tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post984293132775136861..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Shameless Self-Promotion: My New BookUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-76217558678323594182008-02-26T17:29:00.000-05:002008-02-26T17:29:00.000-05:00Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public ...Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for all of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They will never settle for a reasonable share of ANYTHING. They will do whatever it takes to get even richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductable crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. So don’t fall for all of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductable contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTABLE PR CRAP. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. EXTREME WEALTH HAS MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-48092422152833154052007-10-03T23:02:00.000-04:002007-10-03T23:02:00.000-04:00Juan, thanks for the link. I'm reading this editio...Juan, thanks for the link. I'm reading this edition at present.Myrtle Blackwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07427043367624101075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-14933115056522489692007-10-03T02:31:00.000-04:002007-10-03T02:31:00.000-04:00Brenda,See what you think of the articles in this ...Brenda,<BR/><BR/>See what you think of the articles in this 2005 Special Issue of the Journal of World Systems Research (Vol II, no 2):<BR/>Globalizations from ‘Above’ and ‘Below’<BR/>The Future of World Society<BR/><BR/>http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol11/<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Michael<BR/><BR/>Thanks, looking forward to reading it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-82739409375126025642007-10-02T22:53:00.000-04:002007-10-02T22:53:00.000-04:00Juan, yes, I do address that structural changes yo...Juan, yes, I do address that structural changes you described.Michael Perelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585032554768072298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-89404616098285464592007-10-02T20:53:00.000-04:002007-10-02T20:53:00.000-04:00Michael's books all sound very interesting!Juan: "...Michael's books all sound very interesting!<BR/><BR/>Juan: "...the shift in capital's mode of organization..global.."<BR/><BR/>Such a shift! I am tending to suspect that what we have today may no longer be 'capitalism' or even the 'corporatism' version soon. The emergence of sovereign wealth funds vying out with each other. What is this?<BR/><BR/>Yes, global now. with a handful of firms in league with a handful of national governments controlling whole global industries.<BR/><BR/>These enormous corporations also having major interests in other global industries.<BR/><BR/>..and the sovereign wealth funds to buy out what might be left.<BR/><BR/>"<I>1950s-1983 – The number of major mass media companies declines from several hundred in the 1950s to about. <BR/>1984 – 2004 – The fifty major mass media companies drops to twenty six in 1987, twenty three in 1990, less than twenty in 1993 and in 1996 the number was closer to ten. In 2004 it was at most eight. Besides a predictable narrowing of voices, the problem with this system is that many of these huge companies have other interests, such as General Electric and52 Westinghouse (Viacom), both of which have board members that also sit on the boards of other companies, such as defense contractors, energy corporations, pharmaceutical companies and so on. General Electric and Westinghouse themselves are also involved with weapons production and nuclear power. Clearly, they have interests beyond merely serving the public good. Ultimately, private media corporations are answerable to their stockholders, not the public, despite the enormous impact they have on informing the public about the world around them. This system is not only inherently undemocratic, it also approaches Fascism, in the sense that Mussolini used the term when he said “Fascism should more properly be called ‘corporatism,’ since it is the marriage of government and corporate power” (Ivins, 2003)..</I>" <BR/><BR/>Also see:<BR/>'Sovereign Wealth Funds - The World's Most Expensive Club'<BR/>http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9230598&fsrc=RSSMyrtle Blackwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07427043367624101075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-85497077911461190532007-10-02T19:56:00.000-04:002007-10-02T19:56:00.000-04:00Michael,Sounds like an excellent book.Does it cons...Michael,<BR/><BR/>Sounds like an excellent book.<BR/><BR/>Does it consider causes/consequences of what I tend to think of as the shift in capital's mode of organization, from national and international to transnational and global...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-40680660744497840182007-10-02T06:19:00.000-04:002007-10-02T06:19:00.000-04:00Michael Perelman: "..how this right wing revolutio...Michael Perelman: "..how this right wing revolution is laying the foundation for the next Great Depression.."