Cutting taxes on the Rich will not create Jobs

“Cutting taxes on the Rich will not create Jobs.”

The current economic voodoo requires we believe that if we cut taxes for the top 10% of earners, they will turn around and hire people to work for them. This is bullshit. Give a business owner more money in his pocket and he is unlikely to hire additional workers or buy more equipment unless there is a reason to increase output/capacity. The managers of Acme Widgets are always going to try to produce enough widgets to meet demand with the least number of workers possible. Adding capacity without demand will cause Acme to go broke.

The adherents of ‘supply side’ will argue that the owners of Acme might invest that extra million in a new business venture (perhaps starting Acme Services). They are unlikely to do so unless there is a market for whatever services Acme offers… and if the underemployed are not buying new widgets, they are unlikely to buy other items… so the smart bet is that Mr. Moneybags will put his money to work in the international money market. Unfortunately, if Mr. Moneybags increases his investment from 1 million to 2 million, it is unlikely that his bank will hire more tellers or security guards to work at the local branch. Increases in Mr. Moneybags’ portfolio will make his brokers and bankers happy, but will not require significant additional people working at the bank or brokerage. More money in the banks and in the market will only create jobs if there is something for all those employees to do.

One could also argue, I suppose, that Mr. Moneybags might spend his additional money on ostrich skin boots, gold plated toilets, ivory golf tees and similar trappings of wealth. And if you own a jewelry store on Rodeo Drive, perhaps the tax breaks are good for you. But luxury goods make a lousy basis for an economy simply because there is only a small number of people who can afford to buy such things.

The only way to create more jobs is to get the middle and lower classes spending again. This probably means things like raising the minimum wage and eliminating the Bush tax cuts would be a better strategy than the course of action chosen by both the Republicrats and Demmicans. The middle and lower classes (who make up more than 90% of the US population) tend to spend almost as much as they earn and will buy ice cream cones, cars, ipads, gasoline and similar items in greater numbers than the rich ever will, even though the rich may be willing to pay premium prices. Additional demand for all of these things will spur business growth and revenue for the state. Although under this scheme, the rich might have less money, they will actually be more inclined to increase the size of their pool of employees in the businesses they own because the demand will be there… and if the demand is there, the smart people will invest (and thus make more money for themselves). Money doesn’t cause business growth; demand does.

What is it with the "old and sick" killers?

Ratko Mladic, former Serbian gerneral, was recently arrested and moved to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes in Kosovo and Serbia during the war that took place in the late 1990s. After his recent arrest, the former general joins a long list of people accused of genocide and/or other atrocities who plead age, infirmity or ill health when their crimes finally catch up to them(a list that includes Pinochet of Chile, Franco of Spain, Mubarak of Egypt, Marcos of the Philippines and others).

It is ironic that a man like Mladic, who is known to have given the orders that resulted in Serbian soldiers shooting captives, raping women, shelling civilian targets, etc., would have his lawyer claim that due to his age and infirmity, it would be ‘cruel’ to to put the former General on trial. I hope the bastard rots in hell.

BOBBY JINDAL RELEASES BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Stop the presses!

Osama Bin Laden 1957-2011

I’m willing to bet that everyone knows that Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda leader and mastermind behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks, was killed the other day by US forces in Pakistan.

If the news analysis sources that I have been reading are correct, apparently Bin Laden had lost much of his popular appeal in the middle-east and was considered a bit of a liability by his terrorist peers because of his high profile. Despite being unusually tall (6’6″), needing the help of a cane to get around and poor health (that some sources say he required dialysis treatments), Bin Laden managed to evade US forces for about 10 years. He was finally found (and killed)in a walled villa in Abbottabad, Pakistan, just blocks away from an important Pakistani officer’s training school. Abbottabad is apparently a town popular with tourists for it’s beautiful climate, lush vegetation and luxury restaurants, so the fact that Bin Laden was living there (a rather conspicuous location), rather than in a cave up in the mountains of Afghanistan (as those who follow US news reports had always been told), is somewhat embarassing for both the Americans and their allies (who spent so long fruitlessly looking for him in all of the wrong places) and the Pakistani Government (who were assuring the US and her allies of cooperation while harboring known enemies like Bin Laden).

