This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The Monopolization of America

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 The Monopolization of America on 5/10/2018, 8:26 am





The biggest economic problem you’re hearing almost nothing about.

by Robert Reich


Not long ago I visited some farmers in Missouri whose profits are disappearing. Why? Monsanto alone owns the key genetic traits to more than 90 percent of the soybeans planted by farmers in the United States, and 80 percent of the corn. Which means Monsanto can charge farmers much higher prices.

Farmers are getting squeezed from the other side, too, because the food processors they sell their produce to are also consolidating into mega companies that have so much market power they can cut the prices they pay to farmers.

This doesn’t mean lower food prices to you. It means more profits to the monopolists.

Monopolies All Around

America used to have antitrust laws that stopped corporations from monopolizing markets, and often broke up the biggest culprits. No longer. It’s a hidden upward redistribution of money and power from the majority of Americans to corporate executives and wealthy shareholders.

You may think you have lots of choices, but take a closer look:

1. The four largest food companies control 82 percent of beef packing, 85 percent of soybean processing, 63 percent of pork packing, and 53 percent of chicken processing.

2. There are many brands of toothpaste, but 70 percent of all of it comes from just two companies.

3. You may think you have your choice of sunglasses, but they’re almost all from one company: Luxottica – which also owns nearly all the eyeglass retail outlets.

4. Practically every plastic hanger in America is now made by one company, Mainetti.

5. What brand of cat food should you buy? Looks like lots of brands but behind them are basically just two companies.

6. What about your pharmaceuticals? Yes, you can get low-cost generic versions. But drug companies are in effect paying the makers of generic drugs to delay cheaper versions. Such “pay for delay” agreements are illegal in other advanced economies, but antitrust enforcement hasn’t laid a finger on them in America. They cost you and me an estimated $3.5 billion a year.

7. You think your health insurance will cover the costs? Health insurers are consolidating, too. Which is one reason your health insurance premiums, copayments, and deductibles are soaring.

8. You think you have a lot of options for booking discount airline tickets and hotels online? Think again. You have only two. Expedia merged with Orbitz, so that’s one company. And then there’s Priceline.

9. How about your cable and Internet service? Basically just four companies (and two of them just announced they’re going to merge).

Why the Monopolization of America is a Huge Problem

The problem with all this consolidation into a handful of giant firms is they don’t have to compete. Which means they can – and do – jack up your prices.

Such consolidation keeps down wages. Workers with less choice of whom to work for have a harder time getting a raise. When local labor markets are dominated by one major big box retailer, or one grocery chain, for example, those firms essentially set wage rates for the area.

These massive corporations also have a lot of political clout. That’s one reason they’re consolidating: Power.

Antitrust laws were supposed to stop what’s been going on. But today, they’re almost a dead letter. This hurts you.

We’ve Forgotten History

The first antitrust law came in 1890 when Senator John Sherman responded to public anger about the economic and political power of the huge railroad, steel, telegraph, and oil cartels – then called “trusts” – that were essentially running America.

A handful of corporate chieftains known as “robber barons” presided over all this – collecting great riches at the expense of workers who toiled long hours often in dangerous conditions for little pay. Corporations gouged consumers and corrupted politics.

Then in 1901, progressive reformer Teddy Roosevelt became president. By this time, the American public was demanding action.

In his first message to Congress in December 1901, only two months after assuming the presidency, Roosevelt warned, “There is a widespread conviction in the minds of the American people that the great corporations known as the trusts are in certain of their features and tendencies hurtful to the general welfare.”

Roosevelt used the Sherman Antitrust Act to go after the Northern Securities Company, a giant railroad trust run by J. P. Morgan, the nation’s most powerful businessman. The U.S. Supreme Court backed Roosevelt and ordered the company dismantled.

In 1911, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust was broken up, too. But in its decision, the Supreme Court effectively altered the Sherman Act, saying that monopolistic restraints of trade were objectionable if they were “unreasonable” – and that determination was to be made by the courts. What was an unreasonable restraint of trade?

In the presidential election of 1912, Roosevelt, running again for president but this time as a third party candidate, said he would allow some concentration of industries where there were economic efficiencies due to large scale. He’d then he’d have experts regulate these large corporations for the public benefit.

