John Cleese And Barney Frank In An Elevator April 30, 2015April 29, 2015 BOREF I’m not even clear what “racks and trays” are in the context of landing gear. (“Overhead bins” and “tray tables” I know, but this must be different.) Still, I like this quote: “When Total Air Group first encountered the WheelTug concept, we were amazed by the opportunities to help streamline airline operations and reduce wear and tear on aircraft and engines,” said Michael Silvius, TAG´s CEO. “We have been enthusiastically working with WheelTug for several years now, and are delighted to have acquired a formal relationship and role in the project. We look forward to leveraging our expertise in aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul work to design and produce the racks and trays for the WheelTug avionics suite.” . . . Who knows whether WheelTug will ever come to fruition — and with it, stock in its grandparent, Borealis. As always, it remains a gamble. But every time an industry insider expresses support, as above, my spirits flutter. BARNEY Onto NBC’s elevator strides Barney Frank with the book-tour escort his publisher has provided — I’m so proud to be one of his book‘s three blurbs — and whom does he see towering in the corner but John Cleese, one of the funniest men in the world. He, too, has a book out. There is that second or two when those entering the elevator register obvious recognition (Monty Python! Fawlty Towers!) . . . then surprise . . . then confusion (should I look away? should I smile? should I say somehting? do the others realize what’s happening?) and then Barney turns and says, “Good to see you again, John. We keep meeting in elevators.” Cleese squints. “In St. Louis two weeks ago,” Barney offers. Cleese stares down at the former Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and says, finally . . . “Are you the juggler?” Some in the elevator crack up, though no one is sure whether he’s joking, but Barney explains again about St. Louis and John asks his book-tour people, “Have I ever been to St. Louis?” We don’t have far for the elevator to ascend — “Late Night With Seth Meyers” is taped on the eighth floor in studio 8G — but it’s long enough to establish that St. Louis is the one with the arch, and that John Cleese is a person who has never been there. You can watch the entire show here — 41 minutes. Both Cleese and Barney are really funny, as is Seth Meyers. But wait. There’s more. Barney exits the elevator with his book-tour person and proceeds past Fred Amison to the Green Room, with its little fruit plate, bite-size chocolates, and a Late Night mug for each guest. Off of gthe Green Room are dressing rooms for each guest, their names glowing from an iPod mounted by each door. BARNEY FRANK. LINDA CARDELLINI. JOHN CLEESE. At which point Barney all but smacks his forehead with his palm and bolts after John Cleese to explain. It seems the tall, funny star he met in St. Louis was John Lithgow (“Third Rock from the Sun,” etc.). And that when he met John Lithgow, he confused him for the Monty Python guy. So things had come full circle. “Don’t worry,” the giant reassured Barney, “people confuse the two of us all the time.” Enjoy the show.
What You Should Know About TPP April 28, 2015May 18, 2015 Let’s start with this: Right now, the trade playing field is tilted badly against America. Our markets are almost entirely open – I believe the average tariff we levy on imports is just 1.4% — while the countries we trade with are not nearly so welcoming. Their average import duties are three or four times as high on average (and in some key situations much higher still). But on top of that, their businesses are not saddled with the same (worthy!) labor and environmental standards that ours are. This is not good for America — and it causes American CEOs to do something in their shareholders’ interest that they might rather not: shift good jobs abroad, both for the lower labor costs and to avoid the higher tariffs. Japan charges a 30% duty on cars and/or auto parts manufactured here . . . but ZERO tariff on the same cars and parts manufactured in Mexico. So this sucks. And should be fixed. And then there’s NAFTA — which did a lot of good for American exporters and their American workers . . . and for American consumers – but that absolutely did not live up to its “side agreement” provisions with regard to worker and environmental standards. That sucks, too, and should also be fixed. OK? The status quo that American workers have been stuck with for a very long time is rotten and should be fixed. And that is the whole point. There are a lot of important but smaller points to be debated and negotiated, but the big point is that patriotic Americans who care about a fairer playing field for American workers and American businesses, large and small, should want to fix the status quo. Perfection is unrealistic, but major strides toward fairer trade, with lower barriers to our exports and higher, more enforceable labor and environmental standards? That’s something we should not just support but demand. And that’s exactly what the President and his team have been working for years now to get. The TransPacific Partnership – TPP – would cover our trade with 11 nations. And because Mexico and Canada — our NAFTA partners — are two of those 11, it is also our chance, after two decades, to fix NAFTA. NAFTA’s unenforceable “side agreement” provisions would be folded