Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Both Republicans and Democrats have been explaining that "There Is No Alternative," we need public policies promoting austerity because government is "out of money." The question seems to be not "do we need austerity?" but "will we be austere sooner or austere later?" Meanwhile, the bipartisan consensus is that the government is definitely out of money. But these assertions are at odds with the common knowledge that the U.S. government literally creates its own money. Unlike the euro, the dollar is a sovereign, fiat currency, unconstrained by exchange rates or treaties. And since Nixon closed the gold window, government can issue dollars without waiting for gold or silver mines to provide any backing for them. So we can't possibly be "out of money," any more than the Bureau of Weights and Measures can be "out of inches."

"International trade deals allow businesses to sue elected governments when corporate interests are threatened abroad. Here's why you should care. "

The corporation's responsibiities, per Johnson & Johnson CEO, 1948, in order of priority: 1. First responsibility is to those who use our product; we must offer high quality at low prices, and deliver our product with prompt, accurate service. 2.  Second responsibility is to all employees of the corporation, providing fair pay, job security, healthy working conditions, respect for each individual, and justice in management and governance of both employees and operations.    3. Third responsibility is to hire corporate executives possessing integrity, talent, common sense, personal wisdom, education, and experience. 4. Four responisibility is to the communities in which our corporate facilities are embedded. Corporations must be good citizens, contributing to the health and viability of the commonweal, supporting civic improvement, improved health, education, and government, reinvest in the corporation's larger community and infrastructure  by paying fair taxes, and being good stewards of the unsustainable resources used in conducting business activities. 6. Last responsibility is to shareholders/stockholders via creation of sound, sustainable profit and fair returns to investors. 5. 

The House majority leader is trying to stop the U.S. government in its tracks. And so far, he's doing a pretty effective job.

Today, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is considered a Bible for capitalism, but when published in 1776, it was a blasphemous challenge to the big business, big government mercantilism in Europe. Smith's free market theories expanded economic opportunity, promoted competition and encouraged innovation, in large part, by attacking the "concentrated wealth and power" of Britain's commercial elite.

RT @ThePeoplesCause: Why is Microsoft More Creditworthy Than U.S. Government?: How Corporate Tax Avoidance is Killing Our Economy > h ...

C.I.A. Fights Memoir of 9/11 by F.B.I. Agent in Terror Fight http://t.co/7Gl0caG

It's intellectually dishonest to have a discussion over the fairness of the tax code and welfare programs without FIRST addressing the inherent inequality of our labor markets, capital markets, access to education, access to the judicial system, access to infrastructure, and intellectual property laws. Fundamentally, if a business leader makes his profits from paying his employees minimum wage at $7.50/hour in an area where a decent livable wage is $15/hour, but where workers have little negotiating leverage and few other options, then it is RIGHT to expect government to tax the business/owner at a high percentage and the workers at a low percentage, and to use tax funds to provide the under-compensated workers with housing and food assistance, as well as other forms of aid. In that scenario, the scenario in which most of our country operates (accounting also for middle-class wage-earners that are under-paid), it is disturbingly unfair to demand that "equality" be applied only at the tax code (even moreso that it only be leveled at the income tax, specifically), as if wealth is earned solely in proportion to some fantastical Randian ideal of personal worth and NOT heavily influenced by real-world power dynamics.

In the debate about the proper size of government, an agreement should be easy to reach: If the government stops serving the interests of the rich, the rest of us will not need to rely on it to dress the wounds that it inflicts.

Maybe some of you can tell me why so many very smart people have, since the day Obama was inaugurated, deluded themselves into thinking that this admittedly very smart man, albeit one with limited political experience at the national level, was somehow going to step into office and proceed to rewrite the political laws that have governed presidential politics for the last two centuries? I'm listening.