Woodrow Wilson, who ended up winning the election, and his adviser Louis Brandeis, took a different view. They didn’t think regulation would work, and thought all monopolies should be broken up.

For the next 65 years, both views dominated. We had strong antitrust enforcement along with regulations that held big corporations in check.

Most big mergers were prohibited. Even large size was thought to be a problem. In 1945, in the case of United States v. Alcoa (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that even though Alcoa hadn’t pursued a monopoly, it had become one by becoming so large that it was guilty of violating the Sherman Act.

What Happened to Antitrust?

All this changed in the 1980s, after Robert Bork – who, incidentally, I studied antitrust law with at Yale Law School, and then worked for when he became Solicitor General under President Ford – wrote an influential book called The Antitrust Paradox, which argued that the sole purpose of the Sherman Act is consumer welfare.

Bork argued that mergers and large size almost always create efficiencies that bring down prices, and therefore should be legal. Bork’s ideas were consistent with the conservative Chicago School of Economics, and found a ready audience in the Reagan White House.

Bork was wrong. But since then, even under Democratic administrations, antitrust has all but disappeared.

The Monopolization of High Tech

We’re seeing declining competition even in cutting-edge, high-tech industries.

In the new economy, information and ideas are the most valuable forms of property. This is where the money is.

We haven’t seen concentration on this scale ever before.

Google and Facebook are now the first stops for many Americans seeking news. Meanwhile, Amazon is now the first stop for more than a half of American consumers seeking to buy anything. Talk about power.

Contrary to the conventional view of an American economy bubbling with innovative small companies, the reality is quite different. The rate at which new businesses have formed in the United States has slowed markedly since the late 1970s.

Big Tech’s sweeping patents, standard platforms, fleets of lawyers to litigate against potential rivals, and armies of lobbyists have created formidable barriers to new entrants. Google’s search engine is so dominant, “Google” has become a verb.

The European Union filed formal antitrust charges against Google, accusing it of forcing search engine users into its own shopping platforms. And last June, it fined Google a record $2.7 billion.

But not in America.

It’s Time to Revive Antitrust

Economic and political power cannot be separated because dominant corporations gain political influence over how markets are organized, maintained, and enforced – which enlarges their economic power further.

One of the original goals of the antitrust laws was to prevent this.

Big Tech — along with the drug, insurance, agriculture, and financial giants — is coming to dominate both our economy and our politics.

There’s only one answer: It is time to revive antitrust.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/05/07/monopolization-america?utm_term=The%20Monopolization%20of%20America&utm_campaign=News%20%2526%20Views%20%7C%20What%20If%20Ida%20B.%20Wells%20Depended%20on%20Facebook&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-News%20%2526%20Views%20%7C%20What%20If%20Ida%20B.%20Wells%20Depended%20on%20Facebook-_-The%20Monopolization%20of%20America

View user profile

2 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/10/2018, 8:35 am

In other news ....

He (the President*'s bagman) reached out to us,” the Novartis employee said….The employee could not explain why Novartis would have agreed to a deal with a lawyer with no background in health care and without deep Washington ties.

….In March 2017, a group of Novartis employees, mostly from the government affairs and lobbying teams, met with Cohen in New York….“At first, it all sounded impressive, but toward the end of the meeting, everyone realized this was a probably a slippery slope to engage him. So they decided not to really engage Cohen for any activities after that,” the employee continued. Rather than attempt to cancel the contract, the company allowed it to lapse early in 2018 and not run the risk of ticking off the president. “It might have caused anger,” this person said.

https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2018/05/09/trumps-lawyer-cohen-fixer-novartis/

This is nothing more than crude bribery and grift.

We have become the most successful banana republic in world history.

View user profile

3 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/10/2018, 10:36 am

Standard fascism (progressivism in newspeak) since FDR.

View user profile

4 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/10/2018, 12:45 pm

PkrBum wrote:Standard fascism (progressivism in newspeak) since FDR.

Is fascism left or right wing?

David Hynes, M.A. Political Science & Political Economy, York University
Updated Apr 5

There is a great deal of understandable confusion among the answers here.

The problem is that the left-right spectrum today doesn’t adequately define political ideas and movements. Nor does the double-axis chart presented in Brian Ellis’s answer, do the problem justice, though it is an improvement.