into the body of the treaty itself, and so for the first time be enforceable. The details are of course super important. But there’s little reason for me to believe that this President — a Marxist according to some, the most liberal in our history according to others, an enemy of Wall Street according to yet others — is secretly working to make things worse for American workers or to weaken our hard-won Democratic health, safety, and environmental regulations. So my take on this is: let’s give the President the same “fast track” Trade Promotion Authority — TPA — in negotiating the TPP that Congress has given every Democratic president and every Republican president (with the exception of Richard Nixon) since FDR. At the end of the day three things will be true: (1) There will be things in the deal we don’t like. (2) Even so, it will be a major improvement over the status quo. (3) And in case it’s not, Congress can — and should — vote it down. And then there’s this: China is not a party to the TPP. They are busy trying to organize global trade their own way. If we don’t seize the chance to do it “our way,” it will be a great gift to the Chinese at the expense of our own workers. Nothing against our Chinese friends – but why would we want that? Here an opposing view. It is completely well-intentioned, of course. But it has not changed my own. One last note: I emailed a friend who heads a labor union. We are not close friends, and it is not a giant union; but we run into each other a lot and it is definitely a meaningful well known union . . . so when I heard on a conference call how passionately opposed he was to fast-track and TPP, I emailed asking him to call me so I could better understand his concerns. He didn’t call, so I emailed a few days later to make sure he saw the first email. He emailed that he had, but was traveling, and would call. I emailed that he could call while in transit — a great way to spend down time waiting for planes or whatever — but that I looked forward to it, whenever. Another week has passed. Not to make too much of this — he’s busy, I’m busy, you’re busy, we all drop balls — but I do think there is an understandable but reflexive inclination among progressives to oppose trade deals, given their very real flaws (especially as regards the non-enforceable NAFTA provisions) — and that labor leaders, especially, will not be inclined to be seen by their members as weak in any way in protecting their members’ interests. And rightly so. But they shouldn’t protect the rotten status quo, either. So if the TPP, once it’s finally negotiated and submitted to Congress, would, on balance, improve the lot of America’s current and future workers, as hoped — well, at that point, those same labor leaders should come on board and urge its passage. My two cents. FUN Where would we be without my friend Mel to pass along three-minute gems like this? (Viewers are counseled: Be Sure To Watch The Dog’s Expression When The Plate is Removed.”)
Tale Of The $20 Gold Pieces April 27, 2015 CISG Closing at $11 Friday, CISG has doubled in the 16 months since suggested here. I’d like to think it may double again over the next few years, but this would be an obvious time to sell half and, with house money, see what happens with the rest. GOLD To fund that CISG purchase, I suggested selling GLD at $117. (Today, $113.) I don’t know much about gold, but this juxtoposition gives me an excuse to tell you a story. In the 1930s, according to a numismatist friend of mine, the United States Mint had a loose relationship with collectors and dealers. It maintained a “Collector’s Window.” You could go up to the window and exchange circulating coins for newly minted ones, even if they’d not yet been officially released. This was never a problem until Roosevelt decided not to release the $20 gold coins they had just minted — over 400,000 of them! — in early 1933. (He wanted to limit ownership of gold to keep it from draining demand for paper money.) So, apart from two specimins sent to the U.S. Assay Commission, now in the Smithsonian, the handful that had been exchanged at the Collector’s Window — perhaps by a single dealer — were the only ones that survived. And as to those, the guys at the Collector’s Window all adopted a “who, me?” air of ignorance — and, really, why not? Where was the harm? Since old $20 gold coins had been exchanged for new $20 gold coins, Uncle Sam hadn’t lost even a gram of gold. But word got out that the dealer had sold 15 of the coins. These the government eventually tracked down, confiscated, and melted. Which was basically the end of the story . . . apart from occasional speculation (fueled by the dealer himself with a wink and a nod) that he had actually exchanged more than 15 coins at the Collector’s Window. Like maybe 25. Everyone always assumed he was making this up to enhance his own importance among collectors — he was apparently a bit of a loudnmouth and a braggart. Well, guess what? Cleaning out an old safe in 2004, the dealer’s family found a roll of coins wrapped in paper that they had assumed to be silver dollars, which still circulated in 1933. They freaked out when they finally undid the roll and found the “missing” ten extra 1933 $20 gold coins the guy had always claimed to have had. The family sought out the lawyer that had successfully negotiated the settlement of the Farouk coin in 2001. His counsel was to send the coins to Washington