I think blue states should immediately secede from the union and officially join Canada. We are the money makers and the rest of the country will fall into poverty without us.
Was going to suggest blue states stop paying in to the system. Joining Canada gets us universal healthcare so I’m in. Leave red state to govern themselves
That chart of red and blue states is kind of misleading. It's showing election data from 2004. New Mexico may have barely voted for GW Bush that year, but in every presidential election since then it's been a blue state, and currently all three Representatives and both Senators are Democrats.
Great summary Dougald. The economic pain might actually be quite intentional if the expectation is that the resulting rage can be directed against the Dem enclaves of “elites”. If the pain is severe enough to provoke active protests that might also be reason enough for Trump to declare martial law and suspend voting “temporarily”.
What I wanted to illustrate is a lose-lose scenario for Republicans - which I may add. Republican politicians know that it will hurt their constituents, as well as their chances for re-election. That means that either they oppose the cuts - which means GOP conflict and gridlock - or that the cuts proceed and they lose their seats in the midterm elections.
In terms of bad impacts, malice and incompetence can't be told apart. The promises of massive cuts are ideological, by people who think "it's for your own good". Social security and medicare directly affect seniors - so I don't expect riots. But they certainly vote. And it cannot be blamed on anyone but the administration.
It's the old adage - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
But that’s why they are trying to stop voters from vot8ng. They know their policies are unpopular and can’t win fairly. They don’t want free and fair they want suppression
I’d be interested in how that Medicare ranking would change if it was % of population rather than count. California has almost 40 million people in it so it is logical it would have the highest count.
The economist graph in my opinion showed a very flawed result for New Mexico. The Federal income tax collected is low, but the oil and gas revenues that New Mexico contributes to the Federal coffers is just behind Texas and several states ahead of California. These petroleum royalties are in excess of the funds received by the state. The three National Laboratories in New Mexico consume large amounts of Federal funds. This makes New Mexico standout in the chart, and puts an unnecessary bias into the discussions about donors and recipients of Federal funds.
The table is definitely behind the times. Colorado is now solidly blue in national voting although we are 4-4 in US House seats. We have 2 Democratic Senators, both state houses are solidly blue and the Governor, AG, and SoS are Democrats.
This is exactly why when fascism reveals itself, it must move at lightning speed to control all the organs and institutions of government, education, the military, media and the police.
Every one of these objectives have been largely met through the court systems and corruption.
The advent of a dictator is not the beginning, it is the culmination of decades of work to build a political infrastructure that will not only allow it, but support it against the public’s will.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is democracy.
The only relevant expression of political power the public has is to prevent the consolidation of capital through seizing the labor markets by forming unions and striking.
The second way is to destroy capital, aka the Boston Tea Party.
There is a fourth way, which is restructuring and debt forgiveness, and enforcement of the law.
Western Democracy began in Athens with debt forgiveness.
That is the economic dynamic that is polarizing and corrupting society: it depends on the public and government being able to ensure and enforce the rule of law.
It is not just the public vs tyrants: it is people who want to follow the law vs people who want to enforce it.
The fundamental dynamic that is polarizing and undermining society is excess private debt. The vast majority of citizens everywhere have been trapped by debt to a tiny minority of citizens.
The idea that government officials in a representative democracy are supposed to live in fear, or that citizens should live in fear of their government means relationships based on terror. That is not democracy.
Government and civil society is not based on fear, it is based on trust and confidence.
Thank you Mr. Lamont for that counterpoint because it is an important piece in understanding the larger dynamic. I agree with everything you say, however it does not take into account the priorities of capitalism.
Capitalism follows what sociologists call the conflict theory of social models because there are inherent conflicts in capitalism which create antagonistic relationships across the entire society that capitalism operates in. These are inherent to capitalism because in order for capitalism to continually profit, there must be differentials in every market for inputs and outputs that capitalism operates it. Equilibrium is antithetical to capitalism because there is no continual growth if equilibrium is established.
The key conflicts happen in the markets for capital's inputs and outputs because there must be differences in the cost and profitability for firms to compete and provide an incentive to exploit whatever resource is available to exploit.
The first conflict revolves around the cost of labor. Labor is what creates something out of nothing and then works to distribute and sell that product. There is conflict around what is the value added to the raw materials that labor produces. That value is what wages are all about, and labor should get a significant portion of that value because the laborer is also the consumer. If the consumer has no capital, then consumption flounders. So higher wages mean higher consumption, which means higher profitability. This tension creates tensions in society that spill into all other areas of society.