There have always three, not two, distinct approaches to solving the problems of modern society, each with its own drawbacks: liberalism, conservatism, and socialism.

And this is important: socialists and liberals are not the same thing - these are two different ideologies with distinct influences and pedigrees.

Conservatives believe in tradition, social hierarchy, order, and cultural uniformity. They support traditional authorities and institutions like hierarchies of wealth, the family structure, and the moral hegemony of the church. Loyalty, and obedience are virtues. These days, that means supporting corporations and the state, too. The extreme form of conservatism is fascism, which advocates for a return to a mythic “traditional” society, when things were ‘better.’

Liberals believe in the primacy of individuals, their basic liberty and equality. They believe in human rights, and they favour private property and market economics. They support state intervention in the market only to the extent that it shores up the market economy. They value technocratic and meritocratic administration, rather than traditional authority. Hierarchies are ok, as long as distinctions of wealth and social standing are earned by individual talent and effort, winning elections, or starting a successful business, or rising in a corporation, for example. The extreme form of liberalism is libertarianism.

Socialists believe in equality, democracy, and collective rights. They want to replace the capitalist system with a democratic economic system based on people’s needs rather than the profit motive. They value justice for the poor and minority groups, and reject individual property rights and traditional power structures. They seek to abolish hierarchies and to have people live communally as equals under democratic decision-making. The extreme form of socialism is anarcho-syndicalism.

These three categories do not fall on a spectrum, but rather describe different sets of aims and affinities. One person can have views from all three. For example, one could be a devout Christian anti-racist socialist, who opposes corporate power but is reasonably comfortable with market economics. Most people have a mix of beliefs from at least two.

For example, these days, both conservative and liberal political parties are actually liberal, in that they support the global free market, private property and individualism. And they are both conservative, because they seek to shore up the existing institutions, which are corporations and state structures designed to facilitate the operation of global markets and maintain the status quo. The only difference is about what role the state should play, and how much state assistance ordinary people need in order to participate in the international economy.

So Hillary Clinton is a liberal and a conservative, not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Bernie Sanders is a liberal and a socialist. Stalin was a socialist and a conservative. You have to go back to the sixties to find a really influential socialist in US politics - Martin Luther King is one outstanding example, though he had some conservative values too.

And Donald Trump, along with other world leaders today, is a fascist. Perhaps you could call him a neo-fascist. He is joined by Duterte in Philipines, Orban in Hungary, Le Pen in France, and others. ISIS and some other authoritarian Islamists can also be compared with fascists in many respects.

Only socialists seem to be out in the cold completely, having lost almost all the institutional power they once had in unions and old left political parties. These have either disappeared or have drifted steadily towards the liberal camp over the past forty years. The decline of the Left is partly due to the excesses of the Bolshevik and Maoist governments of the twentieth century, which became really oppressive, discrediting socialism in the public imagination.

The answers here that claim fascism is left-wing are incorrect. The make the error of equating socialism with statism, and assuming that socialists, like fascists, are against democracy. But this is way too simple. Most socialists are critical of the bureaucratic decision-making of the contemporary liberal state. They also advocate for stronger, bottom-up democracy with ideas like participatory budgeting, for example.

And most importantly, socialists are anti-racist, anti-nationalist and anti-rich, whereas fascists are racist, nationalist and pro-rich, although many of the rank and file fascists are unaware of the last part until it’s too late for them, having been mobilized by false populism.

Only fascists are dead-set against democracy. I think this is a distinguishing trait of fascism. Conservatives in general are skeptical of democracy, preferring traditional authority, although most can live with watered-down forms of democracy like parliamentary democracy. But fascists despise democracy and seek to replace it with a dictatorship.

This sets fascists apart from the other two extreme positions: libertarians and anarchists want to tear down the state completely, to do away with hierarchies of power. Fascists, in contrast, are all about state power. Most moderate socialists, liberals and conservatives accept the need for a state, though they disagree about what it should do, how much power it should have, etc.

People from all three groups can also endorse the use of violence in pursuing their aims, though fascists are the most warlike, and socialists the least. The fascist excesses are well known, but liberal regimes have also carried out numerous wars, assassinations and even genocides to open markets, spread their way of life, and prevent the expansion of communism, a history which many people today have forgotten. And in their efforts to remake society, communist countries have also engaged in violent internal repression and instigated wars with other states, though far fewer than the capitalist countries.