for “authentication,” explaining the circumstances under which they were found, so as not to incur criminal charges. He predicted that the government would confiscate the coins but not accuse the family of wrongdoing — which is exactly what happened. He said the family would then have to sue for recovery — which is also what happened. They lost the first round, but just last week won on appeal. Reuters: By a 2-1 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Joan Langbord and her sons Roy and David are the rightful owners of the double eagle $20 gold pieces, after the government ignored their claim to the coins and missed a deadline to seek their forfeiture. That is where it stands now. My coin dealer friend suggests the Obama administration could score “major points” with the numismatic community — along with some cash — if it eschewed further appeal. Rather than fight to keep ten ounces of gold — $11,300 worth — Uncle Sam could save all those legal fees even as it reeled in millions in inheritance and/or capital gains taxes once the coins were sold. Coin collectors around the world are waiting to see whether the U.S. Attorney will drop the case (as it clearly should — no?) and what the coins will fetch if he does. The King Farouk example apparently went for $7.6 million. Isn’t this fun? Tomorrow: Why Elizabeth Warren and a lot of other very well-intended progressives whom I admire no end are on the wrong in the controvery over the TransPacific Partnership trade agreement.
Cautionary Tales From The Internet April 23, 2015 My esteemed friend Mel, who seems to attract good stuff floating around the Internet the way I attract no-see-ums, passed on these cautionary tales. Personally, I plan never again to leave my house. 1. LONG-TERM PARKING: A family left their car in the long-term parking at San Jose while away, and someone broke into the car. Using the information on the car’s registration in the glove compartment, they drove the car to their home in Pebble Beach and robbed it. So I guess if we are going to leave the car in long-term parking, we should NOT leave the registration/insurance cards in it, nor your remote garage door opener. 2. GPS: Someone had their car broken into while they were at a football game. Their car was parked on the green which was adjacent to the football stadium and specially allotted to football fans. Things stolen from the car included a garage door remote control, some money and a GPS which had been prominently mounted on the dashboard. When the victims got home, they found that their house had been ransacked and just about everything worth anything had been stolen. The thieves had used the GPS to guide them to the house. They then used the garage remote control to open the garage door and gain entry to the house. The thieves knew the owners were at the football game, they knew what time the game was scheduled to finish and so they knew how much time they had to clean out the house. It would appear that they had brought a truck to empty the house of its contents. Something to consider if you have a GPS – don’t put your home address in it… Put a nearby address (like a store or gas station) so you can still find your way home if you need to, but no one else would know where you live if your GPS were stolen. 3. CELL PHONES: A woman had her handbag stolen. It contained her cell phone, credit cards, wallet — the works. Twenty minutes later when she called her hubby from a pay phone telling him what had happened, hubby says, “I got your text asking about our PIN number and replied a little while ago.” When they rushed down to the bank, the bank staff told them all the money was already withdrawn. The thief had actually used the stolen cell phone to text “hubby” in the contact list and got hold of the PIN number. Morals of the story: (a) Do not disclose the relationship between you and the people in your contact list. Avoid using names like Home, Honey, Hubby, Sweetheart, Dad, Mom, etc. (b) When sensitive info is being asked through texts, CONFIRM first by calling back. (c) When texted by friends or family to meet them somewhere, be sure to call back to confirm the message came from them. If you don’t reach them, be very careful about going places to meet “family and friends” who text you. 4. PURSE IN THE GROCERY CART SCAM: A woman shopping at a local mall left her purse in the children’s seat of the shopping cart while she reached for something off a shelf. Her wallet was stolen, and she reported it to the store personnel. After returning home, she received a phone call from Mall Security to say that they had her wallet and that although there was no money in it, it did still hold her personal papers. She immediately went to pick up her wallet, only to be told by Mall Security that they had not called her. By the time she got home again, her house had been burglarized. The thieves knew that by calling and saying they were Mall Security, they could lure her out of her house long enough for them to burglarize it. Or you could be hit by lightning. But these certainly are cautionary tales. (One recalls the scene early in “Casablanca” — “I beg of you, Monsieur,” says the pick-pocket as he does his work, “be on guard — this place is full of vultures, vultures everywhere!” — 30 classic seconds — or, oh, what the heck: what could you possibly have to do today more important or enjoyable than watching the whole movie right now, for free?)