<BR/><BR/>2004 – US elections rife with fraud. Result disputed. Severe problems with MEDIA coverage. On the 9th November a CBS employee claimed that “lock-down orders had come down [the previous] year after the invasion of Iraq” and that the latest ‘lock-down’ involved (i) the complete banning of TV coverage of the real problems associated with voting in the US Federal elections of 2nd November 2004 and (ii) staff being forbidden to talk about it even on their own time. She said that a friend of hers, a producer at MSNBC said that an anchor by the name of Keith Olbermann had brought the election voting problems up on his show on Friday and the axe came down. He was reported to be fighting back and talking about it on his blog. There are only 8 corporations that own and control most of the media in the US. NewsCorp with Fox News is one of them (Fox is a news network with more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. ) During the election Fox News constantly repeated, often verbatim, the messages out of the White House and the Bush campaign. It would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars if you had to pay for it. But Bush and Co. didn't have to pay. It was a gift from Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox . In Australia the Murdoch media empire controls virtually all regional and metropolitan newspapers. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair had three conversations with the media magnate Rupert Murdoch in the nine days before the start of the Iraq war. An inside observer called Mr Murdoch "the 24th member of the [Blair] Cabinet". He added: "His presence was always felt. No big decision could ever be made inside No10 without taking account of the likely reaction of three men, Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch. On all the really big decisions, anybody else could safely be ignored."Myrtle Blackwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07427043367624101075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-8832626322565013902007-10-02T02:06:00.000-04:002007-10-02T02:06:00.000-04:00Great. More bogus statistics.The U.S. consumes abo...Great. More bogus statistics.<BR/><BR/>The U.S. consumes about twenty-five percent of the world's resources (not forty percent), BUT it produces THIRTY-ONE percent of the world's economic output. In terms of efficiency in the use of resources, the U.S. ranks above average (and far better than many of the least efficient countries).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-76554681631499253362007-10-01T23:30:00.000-04:002007-10-01T23:30:00.000-04:00Jack, you sound a lot like a close friend of mine ...Jack, you sound a lot like a close friend of mine in Northern Marin; in addition to "cynical perspective" he has a street-fighter's heart and a poet's soul. He also confounds me regularly with Zen perspectives.<BR/><BR/>I heard Noami Klein speak two nights ago. Pretty impressive! Her concept of *Shock Doctrine* deserves a place in the current descriptive literature. She grounds it in Milton Friedman's thought and expands it into a suggestive metaphor for late capitalism.bobwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13010756913943946001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-25476120662911799082007-10-01T22:58:00.000-04:002007-10-01T22:58:00.000-04:00Gosh, I wish I had you people at my side when I wa...Gosh, I wish I had you people at my side when I was working on this. I don't think I was too hard on the economics profession. Dean Baker said I may have been to soft on Martin Feinstein.<BR/>I do discuss the potential for change before the Depression, but it will take a great deal of work.Michael Perelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585032554768072298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-81855965924000818732007-10-01T21:10:00.000-04:002007-10-01T21:10:00.000-04:00bobw,No sir, I'm a long term New Yorker. Anything...bobw,<BR/>No sir, I'm a long term New Yorker. Anything interesting going on in Marin County? Or, is there someone there with a totally cynical perspective on the current body politic that you may have confused me with?<BR/>Perelman, Your focus on the failure of economics as a profession is probably too harsh. As the man said, "Money talks, nobody walks." And the world, professionals included, hear the music. Naomi Klein has a brief article about Economist Numero Uno, Alan Greenspan. In it she refers to his inspiration drawn from an early reading of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. This source of inspiration in the business world has been cited ad nauseum. Then I'm suddenly struck by the thought that the book was a work of fiction. No research. No objective measurements to support her ideas. Just a work of fiction, and it serves as a primary motivator for the nation's chief economic spokesman for nearly two decades. Are we nuts? Is this reality? Perelman, facts apparently don't mean crap to some of the more influential members of the economics profession, but then again nor do they to the entire leadership community of this country. Oh Robespierre you are sorely missed now that your time has come once again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-40881437402335428482007-10-01T20:53:00.000-04:002007-10-01T20:53:00.000-04:00Feinman makes an almost seamless presentation of t...Feinman makes an almost seamless presentation of the main factors. The key points for consideration are the logic of a capitalist economy, and the dynamics of an apathetic public.