|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 26, 2007 20:39:07 GMT -6
Below is a copy of an article from an Australian journal, theage.com regarding the latest globalist talk from the Davos conference. The article is titled Tax the rich, summit told, or face backlash from those left behind and the author is Larry Elliott. " Tax the rich, summit told, or face backlash from those left behind
Larry Elliott
January 26, 2007
A BACKLASH against the economic insecurity caused by globalisation is looming in the West unless governments tackle growing inequality by raising taxes on the rich, economists said in Davos.
After years in which workers received an ever-smaller share of national incomes, business leaders arriving for the World Economic Forum were told to expect a reversal of pro-rich tax policies.
Robert Shiller, a Yale economics professor, said: "There are people left behind (by globalisation). We need to take steps now to design a plan so that if inequality gets worse, governments raise taxes on the wealthy. It's got to be that way."
Nouriel Roubini, chairman of Roubini Global Economics, said the old social contract in which governments ensured good wages, social security and health care was under pressure from the rise of China and India. Besides higher taxes on the rich, governments needed to invest in training, education and be prepared to subsidise wages.
"We have to do something or the backlash is going to be very, very severe," Professor Roubini said.
Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, said there were signs that inequality was leading to political shifts. "Look at the shares of national income in the major economies of the developed world. The share going to labour is at historic lows; the share going to capital is at historic highs. The (political) pendulum is moving left towards politicians more in favour of pro-labour economic policies. There is potential for a shift in the relationship between labour and capital."
The warnings came as a PricewaterhouseCoopers poll of senior executives found that the longest sustained period of economic growth since the Second World War had left more than 90 per cent expecting their businesses to grow this year — twice the figure of five years ago.
Professor Roubini said there was a risk in the US that the good times were coming to an end. "The Goldilocks economy is being threatened by the three bears. I worry about a US hard landing." He described the threats as a housing crash, higher interest rates and — despite the recent fall — the price of oil.
Jacob Frenkel, vice-chairman of the American International Group, disagreed. He said the depth of financial markets and the pro-market policies followed by governments would lead to smoother transitions. "We see a lot of ugly bears grow horns and become bulls.""
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 20:49:50 GMT -6
Not only this, but there should be something like what Dorgan proposes - a trade deficit "safety valve" that adds duties and tariffs to offending nations that run too high a trade deficit or cuts it off altogether for those not chosing to play by the rules with intellectual property theft, non reciporical open markets and currency manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 21:06:29 GMT -6
isn't it funny how oil kept going up up up, then started dropping a couple months before the election, and is now going down further?
Just like many suspected - oil prices were being manipulated to affect the elections.
And with a Democratic majority again Big Oil is going to behave themselves or face closer scrutiny and tighter regulation. They are already looking at a windfall profits tax.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 27, 2007 3:28:54 GMT -6
I agree with the sentiment expressed that wage inequality between the rich and the poor is widening, and that this is a major problem. However, the members seemed more concerned about the hazards of "protectionism," not of globalization. And their concern about wage inequality was because it might result in "more protectionist measures being taken." In other words, their concern about wage inequality was due to fear of increased protectionist measures.
Though I agree that the rich should pay more taxes than they currently do, this is not any kind of "solution" to the problems created by globalization.
The "solution" is to reduce globalization, and stop allowing multinational Corporate globalists to use international organizations (like the WTO) to supersede the sovereign laws of individual nations in their quest for the world's cheapest labor.
The underlying theme I detected was that globalization should be protected at all costs.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 27, 2007 6:22:42 GMT -6
Whcih would be a very very bad thing for middle and working class people indeed, not to mention small business.