Take Me [Out] To The Ball Game April 22, 2015April 21, 2015 HEAT Frigid as the Northeast was this past winter, Bloomberg News tells us this was actually the planet’s hottest start to a year of any on record — with an animated chart and everything. (Marco Rubio tells us the climate’s changing — it’s always changing — but there’s nothing we should be doing about it. His view is neatly analyzed here.) LIGHT My pal Billy Bean — Major League Baseball’s inclusion ambassador and author of Going the Other Way — wrote this for Time last week. Can he really be one of just two major league baseball players in the last 146 years to acknowledge (after retiring) that they were gay? In part: Jackie Robinson’s Lesson for Baseball Today . . . As a closeted player, I was consumed with fear that my fellow players would find out about me. I was living a completely secretive life. The sudden death of my partner on the eve of my last season in 1995 was the beginning of the end of my playing career. I walked out of the hospital at 7 a.m. with his clothes in a plastic bag, the only evidence of a three-year relationship. I was in a state of shock until I realized that I needed to be at Angel Stadium in less than four hours. I drove home, showered, and, like always, I went to work. However, a part of me died that day with Sam, and not believing I could talk to anyone about it was my greatest mistake. I remember writing his name on the inside of my cap, hoping for strength to get through that game. . . .This past November, I was asked to speak to all 30 general managers at their annual offseason meeting. A dialogue was created that resulted in invitations from 16 different organizations. On Feb. 27 I began a journey around the country, making early morning presentations, sharing my personal story and talking about leadership, responsibility, and the message of acceptance to big-league clubs. I suited up and threw batting practice with the Mets, Tigers, and Phillies. I spoke to entire minor league systems, met with coaching staffs, front office personnel, and watched games with general managers. . . . Baseball asked me to lead this conversation, and I knew that this is where it really starts – with our players. For me it’s simple: The message of inclusion will save lives. An accepting example from our players can influence today’s youth and turn bullies into leaders who take care of their teammates and classmates instead of discriminate, ridicule, or perpetuate hate against them. . . . After my long road trip this spring, I began to reflect on my return to the game and the irony of being back in baseball for exactly the same reason I walked away from it. Baseball changed the world 68 years ago, and in honor of its great history and its vision of the future, we are sending a message that is loud and clear: “Everyone is welcome.” How cool is that? It is very cool. And deeply American.
A Hero You Never Heard Of April 21, 2015April 21, 2015 Dr. Stephen Tobias: “We saw a screening of Soft Vengeance; Albie Sachs and the New South Africa recently at Boalt Hall, with the subject and the film maker. Wow. This 7-minute BBC interview is a taste of it. There’s also a book. Albie — everyone calls him that — was a South African freedom fighter (imprisoned, tortured, car-bombed), a leading drafter of the constitution (perhaps the most progressive in the world), and justice of the Constitutional Court, which struck down the death penalty in 1995 and established the right to same-sex marriage on 2005. He fought for a code of conduct in the ANC from the start of the revolution, which led to the constitution and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” ☞ Seven minutes well spent. Something short after yesterday’s 20,000-word post. (Well, it seemed like 20,000 words.) But did you listen to Harry Truman, at the end? About low voter turn-out that gave us the “do nothing” Republican Congress in 1946? Plus ca change . . .
