Homer_Rice

I shouldn't be laughing, but I am--it's so fucking stupid. The Democrats haven't learned a goddamned thing. At protest against DOGE, Congressman Glenn Ivey tells NIH workers facing mass layoffs, "We're gonna make Hakeem Jeffries the Speaker of the House in two years, right?" And...Holy Crap, look at this. And to think that I used to stand outside factory gates passing out lit in all kinds of weather. This, via Matt Stoller, an anti-trust juggernaut. I completely agree with his sentiment: Ok I give up please just put us all in reeducation camps.

Forgot to add: If you haven't already, make sure you read the article about Yarvin that Jamie posted earlier.

If you are a serious person, this is perhaps the most important article you'll read this week: The Plot Against America: How a Dangerous Ideology Born From the Libertarian Movement Stands Ready to Seize America Slightly overstating the case by telescoping from the 2008 crash until now, it overlooks all the predicate events that preceded it, going all the back into the late 60s/early 70s. Still a substantial read.

I noodled around on guitar for a long time, up until I got sick. Haven't played hardly at all over the past three years--my body wouldn't let me. But now that I'm putting on a little weight and getting some of my strength and flexibility back, I'm thinking about going out and buying a GS-mini and getting rid of my dreadnoughts! I'm a big country blues, finger-pickery kind of guy, but I haven't always been that way. Here are a couple of tunes from two of my favorite bands from my youth: Bill Nelson does some wild guitar shit his with band, Be Bop Deluxe: And from a not super well-known, but influential trio, Budgie:

You can probably "unbundle" your internet and cable without a problem. I haven't had cable in at least ten years and I don't miss it at all. Had Prime for a while, which I though was a good deal because I buy shitloads of books--so the movies, etc... were an added benefit. Dropped Prime some time ago because they don't really honor the quick delivery times as they used to. I have Roku boxes on all my TVs and run a Plex server. Both of them offer their own free (ad-supported) streaming services. I don't use them, so I can't vouch for the quality--I hate ads with a passion. And there is Tubi and other independent services, too. So, you could probably cobble something together like mine and not have much of a drop-off in channel availability. And probably save enough money to pay for the baseball! Good luck.

Streaming is an expensive proposition anymore. But, for the Guardians, this seems like a reasonable place to start: https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe/cleguardians

As a former resident of Philly, I'm loving this shit big time!

Talk to TDub. You quoted him, not me.

I'll pass along the best professorial advice I ever got from my early days as a wannabe scholar: "Good questions. If you really care you'll do the work."

Okay, now I'm done.

On the Links: If you have read them, you have already noted the sharp demarcation between the .PDFs and the HAWB and Hudson links. The PDFs all perform a sleight of hand. After the obligatory nod to Henry Ford, they narrow the inquiry to the relation between High Wages and unemployment as a matter of classical economic doctrine, along with implications for inflation and the minimum wage. Further it is stated that the "High Wage Doctrine" originates in the early 20th century, and finally they conclude, naturally, that high wages are bad, bad, bad. No surprise here as they are all quasi-libertarian articles. And this sort of thinking remains the conventional wisdom today; all you have to do is look out the window and notice corporate downward pressure on wages ever since the remains of the New Deal petered out in the 60s. Note also what doesn't get mentioned with respect to unemployment and inflation: War and the rise in speculative practices and financialization which have gradually taken over our economy. The NBBooks and Hudson links are fresh air in comparison. They locate discussions about wages in the 19th century and even going back as far back as Ben Franklin around the time of the Revolution. So, like, WTF, man?!!?!?! A big chunk of your actual economic history is not taught, and whenever there are oblique references, they are generally glossed over. The opposition to conventional wisdom economics is always Marx and the socialist tradition but if you look at Marx closely, you'll notice that he resides within the conventional tradition of Smith Ricardo, et al... . And you'll also notice that Marx(ists) opposed guys like Carey and List and the whole tradition that Hudson refers to, including the "Institutionalists" of the late 19th century (whom are also given short shrift in US classrooms and academic literature in general. Now, you all are well aware of the recent years smashing of labor in contrast to the explosion of money (I won't call it wealth) that has gone upward to shareholders, etc... Not to mention buybacks, not to mention the bailout of the Too Big To Fail banks in 2008-9. And there are lots of other examples of this systematized divergent behavior over the past few decades. The game is rigged. I know it, you know it, we all know it. But, it seems we are powerless to stop it. Why is that? I have my own thoughts on that and you should develop your own (beyond simply whining and complaining.) If you truly care about all this, do the work. Not superficially, but in-depth. Train the next generation of kids to be able to solve these serious problems because, unfortunately, right now, they are fucked and not wise enough to do anything or to be anything more than victims. And that's how the fascists win. Now, Trump and his crowd are pretty crude people. And the Dems are supposedly more civil and sophisticated. And there are some genuine differences in policy outlooks between the two parties. But. But. But. When it comes to economic policy and the structure of neoliberalism underpinning the last 50+ years, there is no significant difference. Neither have any real interest beyond shifting the deckchairs around on the Titanic. For example, look at policy towards China and note that both sides of the aisle are worried about their growth and power. And it is true that China has taken, in the last few decades, more people out of poverty and into reasonable economic lifestyles than any other nation in the history of humanity. Think about the effort that that required. And the principles underlying that effort. One thing China is really good at are EVs. They make 'em good, they make 'em inexpensive, and they want to export them everywhere. And yet, Europe and the US have placed high tariffs on Chinese EVs. Prohibitive tariffs. Now, that might be a good thing, IF, the US and Europe were committed to building similar quality, similarly priced EVs within their own nation-states. That, in itself, would be a nice economic bump, as well as many high wage jobs. But it isn't happening. Not merely because we view China as an economic enemy--mostly because they are doing a modern version of the same shit that build this country in the 19th century. But also because the elites in this country are so tied to imperial principles that they have finally resorted to looting their own people, squeezing out every last penny and vestige of hope for many folks. It's a service economy. It's a post-industrial economy. AI is gonna save us. And on and on. Feed the people. Teach the people. Keep the people healthy. Learn your history and draw the appropriate lessons. And then act on them.