Neither pure libertarianism, nor fascism can create a viable society, as we know from experience. Markets fail, leading to mass inequality, poverty and environmental destruction. Fascism first humiliates and traumatizes its people before destroying itself. Anarcho-syndicalism has rarely been tried in modern times, but probably cannot cope with the complexity of an ever-changing, technological society. But anarchistic systems were the dominant paradigm throughout tens of thousands of years of human existence, in hunter-gatherer and early agrarian societies, though many stone-age societies had conservative elements as well.

Long story short, fascism is both the most strongly statist, and by far the most violent political ideology going. You could call it extreme right-wing if you wanted, but it’s more important to identify its working parts, considering the threat it poses to human civilization.

Eventually, it is to be hoped that our societies will survive the fascist insurrection currently underway around the world, and will settle on some new center, or a workable combination of all three paradigms, since we all have such different values.

https://www.quora.com/Is-fascism-left-or-right-wing

View user profile

5 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/11/2018, 7:13 pm

Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Standard fascism (progressivism in newspeak) since FDR.

Is fascism left or right wing?

David Hynes, M.A. Political Science & Political Economy, York University
Updated Apr 5

You're wasting your breath, FT, he's immune to reason. You have to understand that he's not very bright--he's a reactionary simpleton and all he can do is parrot right-wing drivel.

View user profile

6 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/11/2018, 8:24 pm

Deus X wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Standard fascism (progressivism in newspeak) since FDR.

Is fascism left or right wing?

David Hynes, M.A. Political Science & Political Economy, York University
Updated Apr 5

You're wasting your breath, FT, he's immune to reason. You have to understand that he's not very bright--he's a reactionary simpleton and all he can do is parrot right-wing drivel.

He once claimed that his father produced the "crying Indian" commercial...the anti-pollution ad from the 1970's. I don't believe it. (I was working in the ad biz then).

View user profile

7 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/11/2018, 8:30 pm

Which group would you place Hitler in?

(Stalin and Mao) or (Lincoln and Reagan)

Buy a clue or a brain cell. The progressives loved fascism until it became a political liability.

Must I list their direct quotes praising fascism again? How do you ignore that?

View user profile

8 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/11/2018, 10:07 pm

PkrBum wrote:Which group would you place Hitler in?

(Stalin and Mao) or (Lincoln and Reagan)

Buy a clue or a brain cell. The progressives loved fascism until it became a political liability.

Must I list their direct quotes praising fascism again? How do you ignore that?

What I see is that you ignored my question about your father producing the ad. Because you're a weasel.

View user profile

9 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/11/2018, 10:45 pm

PK gets his political nomenclature off the internet. Political science for 75 years has well established concepts where PK's ideas come from somebody who created a political concept in their mother's basement and spoon fed it to the gullible. Fascism has NEVER been part of the progressive movements in history. Sorry. The growing fascism in Russia today is is the traditional melding of church, authority, oligarchs, and the absence of democracy which defers to a centralized strong man. It is not found in people who are trying to stop gay bashing in Russia, or fighting for real democracy.

View user profile

10 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/12/2018, 12:40 am

2seaoat wrote:PK gets his political nomenclature off the internet.  Political science for 75 years has well established concepts where PK's ideas come from somebody who created a political concept in their mother's basement and spoon fed it to the gullible.   Fascism has NEVER been part of the progressive movements in history.  Sorry.  The growing fascism in Russia today is is the traditional melding of church, authority, oligarchs, and the absence of democracy which defers to a centralized strong man.  It is not found in people who are trying to stop gay bashing in Russia, or fighting for real democracy.

Damn you, Seaoat, I just HATE it when you're right!

View user profile

11 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/13/2018, 3:11 pm


The Anti-Trust Case of the Century Collides With Michael Cohen

By Joe Pompeo, Vanity Fair

13 May 18


AT&T C.E.O. Randall Stephenson issued a mea culpa for paying Cohen $600,000 to deal with Trump. Will CNN journalists be appeased?