Marco Rubio, Meet Harry Truman April 20, 2015April 19, 2015 MARCO RUBIO The young senator promises bold ideas for a “new American Century” — like opposing the new relationship with Cuba, oppposing marriage equality, opposing the comprehensive immigration reform he helped broker before he decided to run for president — and like, certainly, that newest of bold Republican ideas: lowering taxes for the rich. Specifically, lowering the rate on billion-dollar inheritances to . . . zero. (See, also, Bill Press: “New Face With Old Ideas.”) His party’s interest in eliminating the estate tax may ultimately help Democrats more than it helps Republicans in the next election. To wit: WHY ARE REPUBLICANS TRYING TO REPEAL THE ESTATE TAX? IT’S THEIR NATURE By Paul Waldman in the Washington Post, Saturday: Yesterday, the House voted to repeal the estate tax, apparently in the belief that the American public needed a reminder that the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy. I’ll get to why the arguments they make about this issue are either problematic or just factually wrong (depending on which argument you’re talking about), but as a political decision, holding this vote seems rather foolish. They know that even if they got the 60 votes they would need to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, President Obama would likely veto the bill. So why bother? The answer can be found in the parable of the scorpion and the frog, which you probably know. The scorpion asks the frog for a ride across the river; the frog says, “But you’ll sting me.” The scorpion replies, “Why would I do that? If I sting you then we both drown.” The frog agrees, and midway across the river the scorpion stings the frog. As they begin to sink to their deaths, the frog says, “Why did you do that?” The scorpion answers, “It’s my nature.” In this case, the frog is the eventual GOP presidential nominee, and the scorpion is congressional Republicans. At a time when everyone is talking about income inequality and stagnant wages, the nominee will want to convince voters that he understands their concerns and will find ways to improve their lot. Meanwhile, his congressional allies are trying to make sure Donald Trump’s kids don’t have to pay taxes. It isn’t that the estate tax is incredibly popular, because it isn’t. If you ask people in a poll whether they think it ought to be repealed, a majority will say yes. (I discussed some reasons why here.) But this isn’t a problem because voters will be angry at Republicans for trying to repeal the tax, it’s a problem because it demonstrates what Republican priorities are, in exactly the way they don’t want. You can bet that Hillary Clinton will contrast her economic plans with those of Republicans, who want to cut upper-income rates, as well as taxes on investments and inheritances. This is a concrete demonstration of what she’ll talk about. Republicans say that they aren’t really trying to help wealthy heirs; instead, this is motivated by their deep concern for the fate of family farms and small businesses. But today, the first $5.43 million of any estate is exempt from taxes. That’s the single most important fact to understand about this tax. And what about those family farms Republicans are always talking about, the ones that are constantly being sold off to pay the estate taxes? They’re a myth. When The Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler was doing his estate tax fact check, he asked the office of John Thune, the sponsor of the Senate version of repeal, about the farms we keep hearing about. “Thune’s staff conceded that they could not identify a single farm that had been sold because of the estate tax, but they said some farms had to sell acreage in order to pay the tax.” Nobody else seems to be able to find one, either. You’ll notice that when Republicans talk about this, they always posit a hypothetical family farm being sold off and not “My constituents the Millers had to sell off their farm,” because the Millers are the equivalent of a unicorn. According to the Department of Agriculture, in 2013 only .6 percent — or 1 in 167 — of the estates of farmers who died owed any estate tax at all. Because of that large exemption, currently at $5.43 million, the numbers for all estates are even smaller. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, “In 2013, the most recent year for which final numbers are available, there were 2.6 million deaths in the United States, and 4,700 estate tax returns reporting some tax liability were filed. Thus, taxable estate tax returns represented approximately one-fifth of one percent of deaths in 2013.” That’s 1 in every 553 estates that owed any tax. Which does make you wonder why repealing the estate tax is an issue of such terrible urgency to Republicans. You’d think that if they were smarter, they’d say to themselves, “We want to do this eventually, but it isn’t going to happen with a Democrat in the White House. And we won’t get a Republican president unless we show the voters we care about ordinary people. So let’s just put this off until 2017.” But if there’s just one wealthy heir out there who might have to pay some tax on his inheritance, and heaven forbid decide to get a Porsche instead of a Ferrari next year, then that’s an injustice they simply can’t ignore. Politics might dictate otherwise, but Republicans can’t help themselves. It’s their nature. And by the way? Eliminating the eestate tax is bad for nonprofits (making the after-tax cost of