Thanks, Montana. I have one more lap to make on this topic. I still haven't driven home what I think is the most important point of my little diatribe.

Actually, most financial "engineers" are parasites looting the economy, not only adding no value to the economy, but actually detracting and diverting resources from the real economy.

I don't think you can be a neo-mercantilist when your country is dominated by neoliberalism. And, despite Trump's faint echoes resembling neo-mercantilists of the past, I think you are right, Montana, in that he has some (misplaced, imo) faith in his shotgun use of tariffs. But overall, one cannot accomplish much without a strong industrial policy--and that goes against the anti-industrial, post-industrial, financialized capitalism that has slow overtaken this economy since the early 60s. Now, Biden attempted a form of industrial policy and some think that Trump, despite all the bombast, is more or less going to do the same, with some variations of emphasis. (Trump is less green than Biden and more divergent on energy in general, imo.) I think that Trump's admin is more antiglobalist at heart than Biden, who is a globalist at heart. (Forget Biden's last Eisenhower-ish speech, that was just opportunistic bullshit from a guy who spent 50 years as a water-carrier for the financiers and oligarchs who dominate this modern period.) In general, and I think this a good thing, there has been more recent talk across these two admins about the need for an industrial policy, especially for national security and somewhat for IT tech. I personally think that this is a move in the right direction. But I still think that the purposes for modern industrial policy are not well-defined, and even if it were, the system we now exist within is almost impossible to change. Not only have supply-chain and other physical processes been adapted to globalization for decades now--and that cannot be changed so swiftly--but also our current culture is essentially dominated by a neoliberal and financialized outlook that dominates our society today--and that's not only a bad thing, it is what will take us into fascism in the long term. (And some think not-so-long.) T-Dubs legitimate litany of complaints more or less dance around these trends without naming them. So, what would a good industrial policy look like? How would we bring it into being? And first, what makes for a healthy economy? Broadly speaking, a healthy economy would distinguish between productive and non-productive activity, with a rough dividing line being a general consensus on what is good and what is bad activity. For example, the physical production of goods versus the worst excesses of speculation and financialization. And our laws would have to be written towards this end. (Many laws once did, in many cases, reflect this discrimination, for example Glass-Steagall of 1933.) A healthy economy would have the tendency to not only reproduce itself at an improved physical level (i.e. the introduction of new technology across most sectors), but it would do so while simultaneously improving the standard of living for its constituents. And these improvements would consist of not only higher wage rates, but also global and tangible material benefits for all people (i.e. universal health care.) To emphasize: Justly earned surplus/profits for the corporations and concrete material benefits for the population. At the same time. This, instead of a world in which the terms "enshittification" and "shrinkflation" have common use. Now, what kinds of industrial policy projects could satisfy these requirements? It's easy to think of some no-brainers. --A rebuild of sewage and water infrastructure for virtually the entire nation. --A completely redone electrical grid. --A modernized and completely redone railroad transportation system. This is for freight, passanger could benefit from the upgrade. Go high-speed, hell go maglev. Modernize switching stations at hubs and speed up freight along the lines of our ports using the latest technology. There are plenty more, but just think of these three for the moment. They would require huge investment, a lot of jobs, and, by necessity, an upgrade in the educational requirements to fill said jobs--everything from engineers to grunt labor. None of this is beyond out imagination. We'd have to re-write some laws to make companies more inclined to take on the investments that 30-40 year development projects require. And the government would be wise to emit (not borrow) the funds necessary to take this huge jobs to completion. And tariffs might have a place within such an environment, as one of the tools to direct investment to the appropriate places. But it ain't gonna happen under neoliberalism, crony capitalism, and broligarchys. It would require a modern resurrection of how this country was originally build in the 19th century--particularly that stuff that almost no one is taught about, with any seriousness, today. More to come: talk about the links, wages, Chinese EVs and tariffs, and maybe some lost American history. Sorry, T-Dub, no canals, but please buy and read Ron Shaw's book.