I thought the Davos conference was supposed to be "progressive"? doesn't sound that way if globalization is being protected. They sure didn't get the message last November 7
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 9:39:56 GMT -6
Nobody IS left behind there are only those who TRY and those who don't. If you aren't doing well it is ONLY your fault.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 9:43:54 GMT -6
[quote author=blueneck board=globalization thread=1169865547 post=1169867189isn't it funny how oil kept going up up up, then started dropping a couple months before the election, and is now going down further? [/quote]
It is only if you don't understand economics, it is basic supply and demand.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 9:53:33 GMT -6
I agree with the sentiment expressed that wage inequality between the rich and the poor is widening, and that this is a major problem. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, the income and the living standards of the poor is steadily increasing, it makes no difference that the top is increasing faster.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 27, 2007 17:05:47 GMT -6
I agree with the sentiment expressed that wage inequality between the rich and the poor is widening, and that this is a major problem. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, the income and the living standards of the poor is steadily increasing, it makes no difference that the top is increasing faster. There is absolutely EVERYTHING wrong with it. Though it may be technically correct that living standards are increasing, the increase has been minuscule. The number of unemployed workers is at an all time high. According to the [url=http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/2007/2.htm ]ILO[/url], the number of unemployed reached an all-time high of 195.2 million in 2006, for a global unemployment rate of 6.3%. The pathetic increases in wages of the poorest has still left most of them in poverty. Furthermore, the increased fraction of world income going to capital, and the decreased fraction going to labor (and consumers), reduces the ability of world consumers to purchase production with wages. Combined with an increasing gap between productivity and wages, consumer ability to purchase production with wages declines even further. If goods can't be purchased by consumers, they won't be produced. And the workers needed to produce those goods won't be employed. Which is exactly what happened during the Great Depression. Without the massive borrowing bubble that exists today, and consumer ability to purchase goods with borrowed money (instead of wages), such an imbalance would have never occurred. Consumers wouldn't have been able to increase spending without this new borrowing ability, and Corporate America could not have continued increasing profits through debt-financed consumer sales. This "imbalance" certainly does make a difference, because it is not sustainable. An economy that relies on debt-financed consumer spending for growth cannot be sustained. A world economy that relies on the debt-financed spending of American consumers cannot be sustained either. Eventually the borrowing bubble will burst, consumer spending will fall of a cliff, and Corporate multinational profits will join in the fall. -------- There's a message I keep trying to drill into Right-Wingers' heads. If wages don't keep up, and consumer spending falls as a result, it's going to hurt you as well. You're not going to make profits if consumers can't purchase production. It is in the best interests of Corporate American, business, and investors to ensure that consumers have enough income to purchase production. Consumer purchase of production is 100% mandatory for capitalism to work. And money to purchase production doesn't just fall out of the sky. A source to finance consumer spending is absolutely essential. And the only sustainable "source" for increased spending is through increased wages. Increased borrowing power is not a sustainable way to maintain increased consumption. Eventually borrowing ability will be exhausted, and the production demand it created will also evaporate. So will the Corporate profits financed by debt-financed sale of goods. Wake up and join the real world. Investment alone has never created a single job by itself. And it never will. Anticipated demand for production was always required, and it is still required. Throw out your Voodoo Economics textbooks, or give them to your local library and file them in the "Science Fiction" section.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 18:08:10 GMT -6
"There is absolutely EVERYTHING wrong with it. "
Again there is nothing wrong with it, it is raising the standard of living for millions around the world, inclding the US.
"Though it may be technically correct that living standards are increasing, the increase has been minuscule. The number of unemployed workers is at an all time high. "
And the number of employed is also at an all time high.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 18:10:39 GMT -6
"There's a message I keep trying to drill into Right-Wingers' heads. If wages don't keep up, and consumer spending falls as a result, it's going to hurt you as well. "
Wages ARE keeping up, it is INFLATION that is the problem, inflation is robboing the buying power of the increased wages.
Manufacturing wages increased an average 39 cents each year under clinton. So far they have increased an average of 38.3 cents per year under Bush.
Inflation is the problem, not wages.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 20, 2007 4:00:28 GMT -6
Inflation is the problem, not wages. Inflation is a problem because the government has encouraged massive amounts of borrowing to supplement the income loss from stagnating wages. This artificial money creation has created the inflation that has prevented nominal wage increases from increasing the buying power of American workers, and it's this inflated money supply that has allowed employers to pay workers more in inflated dollars as wages. Again, it's real wages that determine buying power, not nominal wages.
|
|