Maybe it hasn’t sunk in yet, but I’m surprised at how little I feel about the end of this chapter of American History even though I have been along for the whole ride… both when Bin Laden was a US “ally” as a leader of the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan under Presidents Reagan and Carter and when he became our enemy after 9-11. If any one person’s name was to be given as a ‘reason’ for commiting US forces wars in Afgahanistan and Iraq, it would probably be Bin Laden (with Saddam Hussein in second place).

I think the problem is that I don’t think Bin Laden’s death solves much of anything (in contrast, Hitler’s death by suicide did seem to bring ‘closure’ to WW2 in Europe; although Nazi Germany was effectively defeated, the Germans did not officially surrender until after Hitler was dead). Although President Obama is now talking about more troop withdrawls from Afghanistan, I don’t think Afghanistan (or Iraq) are any closer to being stable countries where the rule of law prevails and the citizens can count on anything close to a stable life than they were before Bin Laden was killed. Perhaps I’m just jaded. Perhaps there have already been too many declarations of ‘mission accomplished’ and victory in the middle east, and then we woke up the next morning and things were just as fucked up as they were the night before.

A lot of the people who were just kids when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan 10+ years ago are now adults, and many of them, rightly or wrongly, think of the US and the west as the agressors, the invaders, the bullies. Their countries are fucked up, broken down and burned out and the toilets don’t work, there isn’t much on the supermarket shelves, the water isn’t safe to drink unless you boil it, most of the people don’t have work, gunmen and bandits wander the streets and shit blows up all of the time — both Iraq and Afghanistan, despite efforts to the contrary, are breeding grounds for discontent.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not shedding any tears over the death of Bin Laden. He was an evil man who orchestrated mass casualty attacks on civilians (including his own people). He was also fucking weird — he claimed to love bulldozers, bombs, guns and genetically engineered plants and hated music and ‘luxuries’ like cold drinking water because his particular interpretation of a religiously based revolutionary culture. He thought music and cold water were decadent luxuries that made people happy and cooperative and less likely to fight for his cause. But I fear that there are a lot of other charismatic terrorist leaders who have stepped up to take his place (although the US public may not know their names yet). Afghanistan and Iraq don’t seem to have benefited enough from the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives that the US and her allies have poured in there (although the defense industry and the Government subcontractors certainly have done well). And we don’t even know how many Iraquis and Afghanis have died in the past ~10 years.

Given the amount of effort expended measured in dollars and blood shed, shouldn’t things be much better now?

The Emperor has a Comb-over!

I’d like to congratulate the mainstream media outlets on finally having found the courage to say that ‘The Donald’ is full of shit. Like here. And here. And here. In my opinion, the best high-level analysis I’ve seen of the whole kerfuffle is in The Christian Science Monitor. Even David Letterman, a barometer of ‘middle America’ if ever there was one, is done with The Donald.

And I just find myself wondering, “What took you guys so long?”

My beef, however, is less with Trump (who is a self promoting blowhard to the core) and more with the media who do not seem to feel the need to do anything other than ‘feed the beast’ and sell advertising time. And when I say, “Feed the Beast” I mean that the mainstream media outlets don’t seem to follow any other dictum in deciding what to put onscreen other than, “If it bleeds it leads.” Even if the ‘bleeding’ is just a fatuous real-estate developer with an outsize ego running his mouth and attempting to stoke up controversy to promote his ‘reality’ show and engage in his public displays of masturbatory self admiration while stoking racism tinged conspiracy theories that lead nowhere other than into a self perpetuation news cycle where the same story returns, again and again, like the killer in a series of brain-dead slasher films.

Perhaps if someone like Donald Trump wants to make stupid statements about Obama’s birth certificate, it is “news.” But why does it have to be reported witht he same gravity and given the same level of coverage as our two wars in the Middle East or the US budget? Why have the major media outlets given self promoting, ‘personal memoir’ writing, reality show starring media whores like Trump and Palin and all the rest so much airtime and softball questions with cozy brown-nosing television personalities? Why can’t we have a sense of proportion? Why do we need these perrenial ‘junk stories’ clouding the view of more serious matters? Why can’t more producers at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc., say to themselves, “Okay, let’s take 5 minutes for the bullshit stories after we get done with Afghanistan, the Budget, North Korea and jobs…“

It’s not a matter of the media ‘playing politics.’ I don’t think asking the media to have a “sense of proportion” is asking too much. Nobody likes bad news; that doesn’t mean that we don’t need to hear it… especially when it is something we may need to deal with.