Most people believe there is a 1:1 relationship between wages and inflation. This is not true at all. Wages are subject to a multiplier effect, which is the same effect that makes fractional reserve banking possible. This multiplier effect is present because of how people spend money. People spend money marginally, meaning that you do not spend all of your money all at once and in one place.
Milton Friedman, whose relevance in academics faded many decades ago famously stated his theory of the firm. It is called something else today, but his point still stands. "Capitalism owes no moral or ethical duty to the society it operates in. It sole concern is to maximize the return on shareholder investment." So capitalism relies on the will of good people, yet this priority becomes another conflict and capitalism wins.
This creates several problems simultaneously, the first is moral hazard which creates capitalisms unique merit hierarchy which incentivizes bad behavior and bad actors in the marketplace. Adam Smith first wrote about this many years ago. The solution to this conundrum were and are laws that punish bad behavior and regulations that protect the public interests over private interests.
Today, corporate officers are not put into prison for malfeasance. They used to be put into prison on a regular basis but today, they are rewarded with bonus checks and stock. Therefore, there is a conflict of interests between private and public interests.
Okay, this is state by state. The particular distributional effect will depend on the program cut. The cut of Medicaid in, say Mississippi, will affect the poor and the state legislators won’t care. Black poor didn’t vote for Trump; I’m not certain that white poor would react negatively against Trump. However, Mississippi has defense spending on the coast and a variety of research programs at the universities. Mississippi legislators and congressional representatives will be in a hard place dealing with the non-poor that defense and research will affect.
I think blue states should immediately secede from the union and officially join Canada. We are the money makers and the rest of the country will fall into poverty without us.
Was going to suggest blue states stop paying in to the system. Joining Canada gets us universal healthcare so I’m in. Leave red state to govern themselves
There r a lot of us blue dots n red states.
No secession; resist their ColdCivilWar!
That chart of red and blue states is kind of misleading. It's showing election data from 2004. New Mexico may have barely voted for GW Bush that year, but in every presidential election since then it's been a blue state, and currently all three Representatives and both Senators are Democrats.
It is not based on how they vote but how much they get from the national government to how much they pay in.
That's part of the chart, but they've color coded it red or blue according to how a state voted.
I was just addressing the green and red map.
I understand that, but my comment was pertaining to the chart, which clearly notes that data was drawn from the 2004 election.
K
Great summary Dougald. The economic pain might actually be quite intentional if the expectation is that the resulting rage can be directed against the Dem enclaves of “elites”. If the pain is severe enough to provoke active protests that might also be reason enough for Trump to declare martial law and suspend voting “temporarily”.
What I wanted to illustrate is a lose-lose scenario for Republicans - which I may add. Republican politicians know that it will hurt their constituents, as well as their chances for re-election. That means that either they oppose the cuts - which means GOP conflict and gridlock - or that the cuts proceed and they lose their seats in the midterm elections.
In terms of bad impacts, malice and incompetence can't be told apart. The promises of massive cuts are ideological, by people who think "it's for your own good". Social security and medicare directly affect seniors - so I don't expect riots. But they certainly vote. And it cannot be blamed on anyone but the administration.
It's the old adage - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
But that’s why they are trying to stop voters from vot8ng. They know their policies are unpopular and can’t win fairly. They don’t want free and fair they want suppression
NM is a poor state, a blue state, and one working hard to shore up our laws against the MAGA tide. So don't lump us in with the red states.
Yet another teason my home state of Minnesota should become Canada’s eleventh province.
I notice on the chart of blue/red state giving that the data is from 2005. Surely we have more updated info than that ?
I’d be interested in how that Medicare ranking would change if it was % of population rather than count. California has almost 40 million people in it so it is logical it would have the highest count.
The economist graph in my opinion showed a very flawed result for New Mexico. The Federal income tax collected is low, but the oil and gas revenues that New Mexico contributes to the Federal coffers is just behind Texas and several states ahead of California. These petroleum royalties are in excess of the funds received by the state. The three National Laboratories in New Mexico consume large amounts of Federal funds. This makes New Mexico standout in the chart, and puts an unnecessary bias into the discussions about donors and recipients of Federal funds.
