Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

Colbert is going in heavily on Rand Paul's bullshit. Dude has had like 4 different opinion on Syria within the last week. Glad someone is calling him out on his crap.

 

[zero shift]

What are some counter arguments against this "study"?

I thought of the 8% gap but then again its not like all of those people would have died if they went to the hospital.

Nobody?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

@JRubinBlogger
Jimmy Carter is very happy tonight. Got that worst president ever thing off his back...

A critical editorial = worst president ever. I hope Bozos fires her.

 

[Black Mamba]

Nobody?

I'm thinking it suffers from major omitted variable bias as the commentators in the thread hinted at.

A key stat mentioned was how the elderly often die in hospice care, which is also home hospice care. Home hospice is entirely covered by medicare which is gov't run healthcare, so yeah...

 

[Aaron Strife]

I KNEW IT.

Everyone is saying Boehner and Cantor are not going to allow PPACA to be defunded. And look at where we are.

They know this is their last real shot at delaying the implementation of this law before Americans can finally start to see it working for them. They know it's going to be much harder to defund and repeal after this happens.

This is making me so pissed off. I read this shit and I swear it makes my blood pressure rise.

The GOP is here to stay in Congress for years to come and we're all fucked.

Just a year and a half more.

 

[zero shift]

I'm thinking it suffers from major omitted variable bias as the commentators in the thread hinted at.

A key stat mentioned was how the elderly often die in hospice care, which is also home hospice care. Home hospice is entirely covered by medicare which is gov't run healthcare, so yeah...

So essentially the study didn't count the main demographic that tended to die?

 

[Black Mamba]

So essentially the study didn't count the main demographic that tended to die?

No, it did. It just seems that the elderly are more likely to die in a hospital in the UK rather than at home.

Is this a cultural thing? Is this an administrative thing? Is it a hospital care thing? I don't know. But I think it would be important to know why the elderly are more likely to die in a hospice or at home hospice compared to the UK.

There are other potential issues. Are British people healthier and suffer from less unexpected heart attacks in their youth? Are unhealthy younger Americans less likely to check themselves out at a doctor? Are the British more medically informed?

There are so many variables at play here that could explain the discrepancy between any countries. I'm not saying that's the case, but the data presented is completely unconvincing. It's like arguing people who floss their teeth are less likely to get heart attacks (true) without realizing that's because people who floss are more health conscious and not the act of flossing itself causing it.

 

[Videoneon]

Exactly. EV seems completely convinced that it would empower people to change the gov't for the better (in his vision) without even entertaining the thought that it could go the other way, ala libertarianism.

As I said earlier, rational people in Europe would be ending austerity, not increasing it. But people aren't rational. People aren't even smart. People are unpredictable.

I don't have a crystal ball and there's too much that could go wrong for me to want to chance it. It's why I say that even though I point out GOP failings like Walker's jobs numbers, I'm not happy about them because I want people working no matter what. I take no joy in GOP (or anyone's for that matter) policies failing and hurting people.

First, who's your "rational people"? It's not as if there aren't some who don't benefit from austerity, though the Spanish and Greek public rank dead last on it. Though to be sure, I believe people can vote against their interests (see the party that dominates greek parliament now in the wake of the austerity talks, and the continuing greek malaise)

Anyway, to the main idea. This is my problem with that way of thinking, even as someone who doesn't 100% believe that it will play out as empty vessel has suggested ( even if the strategy, in my limited understanding, seems sound---the fact that you can't predict 100% most any social thing notwithstanding) because congressional Republicans seem intent to listen to their idiot base, when they don't totally have to. Then again, Congress went ahead with TARP anyway...

What's the course of action for someone who's dissatisfied for the sub-par economy and country we have? We have bullshit like the sequester and the tea party clowns to show for pragmatism. The decision to play pragmatic is something that lots of people (including the Democrats and Republicans!) love and count on, allowing them to play hardball with things important to us. Effectively, tea partiers use pragmatic Democrats. It's something that the hard right gets to exploit, and to society's detriment. You guys are talking about things being hold hostage or programs being lost--but you guys know that's already been happening, we don't even need the goofy debt limit debate for that. And yet with the sequester, first thing that returns are airport services.