contributing to charity that much higher); bad for the deficit (which will only swell, if this revenue stream is shut off); bad for the economy generally (gross inequality slows economic growth, as does entrusting capital allocation decisions to the decedent’s often less-astute heirs) . . . and, to top it all off, as Jim Burt of Fort Worth, Texas, reminds us, it’s unAmerican: JIM BURT ON THE ESTATE TAX The latest proposals from the Republican presidential hopefuls include a “tax plan” from Marco Rubio that would entirely eliminate inheritance taxes. This flies in the face of both Republican history and American history. The estate tax was championed by Republican Teddy Roosevelt but had precursors in other forms. America’s “Founding Fathers” showed their concerns about accumulations of great wealth even before the Constitution was adopted, by enacting the Northwest Ordnance of 1787, which established the terms for settling and governing the “Old Northwest.” This law, which was immediately readopted by Congress under the Constitution, prohibited primogeniture and entail, which were the principal methods of accumulating and preserving great landed estates at that time, in the new territories. As fans of “Downton Abbey” should already know, primogeniture vested the bulk of an estate in the first born male heir, while entail prevented the distribution by gift of an estate during the life of the owner, so that once formed, a great landed estate could only grow and grow. This practice was outlawed in the new territories because our Founding Fathers feared the political effects of the accumulation of great fortunes and wanted to see them broken up periodically. When the Constitution was adopted shortly thereafter, it also included a prohibition against titles of nobility. While today a noble title confers only social cachet even in the Old World, at the time of our founding a noble title conferred “privilege,” a word descending from two French roots meaning, literally (and I use the word literally), “private law,” including, in many countries, a dispensation from the payment of taxes, especially taxes on the ownership of land and the sale of its products. When ownership of land was the foundation of all wealth, freedom from land taxes was the functional equivalent of Marco Rubio’s proposal to eliminate taxation on investment income from interest, dividends, and capital gains, just as his proposed elimination of the estate tax is functionally equivalent to the re-institution of primogeniture and entail. Our Founding Fathers wanted to discourage the political power of great wealth. The Republicans want to do the exact opposite. What Rubio and his like propose is profoundly un-American: an assault upon the vision of our Founding Fathers, and a disguised step toward the elevation of a new class of privileged hereditary nobility in the United States. There could hardly be a more radical and extremist economic vision than the Republican parade toward an 18th century exaltation of wealth and privilege. Democrats have long embaced a different perspective. As in this example: HARRY TRUMAN From Andrei Cherney’s The Candy Bombers (thanks, Tom!): Truman arrived in Chicago that afternoon, driving slowly past two miles of waving supporters in an open car, on his way to a nighttime address at the city’s stadium. . . . He spoke of Woodrow Wilson’s dream and Franklin Roosevelt’s United Nations, but said, “We must do more than just avert war. . . . [T]he American way of life which most of us have been taking for granted is threatened today by powerful forces of which most people are not even aware.” . . . This insidious cabal was known as the Republican Party. The Republicans, Truman charged at this moment of heated worry about war and despotism, had “opened the gate to forces that would destroy our democracy.” He pointed out that “again and again in history, economic power concentrated in the hands of a few men has led to the loss of freedom.” And there was always one invariable constant to the rise of despotism. “When a few men get control of the economy of a nation, they find a ‘front man’ to run the country for them. Before Hitler came to power, control over the German economy had passed into the hands of a small group of rich manufacturers, bankers, and landowners. These men decided that Germany had to have a tough, ruthless dictator who would play their game and crush the strong German labor unions. So they put money and influence behind Adolf Hitler. We know the rest of the story. We also know that in Italy, in the 1920s, powerful Italian businessmen backed Mussolini, and in the 1930s, Japanese financiers helped Tojo’s military clique take over Japan.” Truman did not need to reveal the identity of this front man he was claiming was a would-be-American Hitler – right down to his mustache. If anyone failed to pick up the analogy, the next day’s papers did it for them. Dewey retorted that Truman was soft on communism, and the next day, in Boston, Truman fired back. (It was a heck of an election; the one Truman went to bed thinking he had lost, and the famous Chicago Tribune “Dewey Wins!” headline.) I couldn’t find the speech excerpted above, but here’s the 24-minute Boston speech, debunking Dewey’s charge . . . and blaming the disastrous mid-term election results of 1946, that gave the Republicans a majority in both houses of what would become known as the “Do Nothing Congress,” on the two-thirds of elgible Democrats who didn’t bother to vote. Sound familiar?