<BR/><BR/>One wants to say, and maybe Michael does say,that somewhere in the mix there could be a moment when the people wake up and exert their power, democratically, and force the state back into the role of regulator and provider of socially necessary services. But this would be the equivalent of a legal expropriation of corporate power, and it's hard to see how that could happen.<BR/><BR/>The democratic left has been trying to find the lever, or linguistic frame (to echo Lakoff) for convincing the broader population to consider fundamental change. We've had almost no success, especially compared to the right and religious fundamentalists. <BR/><BR/>I suppose the great Depression Michael mentions will be our proving ground. Can our message prevail?<BR/><BR/>(Does the Jack who posted above by chance live in Marin County?)bobwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13010756913943946001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-66481607253732879492007-10-01T18:37:00.000-04:002007-10-01T18:37:00.000-04:00I don't disagree with Richard's point about United...I don't disagree with Richard's point about United States. Publishers insist on a dose of happy talk at the end so that people don't get two bummed out.Michael Perelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585032554768072298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-53664932296642185362007-10-01T18:31:00.000-04:002007-10-01T18:31:00.000-04:00Perelman,Never apologize for self promotion, shame...Perelman,<BR/>Never apologize for self promotion, shameless or otherwise. If you don't talk it up, who will? Let's hope that your publisher puts its money where it will do some good, and promote the heck out of the book. A picture of Ann Coulter in drag would probably add significantly to the sales figures. Or maybe a picture of Georgie Boy peering out from behind cell bars, would that be Dick Cheney leering laciviously in the background? Marketing. It's all in the marketing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-26276833826848941202007-10-01T17:01:00.000-04:002007-10-01T17:01:00.000-04:00Maybe I should skip buying Murder at the Margin an...Maybe I should skip buying Murder at the Margin and just purchase your latest. Thanks!ProGrowthLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17138489390594441753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-56989093946069750572007-10-01T13:29:00.000-04:002007-10-01T13:29:00.000-04:00Good luck on your book!I have a quibble (at least ...Good luck on your book!<BR/><BR/>I have a quibble (at least with your summary). I think you are making an assumption that better equity in the US economy will lead to better growth and help restore the US's place as the dominant economic and innovative engine.<BR/><BR/>I think this is wrong. The world has changed in a fundamental way and the US is never going to be able to regain its former dominance. The two factors are the rise of rival economies and the inability of the military to enforce economic policies on states that we approach militarily.<BR/><BR/>The EU is already a larger economy than that of the US. We can expect that China and India will become important economic powers in the coming decades as will Russia. <BR/><BR/>Our model of capitalism is based upon access to cheap raw materials and finished goods. This has been enforced by soft and hard power in the past. As the cases in South America show this no longer works. The era of gunboat diplomacy is over. We are about 4% of the world's population and consume 40% of the resources. There aren't enough resources for everyone to rise to our level, so we will have to do with less.<BR/><BR/>This means an absolute drop in the standard of living. This has already occurred for the bottom half of the society, but the effect has been masked by the increasing wealth of the top 1%. The response to this sort of decline is usually civil unrest. The response to civil unrest is government crackdown. It doesn't take much to cower an entire population, there are plenty of examples at hand even at the moment.<BR/><BR/>There isn't even a sign of widespread dissatisfaction in this country There is unhappiness over losing the wars and some discontent over health care, but that's about it. Brittney and OJ provide adequate distraction.<BR/><BR/>Empires end and turn into dictatorships. We already have all the structures in place to facilitate this when the time comes. A few civil libertarians calling attention to warrantless spying and national databases hasn't resonated with the public. I don't see this changing as the Dems are as in favor of militarism as the GOP.Robert D Feinmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811511835460945217noreply@blogger.com