged President > Obama to “do a Cameron”; he particularly commended Mr. Cameron for > “brushing aside the warnings of economists that the sudden, severe > medicine could cut short Britain’s economic recovery and throw the > nation back into recession.” > > Sure enough, the sudden, severe medicine cut short Britain’s > economic recovery, and threw the nation back into recession. > > At this point, then, it’s clear that the deficit-scold movement was > based on bad economic analysis. But that’s not all: there was also > clearly a lot of bad faith involved, as the scolds tried to exploit > an economic (not fiscal) crisis on behalf of a political agenda that > had nothing to do with deficits. And the growing transparency of > that agenda is the fourth reason the deficit scolds have lost their > clout." > > Mark Goldes > Co-Founder, Chava Energy > CEO, Aesop Institute > > www.chavaenergy.com > www.aesopinstitute.org > > 707 861-9070 > 707 497-3551 fax > ________________________________________ > From: Edmund Storms [stor...@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:11 AM > To: Mark Goldes > Cc: Edmund Storms > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on > employment > > OK Mark, can you describe in a few words exactly what advice Krugman > and Reich have given that was not followed and as a result caused the > present situation in the US. > > Ed > On Jan 27, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Mark Goldes wrote: > >> Ed, >> >> On the contrary, they have been correct. >> >> Cameron in England followed the contrary advice and the UK is >> suffering the consequences. > >> >> The debt is falling as a percentage of GDP and more of it wisely >> spent would speed the recovery. > > That is not what the data I see shows. Please read Empire of Debt. > Most of the debt money is not being spent on anything useful. It is > either being used to pay interest or is being hoarded by the financial > system in self protection from the coming collapse. >> >> But, the real solution is Second Incomes. When most people have >> them, job incomes will become increasingly less important. > > Seriously, how can a person get a second job if they can not get the > first one? Yes, some people have to work two menial jobs now just to > survive. >> >> Again, I suggest anyone interested see that title at www.aesopinstitute.org >> >> Mark >> >> Mark Goldes >> Co-Founder, Chava Energy >> CEO, Aesop Institute >> >> www.chavaenergy.com >> www.aesopinstitute.org >> >> 707 861-9070 >> 707 497-3551 fax >> ________________________________________ >> From: Edmund Storms [stor...@ix.netcom.com] >> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:41 AM >> To: Mark Goldes >> Cc: Edmund Storms >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on >> employment >> >> Yes Mark, these two people were part of how the financial problem was >> created in the first place and clearly have learned nothing from >> their >> failed advice. >> >> Ed >> On Jan 26, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Mark Goldes wrote: >> >>> Ed, >>> >>> Paul Krugman of Princeton (and a NY Times columnist) believes they >>> are seriously in error. Robert Reich at Berkeley agrees. This >>> appears to be a case where conventional belief may prove to be as >>> wrong as it has been with regard to LENR. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> Mark Goldes >>> Co-Founder, Chava Energy >>> CEO, Aesop Institute >>> >>> www.chavaenergy.com >>> www.aesopinstitute.org >>> >>> 707 861-9070 >>> 707 497-3551 fax >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Edmund Storms [stor...@ix.netcom.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:54 PM >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Cc: Edmund Storms >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on >>> employment >>> >>> Sorry Jed, but your analysis conflicts with every economist that I >>> have read and I read many. Raising taxes back to Clayton is not >>> possible because the economy is not growing as fast as it was then >>> so that the tax rate would have to be a bigger fraction of the >>> income to provide the same amount of money, which people resist. >>> Also, the debt is much larger now. We have passed the point of no >>> return according to most analysts. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> On Jan 26, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >>> >>> Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Debt is good within limits, Eric. The problem comes when the amount >>> of debt exceeds the ability to pay back or even to service, i.e. to >>> pay the interest. This is why people lost their homes. The US >>> government has now reached a debt so large that it cannot be paid >>> back and can barely be serviced. This is a fact. >>> >>> That is not true. All we have to do is raise taxes back to the level >>> they were under Mr. Clinton. If the economy recovers the debt will >>> soon begin to decline. It was declining rapidly under Clinton. >>> Government expenditures have not increased, except for the Pentagon, >>> and now that the wars are over I don't see why the military budget >>> should be so high. >>> >>> The debt crisis is ginned up nonsense, in my opinion. It could be >>> fixed with slightly higher tax rates so small we would hardly notice >>> them. Mainly on wealthy people. I am sure that wealthy people can >>> afford to pay 3% more than they now do. It is trivial matter for >>> them. >>> >>> For that matter, the U.S. government can print money. A little >>> inflation would soon reduce the debt as a percent of the GDP. We >>> would hardly notice that, either. The Japanese government under PM >>> Abe is deliberately trying to inflate by 3%, after years of >>> deflation. It is about time! If they succeed and the economy also >>> grows, their debt will decline. It is twice as high as the U.S., as >>> a percent of the GDP, but Japan is not in crisis. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