Moon Hooch! April 17, 2015April 13, 2015 I first heard them in Vancouver at TED . . . then went last weekend to hear them in Brooklyn . . . and you can hear them, here, free, from the comfort of your own easy chair. Moon Hooch! And now this: Why Americans Are Screwed and Europeans Are Not The U.S. economy is picking up steam but most Americans aren’t feeling it. By Robert Reich / Robert Reich’s Blog March 15, 2015 The U.S. economy is picking up steam but most Americans aren’t feeling it. By contrast, most European economies are still in bad shape, but most Europeans are doing relatively well. What’s behind this? Two big facts. First, American corporations exert far more political influence in the United States than their counterparts exert in their own countries. In fact, most Americans have no influence at all. That’s the conclusion of Professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, who analyzed 1,799 policy issues — and found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” Instead, American lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and of big corporations – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns. The second fact is most big American corporations have no particular allegiance to America. They don’t want Americans to have better wages. Their only allegiance and responsibility to their shareholders — which often requires lower wages to fuel larger profits and higher share prices. When GM went public again in 2010, it boasted of making 43 percent of its cars in place where labor is less than $15 an hour, while in North America it could now pay “lower-tiered” wages and benefits for new employees. American corporations shift their profits around the world wherever they pay the lowest taxes. Some are even morphing into foreign corporations. As an Apple executive told The New York Times, “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems.” I’m not blaming American corporations. They’re in business to make profits and maximize their share prices, not to serve America. But because of these two basic facts – their dominance on American politics, and their interest in share prices instead of the wellbeing of Americans – it’s folly to count on them to create good American jobs or improve American competitiveness, or represent the interests of the United States in global commerce. By contrast, big corporations headquartered in other rich nations are more responsible for the wellbeing of the people who live in those nations. That’s because labor unions there are typically stronger than they are here — able to exert pressure both at the company level and nationally. VW’s labor unions, for example, have a voice in governing the company, as they do in other big German corporations. Not long ago, VW even welcomed the UAW to its auto plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. (Tennessee’s own politicians nixed it.) Governments in other rich nations often devise laws through tri-partite bargains involving big corporations and organized labor. This process further binds their corporations to their nations. Meanwhile, American corporations distribute a smaller share of their earnings to their workers than do European or Canadian-based corporations. And top U.S. corporate executives make far more money than their counterparts in other wealthy countries. The typical American worker puts in more hours than Canadians and Europeans, and gets little or no paid vacation or paid family leave. In Europe, the norm is five weeks paid vacation per year and more than three months paid family leave. And because of the overwhelming clout of American firms on U.S. politics, Americans don’t get nearly as good a deal from their governments as do Canadians and Europeans. Governments there impose higher taxes on the wealthy and redistribute more of it to middle and lower income households. Most of their citizens receive essentially free health care and more generous unemployment benefits than do Americans. So it shouldn’t be surprising that even though U.S. economy is doing better, most Americans are not. The U.S. middle class is no longer the world’s richest. After considering taxes and transfer payments, middle-class incomes in Canada and much of Western Europe are higher than in U.S. The poor in Western Europe earn more than do poor Americans. Finally, when at global negotiating tables – such as the secretive process devising the “Trans Pacific Partnership” trade deal — American corporations don’t represent the interests of Americans. They represent the interests of their executives and shareholders, who are not only wealthier than most Americans but also reside all over the world. Which is why the pending Partnership protects the intellectual property of American corporations — but not American workers’ health, safety, or wages, and not the environment. The Obama administration is casting the Partnership as way to contain Chinese influence in the Pacific region. The agents of America’s interests in the area are assumed to be American corporations. But that assumption is incorrect. American corporations aren’t set up to represent America’s interests in the Pacific region or anywhere else. What’s the answer to this basic conundrum? Either we lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American politics. Or we increase their allegiance and responsibility to America. It has to be one or the other. Americans can’t thrive within a political system run largely by big American corporations — organized to boost their share prices but not boost America. We need a President who will appoint Justices who do not believe that corporations are people, who understands it is the middle class not the wealthy who are the job creators, and who favors things like a higher minimum wage and tax equity. (The Republicans would eliminate the tax on billionheirs.) Oh — and who “believes in” science and evolution and stuff, but I digress. Have a great weekend. Moon Hooch!
Robby: Ready For Hillary April 16, 2015April 13, 2015 I am neutral among all the fine Democrats contemplating a run for President. Truly. In 2008, the Obama folks were all certain the DNC was in the tank for Clinton; the Clinton folks were all certain we were in the tank for Obama. Which suggested we did a pretty good job of remaining neutral. (It was actually easy, because both were such completely compelling choices. Even privately, in the voting booth, I was torn.) That said, should Hillary win, she will enter the White House with an exceptional intellect; an extraordinary knowledge of the presidency; a track record of working across the aisle in the Senate; a deep knowledge of foreign affairs; working relationships with scores of her fellow world leaders; and policy positions that favor the 99%, while embracing science, diversity, and investment. And as I read this profile of Robby Mook, 35, tapped to run her campaign, I’m thinking: you know what? She just might win.