"AT&T and Time Warner may have thought things would be relatively quiet between the conclusion, nearly two weeks ago, of their dramatic month-long Department of Justice showdown in a federal courtroom in Washington, and Judge Richard Leon’s anticipated June 12 ruling in what has been called “the anti-trust case of the century.” Then along came Michael Avenatti. On Tuesday, the now-famous Stormy Daniels attorney and indefatigable Donald Trump antagonist revealed documents showing AT&T was one of several companies with business before the Trump administration that had paid good dough last year to a shell-company-consulting-firm owned by embattled Trump fixer and Mueller-probe target Michael Cohen. It came to light that the contract, totaling $600,000 and ending in December 2017, specified that Cohen would provide advice on the $85 billion mega-merger—despite the painstakingly obvious reality that Cohen is not an expert in regulatory or anti-trust matters..."

https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/50058-the-anti-trust-case-of-the-century-collides-with-michael-cohen

View user profile

12 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/13/2018, 4:08 pm

2seaoat wrote:PK gets his political nomenclature off the internet.  Political science for 75 years has well established concepts where PK's ideas come from somebody who created a political concept in their mother's basement and spoon fed it to the gullible.   Fascism has NEVER been part of the progressive movements in history.  Sorry.  The growing fascism in Russia today is is the traditional melding of church, authority, oligarchs, and the absence of democracy which defers to a centralized strong man.  It is not found in people who are trying to stop gay bashing in Russia, or fighting for real democracy.

Pffft... you're just unable or unwilling to examine situations minus your conditioned politics/ ideology. I think for myself... I examine the means... I measure the results... and I study an unadulterated history. That you want to use the progressive revision of fascism is just ignorant. It was/is simply a variation of socialism with a good measure of populism. Who did Obama bail out? The homeowners? The retirement accounts? The general citizenry? Fascism is much more than a funny little mustache. Wake the fuck up... or shut the fuck up... either serves your fellow citizens more honestly.

View user profile

13 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/13/2018, 5:32 pm

PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:PK gets his political nomenclature off the internet.  Political science for 75 years has well established concepts where PK's ideas come from somebody who created a political concept in their mother's basement and spoon fed it to the gullible.   Fascism has NEVER been part of the progressive movements in history.  Sorry.  The growing fascism in Russia today is is the traditional melding of church, authority, oligarchs, and the absence of democracy which defers to a centralized strong man.  It is not found in people who are trying to stop gay bashing in Russia, or fighting for real democracy.

Pffft... you're just unable or unwilling to examine situations minus your conditioned politics/ ideology. I think for myself... I examine the means... I measure the results... and I study an unadulterated history. That you want to use the progressive revision of fascism is just ignorant. It was/is simply a variation of socialism with a good measure of populism. Who did Obama bail out? The homeowners? The retirement accounts? The general citizenry? Fascism is much more than a funny little mustache. Wake the fuck up... or shut the fuck up... either serves your fellow citizens more honestly.

You STFU, you ignorant TROLL. Stop lying. Obama was not responsible for the bailouts; THAT WAS BUSH. You don't understand jack...zip...nada.

View user profile

14 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/13/2018, 6:18 pm

Obama voted for bailout... fact.

Obama was left 350 BILLION of those funds... fact.

Obama bailed out AIG... fact.

Obama bailed out GM... fact.

Obama bailed out banks... fact.

Obama also threw a STIMULUS at all kinds silly shit that met his accepted industries... fact.

I could go on and on... but you've completely erased your reality harddrive obviously.

He was easily the most fascist potus since fdr... bush2 3rd.

View user profile

15 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/13/2018, 7:58 pm

I think for the most part the stimulus created by Bush and then followed by Obama were sound economic policy. I would concede that the whole dollars for junkers was stupid on steroids, and was wasteful in only a way a wealthy nation could do the same. However, the GM bailout was a stunning success. I showed the numbers and corrected all the intentional lies about the same. Some folks just do not understand bankruptcy laws and what happened. They quote folks in their basement telling us how bondholders got screwed without understanding a thing. To associate the use of science in economics with the application of stimulus to fascism is sophomoric and simply without merit.