This is Montana's question. Here are two more links: Why Did the Roosevelt Administration Think Cartels, Higher Wages, and Shorter Workweeks Would Promote Recovery from the Great Depression? Michael Hudson on the American School of Political Economy

Use NBBooks article as a can opener for further research.

By all means, dive in. I haven't started rewriting yet, it'll be tomorrow. For now, just consider these links as substrate. I plan to talk about some of your concerns. One hint: note the difference between the first two links and the third one. And buy the book. The worst thing that can happen is you'll be exposed to some history that you won't find in a classroom. Hudson, btw, did his PhD. dissertation on Erasmus Peshine Smith. That's a person you may have never heard of, but his was close to Seward, tied in with the Carey "Vespers" crowd, and took the American System to Japan. Be patient. I'll get to this when I can.

Also, another link to a long Hudson interview. Wide-ranging and worth listening to, even in bits and pieces over some time: Global Economic History in 2.5 Hours (This link has a transcript for readers.)

Okay, some links, then I'll write in notepad and come back to paste. On High-Wage Doctrine: Unions, the High-Wage Doctrine, and Employment - Lowell E. Gallaway (pdf) By our bootstraps: Origins and effects of the high-wage doctrine and the minimum wage - Taylor and Selgin (download the pdf) HAWB 1800s - The Doctrine of High Wages - How America Was Built - NBBooks (I have read this guy for decades, trusted source) Buy This Book: America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914: The Neglected American School of Political Economy - Michael Hudson Hudson, on this topic, condensed by AI (Perplexity--which I occasionally use because it lists the sources): Search query: "high wage doctrine" + "michael hudson"

Maybe I'm going about it all wrong. I try to be aware that this might happen because it has happened to me on a number of occasions. I should remember to copy/paste into notepad when I am writing something long-ish. But I'm dumb enough that most of the time I forget until it's too late. Anyhow this morning I forget to copy/paste and when I submitted--nothing. I refreshed the page so I could log back in and my stuff had disappeared. Maybe I should open another tab and re-login there, then try what you suggest.

God Dammit. Why the fuck does this site log people out so quickly? I hit the submit button and get a screen that is a white cow in a blizzard. I'll reconstruct later as I now have to go do some shit.

I've got some links lined up so we're ready to go! I'm writing for regular folks like you and me, not for the specialists If you read the articles I previously posted, note that Welsh a little, and the pdf link within, in particular, talk about tariffs in the "language" of modern, classroom-acceptable economic terms. It's as if what we know as political economy is a settled matter. And to be frank, that's pretty much the way it is taught. It's all within the framework I mentioned above. You can talk and dispute between those lines, but don't go out of them. So, virtually all modern economic thought is derived from the classical tradition, which is to say the liberal tradition. I don't want to go down that rabbit-hole here, but suffice it to say that I am asserting that the Adam Smith-Malthus-Ricardo-Bentham-Marx-et al, are all talking within those lines. It would be amusing to observe all the heated disputes between doctrines within the parameters of the classical liberal economic tradition if it were not for the fact this these squabbles gave us an entire century of war, death, and destruction. What was WWI about? WWII? The Bolshevik Revolution?" Short answer: Empire and geopolitics--oligarchical elites fighting each other for as much control of the planet as they can muster. Really dig into the causes of WWI if you want see this plainly for what it is. ...tbc...

Okay, this morning I watched the tariff YouTube that Jamie posted. I gotta say, it's not very good unless you are tied to classical-neoclassical-libertarian economics. It's kind of like both Keynes and von Mises got together and gave an old-timey 19th century American patriot a beat-down. Not many people really have an in-depth understanding of the history of the economic development of the United States, so I'm going to drop a few hints. As I said previously, I've been biased towards protectionism in general, ever since I had the opportunity to study under Ronald Shaw at Miami U. He's the author of a definitive book on the Erie Canal, "Erie Water West: A History of the Erie Canal, 1792-1854." He was my thesis advisor for a bit, but shit happened and I left Miami before getting it done. One of my big regrets in life. That exposure gave me and enduring interest in the American System of Manufactures and Clay's "American System." Two branches from the same tree. BTW, Shaw was a gentle man and a fine scholar. Rest his soul. ...tbc...

Here is the view of someone I respect. (Also, click through and read the pdf if you have time.) I don't agree with all of Welsh's conclusions, but he's makes some good points. End Of Empire: Effects & Theory Of Trump’s Tariffs BTW, I'm a protectionist at heart but this is going about it in all the wrong ways.

Is this a trick question? Yes. I think you're a decent guy, but you are clearly out of your depth when it comes to politics. I'd love for you to prove me wrong. I suppose what I think doesn't really matter because this is the off-season and I've got other things to do.