Mark
Agree, totally flawed infograph as it relates to NM
The table is definitely behind the times. Colorado is now solidly blue in national voting although we are 4-4 in US House seats. We have 2 Democratic Senators, both state houses are solidly blue and the Governor, AG, and SoS are Democrats.
This is interesting, but who is James?
Good information. Self implosion would be best solution for all, but not solve our need for leadership in the Democratic Party.
OMGOODNESS
This is exactly why when fascism reveals itself, it must move at lightning speed to control all the organs and institutions of government, education, the military, media and the police.
Every one of these objectives have been largely met through the court systems and corruption.
The advent of a dictator is not the beginning, it is the culmination of decades of work to build a political infrastructure that will not only allow it, but support it against the public’s will.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is democracy.
The only relevant expression of political power the public has is to prevent the consolidation of capital through seizing the labor markets by forming unions and striking.
The second way is to destroy capital, aka the Boston Tea Party.
The third way is war.
There is a fourth way, which is restructuring and debt forgiveness, and enforcement of the law.
Western Democracy began in Athens with debt forgiveness.
That is the economic dynamic that is polarizing and corrupting society: it depends on the public and government being able to ensure and enforce the rule of law.
It is not just the public vs tyrants: it is people who want to follow the law vs people who want to enforce it.
The fundamental dynamic that is polarizing and undermining society is excess private debt. The vast majority of citizens everywhere have been trapped by debt to a tiny minority of citizens.
The idea that government officials in a representative democracy are supposed to live in fear, or that citizens should live in fear of their government means relationships based on terror. That is not democracy.
Government and civil society is not based on fear, it is based on trust and confidence.
Thank you Mr. Lamont for that counterpoint because it is an important piece in understanding the larger dynamic. I agree with everything you say, however it does not take into account the priorities of capitalism.
Capitalism follows what sociologists call the conflict theory of social models because there are inherent conflicts in capitalism which create antagonistic relationships across the entire society that capitalism operates in. These are inherent to capitalism because in order for capitalism to continually profit, there must be differentials in every market for inputs and outputs that capitalism operates it. Equilibrium is antithetical to capitalism because there is no continual growth if equilibrium is established.
The key conflicts happen in the markets for capital's inputs and outputs because there must be differences in the cost and profitability for firms to compete and provide an incentive to exploit whatever resource is available to exploit.
The first conflict revolves around the cost of labor. Labor is what creates something out of nothing and then works to distribute and sell that product. There is conflict around what is the value added to the raw materials that labor produces. That value is what wages are all about, and labor should get a significant portion of that value because the laborer is also the consumer. If the consumer has no capital, then consumption flounders. So higher wages mean higher consumption, which means higher profitability. This tension creates tensions in society that spill into all other areas of society.
Most people believe there is a 1:1 relationship between wages and inflation. This is not true at all. Wages are subject to a multiplier effect, which is the same effect that makes fractional reserve banking possible. This multiplier effect is present because of how people spend money. People spend money marginally, meaning that you do not spend all of your money all at once and in one place.
Milton Friedman, whose relevance in academics faded many decades ago famously stated his theory of the firm. It is called something else today, but his point still stands. "Capitalism owes no moral or ethical duty to the society it operates in. It sole concern is to maximize the return on shareholder investment." So capitalism relies on the will of good people, yet this priority becomes another conflict and capitalism wins.
This creates several problems simultaneously, the first is moral hazard which creates capitalisms unique merit hierarchy which incentivizes bad behavior and bad actors in the marketplace. Adam Smith first wrote about this many years ago. The solution to this conundrum were and are laws that punish bad behavior and regulations that protect the public interests over private interests.
Today, corporate officers are not put into prison for malfeasance. They used to be put into prison on a regular basis but today, they are rewarded with bonus checks and stock. Therefore, there is a conflict of interests between private and public interests.
Good! They created this mess. May they scream in pain.
FAFO red states. See you at the midterms.
Okay, this is state by state. The particular distributional effect will depend on the program cut. The cut of Medicaid in, say Mississippi, will affect the poor and the state legislators won’t care. Black poor didn’t vote for Trump; I’m not certain that white poor would react negatively against Trump. However, Mississippi has defense spending on the coast and a variety of research programs at the universities. Mississippi legislators and congressional representatives will be in a hard place dealing with the non-poor that defense and research will affect.