The absurdity of giving tax cuts when the economy is robust is a path to far greater deficits which have been cumulative since Reagan ill advised increase in debt while cutting taxes....in good times which only intensifies the economic cycle when the inevitable recession comes. I am nervous that the economy is beginning to overheat. People cannot get employees as we have attacked the folks who actually work....immigrants, and I see an inflationary cycle beginning, but heck......does not mean a thing when our balance of trade has become so strong since we have reduced our oil imports.....this trend is long term and bodes well for the dollar which offsets some of the concern about debt and trade deficits. Trump is just out of sync with the science of economics and these tax cuts are going to intensify the next down turn. Simple solution. Get out of Korea and Europe. Invest in America, not the full employment for the benefit of MIC.

View user profile

16 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/13/2018, 9:51 pm

Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:PK gets his political nomenclature off the internet.  Political science for 75 years has well established concepts where PK's ideas come from somebody who created a political concept in their mother's basement and spoon fed it to the gullible.   Fascism has NEVER been part of the progressive movements in history.  Sorry.  The growing fascism in Russia today is is the traditional melding of church, authority, oligarchs, and the absence of democracy which defers to a centralized strong man.  It is not found in people who are trying to stop gay bashing in Russia, or fighting for real democracy.

Pffft... you're just unable or unwilling to examine situations minus your conditioned politics/ ideology. I think for myself... I examine the means... I measure the results... and I study an unadulterated history. That you want to use the progressive revision of fascism is just ignorant. It was/is simply a variation of socialism with a good measure of populism. Who did Obama bail out? The homeowners? The retirement accounts? The general citizenry? Fascism is much more than a funny little mustache. Wake the fuck up... or shut the fuck up... either serves your fellow citizens more honestly.

You STFU, you ignorant TROLL.  Stop lying.  Obama was not responsible for the bailouts; THAT WAS BUSH.  You don't understand jack...zip...nada.





At least tRump has been successful in erasing all the progress that Obama has achieved. I hear his next move is to resurrect bin Laden. tRump's war cry for his 2020 run will be FUFT, FUCK YOU FREEDOM TOWER!

View user profile

17 Re: The Monopolization of America on 5/14/2018, 9:47 am

2seaoat wrote:I think for the most part the stimulus created by Bush and then followed by Obama were sound economic policy.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, was not a stimulus...it was a direct giveaway to the banks, Wall Street, and AIG...basically THEFT, and it was passed in October, 2008, before Bush's term was up. Obama's bill was a true stimulus, in the Keynesian sense, in that it gave cash directly to taxpayers, but it was only about half what he requested from Congress.


I would concede that the whole dollars for junkers was stupid on steroids, and was wasteful in only a way a wealthy nation could do the same.

Whatever you think of Cash for Clunkers, it was also a stimulus to the auto industry, also reeling from economic decline.

However, the GM bailout was a stunning success.  I showed the numbers and corrected all the intentional lies about the same.  Some folks just do not understand bankruptcy laws and what happened.  They quote folks in their basement telling us how bondholders got screwed without understanding a thing.   To associate the use of science in economics with the application of stimulus to fascism is sophomoric and simply without merit.

The absurdity of giving tax cuts when the economy is robust is a path to far greater deficits which have been cumulative since Reagan ill advised increase in debt while cutting taxes....in good times which only intensifies the economic cycle when the inevitable recession comes.   I am nervous that the economy is beginning to overheat.  People cannot get employees as we have attacked the folks who actually work....immigrants, and I see an inflationary cycle beginning, but heck......does not mean a thing when our balance of trade has become so strong since we have reduced our oil imports.....this trend is long term and bodes well for the dollar  which offsets some of the concern about debt and trade deficits.  Trump is just out of sync with the science of economics and these tax cuts are going to intensify the next down turn.

Agreed...the tax cuts were ill-advised, as were the 2 rounds of tax cuts George W Bush passed to fund the wars and Medicare Part D. As much as a despise Drumpf, he didn't do this alone. The GOP "leadership", particularly Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, have been waiting for the opportunity to destroy any help ordinary people might get in times of crisis, or retirement, or sickness. Immigrants are not the only people who work in this country; everyone I know is working too hard...no time for leisure...hardly any time for their children. And the business climate sucks, just as it did during Bush's tenure.

Simple solution.  Get out of Korea and Europe.  Invest in America, not the full employment for the benefit of MIC.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum