In a column at Project Syndicate, economist Jeffrey Sachs begins with an ominous statement, "America is on a collision course with itself.", but then proceeds to back it up with the following:
"The problem is America’s corrupted politics and loss of civic morality. One political party, the Republicans, stands for little except tax cuts, which they place above any other goal. The Democrats have a bit wider set of interests, including support for health care, education, training, and infrastructure. But, like the Republicans, the Democrats, too, are keen to shower tax cuts on their major campaign contributors, predominantly rich Americans.
The result is a dangerous paradox. The US budget deficit is enormous and unsustainable. The poor are squeezed by cuts in social programs and a weak job market. One in eight Americans depends on Food Stamps to eat. Yet, despite these circumstances, one political party wants to gut tax revenues altogether, and the other is easily dragged along, against its better instincts, out of concern for keeping its rich contributors happy.
This tax-cutting frenzy comes, incredibly, after three decades of elite fiscal rule in the US that has favored the rich and powerful. Since Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, America’s budget system has been geared to supporting the accumulation of vast wealth at the top of the income distribution. Amazingly, the richest 1% of American households now has a higher net worth than the bottom 90%. The annual income of the richest 12,000 households is greater than that of the poorest 24 million households.
The Republican Party’s real game is to try to lock that income and wealth advantage into place. They fear, rightly, that sooner or later everyone else will begin demanding that the budget deficit be closed in part by raising taxes on the rich. After all, the rich are living better than ever, while the rest of American society is suffering. It makes sense to tax them more."
This passage in the piece reminds me of a recent Nicholas Kristof column that I blogged about last month about how the gap between rich and poor leads to dysfunctional countries.
Read the entire Sachs piece because it is not just another "left is right and right is wrong" diatribe. He is fairly critical of both sides for succumbing to the whims of the rich.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Behold, your new God! The Sun!! (It's gone for most of today though.)
Great article in The New York Times about this history of various cultures celebrating the sun (or rather, the absense thereof) for the Winter Solstice. One passage that's important to point out:
"The transition from Roman paganism to Christianity, with its similar rites, took several centuries. With the Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century, customs were quickly appropriated and refashioned, as the sun and God’s son became inextricably entwined. Thus, although the New Testament gives no indication of Christ’s actual birthday (early writers preferring a spring date), in 354 Pope Liberius declared it to have befallen on Dec. 25.
The advantages of Christmas Day being celebrated then were obvious. As the Christian commentator Syrus wrote: “It was a custom of the pagans to celebrate on the same Dec. 25 the birthday of the sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity .... Accordingly, when the church authorities perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnized on that day.”
In Christendom, the Nativity gradually absorbed all other winter solstice rites, and the co-opting of solar imagery was part of the same process. Thus the solar discs that had once been depicted behind the heads of Asian rulers became the halos of Christian luminaries. Despite the new religion’s apparent supremacy, many of the old customs survived — so much so that church elders worried that the veneration of Christ was being lost. In the fifth century, St. Augustine of Hippo and Pope Leo the Great felt compelled to remind their flocks that Christ, not the sun, was their proper object of their worship."
The whole article is a fun read. ENJOY!!!
"The transition from Roman paganism to Christianity, with its similar rites, took several centuries. With the Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century, customs were quickly appropriated and refashioned, as the sun and God’s son became inextricably entwined. Thus, although the New Testament gives no indication of Christ’s actual birthday (early writers preferring a spring date), in 354 Pope Liberius declared it to have befallen on Dec. 25.
The advantages of Christmas Day being celebrated then were obvious. As the Christian commentator Syrus wrote: “It was a custom of the pagans to celebrate on the same Dec. 25 the birthday of the sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity .... Accordingly, when the church authorities perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnized on that day.”
In Christendom, the Nativity gradually absorbed all other winter solstice rites, and the co-opting of solar imagery was part of the same process. Thus the solar discs that had once been depicted behind the heads of Asian rulers became the halos of Christian luminaries. Despite the new religion’s apparent supremacy, many of the old customs survived — so much so that church elders worried that the veneration of Christ was being lost. In the fifth century, St. Augustine of Hippo and Pope Leo the Great felt compelled to remind their flocks that Christ, not the sun, was their proper object of their worship."
The whole article is a fun read. ENJOY!!!
Friday, December 17, 2010
So what's all this bickering over taxes really about?
Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein tries to explain why Democrats and Republicans disagree on tax policy:
"There may be some truth to the Republican belief that lowering taxes overall is a good way to boost economic growth or contain the size of government. However, that would apply just as well to cuts in corporate and payroll taxes or additional income tax cuts for the middle class. Yet you don't see Republicans drawing lines in the sand over those. What's so magical about the estate tax or the top marginal income tax rate?"
Read the entire column to find out the answer to this question. My personal take on it is both the Left and the Right have gotten themselves so wired up for a fight that they have forgotten the basic difference between fact and opinion.
"There may be some truth to the Republican belief that lowering taxes overall is a good way to boost economic growth or contain the size of government. However, that would apply just as well to cuts in corporate and payroll taxes or additional income tax cuts for the middle class. Yet you don't see Republicans drawing lines in the sand over those. What's so magical about the estate tax or the top marginal income tax rate?"
Read the entire column to find out the answer to this question. My personal take on it is both the Left and the Right have gotten themselves so wired up for a fight that they have forgotten the basic difference between fact and opinion.
The real story behind Wall Street Boguses..er..Bonuses
Four Wharten School professors wrote an excellent op-ed in The Washington Post about how, in the eyes of MBA students at Wharton, bonuses don't necessarily produce the results that the companies paying the bonuses claim to be getting from their employees. One particularly reflective quote from a student:
"Taking unpopular positions on the prospects of an investment in opposition to a partner may have helped the fund avoid poor investments, but this behavior would likely result in a lower annual bonus," one student wrote. "As such, I felt incentivized to agree with my superiors rather than make good investments."
Food for thought...
"Taking unpopular positions on the prospects of an investment in opposition to a partner may have helped the fund avoid poor investments, but this behavior would likely result in a lower annual bonus," one student wrote. "As such, I felt incentivized to agree with my superiors rather than make good investments."
Food for thought...
Saturday, December 11, 2010
If the NCAA had listened to me...continued
A follow-up on my blog post from last Sunday, based on the criteria I laid out in my February 4, 2009 blog post, this is what the BCS playoff matchups would be for the 2010-2011 football season:
#1 Auburn vs. #8 Connecticut (Sugar Bowl)
#2 Oregon vs. #7 Virginia Tech (Rose Bowl)
#3 TCU vs. #6 Oklahoma (Fiesta Bowl)
#4 Stanford vs. #5 Wisconsin (Orange Bowl)
Auburn and Oregon would probably steamroll through their respective first-round opponents but the other two games would definitely be worth watching. The winner of Stanford/Wisconsin against Auburn and the winner of TCU/Oklahoma versus in Oregon in the final four would be pretty huge too.
Why aren't you listening to me BCS?!?
#1 Auburn vs. #8 Connecticut (Sugar Bowl)
#2 Oregon vs. #7 Virginia Tech (Rose Bowl)
#3 TCU vs. #6 Oklahoma (Fiesta Bowl)
#4 Stanford vs. #5 Wisconsin (Orange Bowl)
Auburn and Oregon would probably steamroll through their respective first-round opponents but the other two games would definitely be worth watching. The winner of Stanford/Wisconsin against Auburn and the winner of TCU/Oklahoma versus in Oregon in the final four would be pretty huge too.
Why aren't you listening to me BCS?!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)