Where's the substantial change going to come from? When's the response to serious left-wing movement not going to be "them's the brakes"? It's because of things like this that I support the organization of fringe left parties, or a new establishment--one that is highly educated (not necessarily formally) or aware, and unafraid of the lion's den, like Martin Luther King Jr. was (though his picture of people like Thomas Jefferson is off the mark). He, like most revolutionaries, was just as dissatisfied with the people who opposed him as those who enabled them. If you haven't already done so, check out Letter from a Birmingham Jail. It's the perfect expression of concepts. we need the continued willingness to change the narrative and the strategy to accomplish it.

as for the GOP, they are a party that represents terrible ideas, so screw them. Really, everyone is unhappy when politicians screw up in administration because someone will suffer--even the team players, because they want to see their ideology and sense of self validated. See Australia's Labor party, which lost their way big time in spite of being a "Labor" party. We're past all that. It's about recognizing that there's generally always a superior option, and but for circumstance, it's not the GOP. If I wanted them to be better, I'd ask for them to change virtually all of their positions.

 

[pigeon]

A Boehner with no fucks to give could give no fucks either direction. Becomes a total wildcard.

Boehner won't have a legacy regardless. No one will remember him in 30 years.

Like I said, I still think he and the cooler heads will prevail as I've believed all along. But there's just enough GOP crazy to make me worry about it for the first time.

Be not afraid. Remember that Politico's job is to leak the news that needs leaking. Reread this paragraph with the knowledge that this story is a forced leak from the GOP House leadership:

The internal opposition has cut GOP leadership off at the knees. At some point, the House will likely have to pass a clean CR. Unless they can squelch this latest rebellion, Boehner (R-Ohio) and Cantor (R-Va.) will have to go to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to ask her to help avoid a government shutdown. That is likely to result in higher spending and a bill designed to attract Democratic support. Boehner is meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday.

Boehner's messaging the endgame here -- if the hardline GOP right don't back down, he'll break the Hastert Rule rather than torch the government. And if they do that to avoid the government shutdown, they'll have even less ammo when it comes to the debt ceiling.

 

[Black Mamba]

First, who's your "rational people"? It's not as if there aren't some who don't benefit from austerity, though the Spanish and Greek public rank dead last on it. Though to be sure, I believe people can vote against their interests (see the party that dominates greek parliament now in the wake of the austerity talks, and the continuing greek malaise)

Anyway, to the main idea. This is my problem with that way of thinking, even as someone who doesn't 100% believe that it will play out as empty vessel has suggested ( even if the strategy, in my limited understanding, seems sound---the fact that you can't predict 100% most any social thing notwithstanding) because congressional Republicans seem intent to listen to their idiot base, when they don't totally have to. Then again, Congress went ahead with TARP anyway...

What's the course of action for someone who's dissatisfied for the sub-par economy and country we have? We have bullshit like the sequester and the tea party clowns to show for pragmatism. The decision to play pragmatic is something that lots of people (including the Democrats and Republicans!) love and count on, allowing them to play hardball with things important to us. Effectively, tea partiers use pragmatic Democrats. It's something that the hard right gets to exploit, and to society's detriment. You guys are talking about things being hold hostage or programs being lost--but you guys know that's already been happening, we don't even need the goofy debt limit debate for that. And yet with the sequester, first thing that returns are airport services.

Where's the substantial change going to come from? When's the response to serious left-wing movement not going to be "them's the brakes"? It's because of things like this that I support the organization of fringe left parties, or a new establishment--one that is highly educated (not necessarily formally) or aware, and unafraid of the lion's den, like Martin Luther King Jr. was (though his picture of people like Thomas Jefferson is off the mark). He, like most revolutionaries, was just as dissatisfied with the people who opposed him as those who enabled them. If you haven't already done so, check out Letter from a Birmingham Jail. It's the perfect expression of concepts. we need the continued willingness to change the narrative and the strategy to accomplish it.

as for the GOP, they are a party that represents terrible ideas, so screw them. Really, everyone is unhappy when politicians screw up in administration because someone will suffer--even the team players, because they want to see their ideology and sense of self validated. See Australia's Labor party, which lost their way big time in spite of being a "Labor" party. We're past all that. It's about recognizing that there's generally always a superior option, and but for circumstance, it's not the GOP. If I wanted them to be better, I'd ask for them to change virtually all of their positions.

I support more extreme left wing groups pulling the Dems further left. I agree the pragmatists miscalculated, especially back in 2011. My biggest beef with Obama has always been his reluctance to really use the bully pulpit to make it clear what our policies should be.

And you're right we are already losing things. But right now, I'd still rather take this fight through the normal political process. I believe time is on our side. We're at least seeing changes in social policies (same-sex rights, immigration is coming soon if not right now, etc) and eventually the economic ones will come. It's hard to undo the stink of Reaganism.

I just don't see risking everything making sense. I'm just not in favor of potentially hurting that many people on a hope. I'm too risk adverse for it. There's points where I may be so willing, but we aren't there. We're just going to have to organize better, educate better, and wait out those too old and set.

I don't care if the GOP is better or not. I just want their current incarnation gone. Whether that means they change their positions or they become a minority matters not. But it ain't happening overnight.

FWIW, Letter from a Birmingham Jail is one of my favorite pieces of literary work (for lack of a better term).


Pigeon - I think the CR will go through one way or another, regardless. But the DC debate has all the possible makings of a game of chicken. I'm 100% convinced Obama won't balk, but only 80% convinced the GOP will balk. That used to be 100% and that 80% is largely because of Boehner and their money-line (who would hate a default). But I can no longer put it at 100% because there's too much fucking crazy. I mean, I never thought the sequester would still be around right now, but it is.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Ho ho

 

[xnipx]

So Rick Perry is running smear ads in my state because of our "deadly high taxes on business" trying to lure them to move across the county and set up in Texas.....
http://shar.es/ijk3K

"This is Texas Gov. Rick Perry. When you grow tired of Maryland taxes squeezing every dime out of your business think Texas where we have created more jobs than all the other states combined, where you'll find limited government, low taxes and a fair legal system. That's why Forbes Magazine says Texas is home to seven of the 10 top cities in America to do business. Unfortunately, your governor has made Maryland the tax and fee state where businesses and families are paying some of the highest taxes in America. Since taking office in 2007, he has approved 40 new and increased taxes and fees projected to cost you $9.5 billion more through 2014. That's a job killer

Job killing taxes - check
Big boogeyman government - check
Anti-business - check

Hmmmm I wonder what my governor has to say....

"Maryland has had the No. 1 public schools in the nation for five years in a row," O'Malley said. "Since 2007, we've done more than any other state to hold down the cost of college tuition. We're No. 1 in median income. Instead of engaging in PR stunts, Gov. Perry should come to Maryland to see, firsthand, the better choices that have led to these better results."

 

[Diablos]

This could prove to be a thorn in Hillary's side heading into 2016...

Secret effort to help Clinton's 2008 campaign revealed
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- The District of Columbia businessman at the center of an ongoing city corruption investigation secretly spent more than half a million dollars on get-out-the-vote efforts for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, according to interviews and new court documents filed Wednesday.

Jeffrey Thompson, a former city contractor who allegedly financed a secret campaign for Democratic Mayor Vincent Gray in 2010, financed an independent effort to reach urban minority voters on behalf of Clinton in Texas and at least three other states during the 2008 Democratic primaries, according to the interviews and documents.

Thompson paid Troy White, a New York City marketing executive, more than $608,000 to hire field workers to distribute posters, stickers and yard signs beginning in February 2008 to help raise Clinton's profile during her primary battle with then-Sen. Barack Obama, according to the documents and interviews with several people familiar with the investigation.

A search of federal campaign records found no evidence that Thompson and White disclosed the alleged expenditures or activities with the Federal Election Commission, as required by campaign finance laws.

The new accusations came to light when White pleaded guilty Wednesday to a misdemeanor tax charge, becoming the latest Thompson associate to be implicated in a far-reaching investigation that has revealed the businessman's alleged secret role in funding political campaigns.

For the first time, the investigation has connected Thompson to a major national political figure. The investigation could have political implications for Clinton, who is weighing a second run for president in 2016 and is seen as an overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Thompson's attorney, Brendan Sullivan, did not respond to a message seeking comment.

A Clinton spokesman referred questions to a campaign lawyer, who did not respond to a request for comment late Wednesday. One senior official on Clinton's 2008 campaign said nobody in the campaign's senior leadership or with budget-making authority knew about Thompson or White's independent canvassing campaign. Multiple other senior officials said they had never heard of White.

"I'm absolutely certain he had nothing to do with any of us," said Garry Mauro, chairman of Clinton's Texas campaign. "I was at the headquarters almost every day, I traveled the state, and I never heard of this guy."

The allegations that Thompson secretly helped Clinton in Texas and at least three other primary states in 2008 are similar to his alleged activities surrounding the Gray campaign. Two of those states were North Carolina and Indiana, according to people familiar with the case. The fourth state was unknown.

Prosecutors have been building a case against Thompson, who has been described in court documents as the financier of a secret campaign for Gray, and court records show that he is the subject of a grand jury investigation.
Neither Thompson nor Gray has been charged, and the mayor has denied any wrongdoing.

White admitted to failing to file corporate income tax returns for fiscal years 2007 through 2010 that would have reflected the alleged indirect payments from Thompson. He faces up to 12 months in prison, according to federal sentencing guidelines.

White, a 48-year-old Howard University graduate based in New York, provides marketing services, including to political campaigns, through his firm, Wytehouse Marketing. His services include managing what he calls "street teams," which one source familiar with White's services said includes distributing leaflets at nightclubs, shrink-wrapping vehicles with images and other grassroots canvassing, often related to urban pop culture.

Court documents and interviews show that in early 2008, as Clinton struggled to make up ground against Obama in the primaries, White directly approached the Clinton campaign pitching his services to help organize supporters in urban areas. After campaign officials declined his services, a longtime Clinton adviser, Minyon Moore, helped connect White with Thompson, who agreed to fund his canvassing operation.

Moore is not identified in the documents, but several people with knowledge of the case said she is the campaign official described in those documents.

The court documents quote from e-mails detailing the conversations. A person described as a senior campaign official told White, "Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to use the street teams," adding that the person is a "big fan" and hopes "we can work together soon."
People close to the case who spoke on condition of anonymity said the senior official is Guy Cecil, who served as Clinton's national political and field director. Cecil, now executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, declined to comment.

Two days later, White followed up with Cecil and Moore, according to the documents.

Moore, who began her career in Chicago as an organizer for the Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign and for Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, became one of the Clintons' closest political advisers. She served as director of political affairs in the Clinton White House and later as chief executive of the Democratic National Committee.

On Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, Moore was a senior adviser who worked closely with many departments of the campaign and was particularly instrumental in African American outreach. Moore now works at Dewey Square Group, a Washington-based consulting firm, where she heads the multicultural and state and local affairs practices.

According to the court documents, Moore wrote back to White and Cecil: "I am piping up saying we need your services." Moore told Cecil in the same message, "Let's ⅛find€ some money. I will fight for it."

Soon after, Moore introduced White to Thompson, according to the documents. White put together a get-out-the-vote plan in advance of the March 4 Texas primary and caucuses, while Thompson agreed to cover the costs.

In a statement late Wednesday, Dewey Square Group said Moore has been "fully cooperating" with the federal investigation. "The facts make clear that she was entirely unaware of any inappropriate activities and at all times conducted herself, as she always has, not only in full compliance with the law but in accordance with the highest ethical and professional standards."

The narrative described in court documents signed by White raises questions about whether there was coordination between the Clinton campaign and Thompson's alleged off-the-books effort, which he did not report as required by law.

Spending in support of candidates must be reported by individuals funding independent expenditures - not by the candidate's committee. The law also prohibits independent committees from coordinating directly with political campaigns or parties.
According to prosecutors, White maintained contact with Moore, who arranged for Clinton's Texas campaign office to provide White's "street team workers" with campaign-prepared materials - such as bumper stickers and yard signs. Moore also gave White "confidential internal information" about the campaign's itinerary, according to the court filing.

"The paid street team workers and canvassers then were directed to attend these campaign events to show support for ⅛Clinton€ and disseminate and distribute ⅛Clinton's€ prepared materials," according to the document signed by White.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly asked White during the hearing whether there was
"some cooperation" between the official campaign and his operation. White responded, "Yes."

White's attorney, Ross Nabatoff, declined to comment after the hearing.

Thompson has a long history of supporting both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, making donations to their political campaigns as well as to their family's charitable foundation. According to campaign finance records, Thompson, his associates and his companies gave $65,500 to Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, as well as $11,950 to Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Thompson also once dated Alexis Herman, who served as Bill Clinton's secretary of labor.

In financing the White's canvassing operation, Thompson allegedly funneled the money from two of his companies through a third business, Belle International, owned by Jeanne Clarke Harris, his longtime associate.

Harris, a public relations consultant, pleaded guilty last year to participating in the alleged off-the-books campaign for Gray by funneling Thompson's money through companies she owned.

White is a former music-industry marketer who spent much of his career at Sony Music. According to his website, he worked on promotions for artists including the Rolling Stones, Wynton Marsalis and Snoop Dogg. He lists both Hillary Clinton and Obama as his political clients.

White appears only once in District of Columbia campaign finance reports, where he is recorded as giving a $1,000 donation to Michael A. Brown during his successful 2008 D.C. Council race. That contribution came on the same day as donations from other people linked to Thompson, including executives from his D.C. Chartered Health Plan, and a day after a $1,000 donation from Harris.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20...ffort-to-help-Clintons-2008-campaign-revealed

 

[explodet]

So Rick Perry is running smear ads in my state because of our "deadly high taxes on business" trying to lure them to move across the county and set up in Texas.....
http://shar.es/ijk3K



Job killing taxes - check
Big boogeyman government - check
Anti-business - check

Hmmmm I wonder what my governor has to say....

They tried this with New York.
This was Lewis Black's response: Fuck Texas

 

[ridethepiggy]

Ohthenoez!

In order to persuade conservatives lawmakers to vote to keep the federal government funded past Sept. 30, House Republican leaders are proposing to stare down President Barack Obama over the debt ceiling by seeking a one-year delay of Obamacare.

At a closed-door meeting Tuesday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) floated a strategy to delay the rollout of Obamacare for one year in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling. The meeting was focused on pitching a plan that lets Republicans vote to defund Obamacare without risking a government shutdown if the Senate rejects the idea, a move that is meeting fierce resistance on their right flank, which wants to go further.

A senior Republican aide familiar with Cantor’s remarks said he was essentially trying to persuade his members that the debt limit, which the federal government is expected to hit in mid-October, provides a better opportunity than a threatened government shutdown to undermine Obamacare.

“He didn’t draw any red lines,” said the GOP aide. “He said it’s a better opportunity than [the continuing resolution] and a delay there is very doable.” The aide added that the concession wouldn’t necessarily just involve Obamacare; there could be other reforms. The aide admitted that it depends in part on what the president is willing to give up.

It all sounds far-fetched. After all, trading a government shutdown for default would be like trading a common cold for cancer. And it remains to be seen whether GOP leaders would let the economy collapse if they don’t get their way, or if they’re merely saying what they have to say to get through the shutdown crisis.

An upside to proposing the debt ceiling idea now is that it helps persuade Republican lawmakers not to withhold their support for keeping the government open. Cantor’s suggestion this week comes as Republicans are taking heavy fire from conservative advocates for refraining from risking a government shutdown over Obamacare. House leaders have postponed consideration of the continuing resolution until next week to build support.

Last month, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) floated the idea of delaying or defunding the health care reform law in a debt ceiling package. But he, too, stopped short of drawing any red lines. A leadership aide described it at the time as an “option.”

Despite the anti-Obamacare frenzy consuming their right flank, Republican leaders recognize that both a shutdown and default would be a disaster for their party, potentially threatening their House majority ahead of a mid-term election when they hope to win back the Senate. Their balancing act to satisfy conservatives enough to avert a shutdown but not to create expectations that threatening debt default is the way to go.

Back in January, when President Barack Obama held firm and refused to negotiate on the debt limit, as he is now, the House GOP backed down and lifted the debt ceiling without substantive concessions (but rather symbolic ones). Republican leaders recognize that it will be extremely difficult to extract major Obamacare concessions, especially on the eve of its rollout. The last-ditch option in Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) pocket would be to avert disaster by bringing up legislation that passes with the support of mostly Democrats. This route is far from ideal for him, but he hasn’t ruled it out.

In a memo to Republicans last Friday, Cantor vowed to continue attacking Obamacare, but not necessarily at risk of wreaking havoc on the economy. Instead he promised that leaders will “hold a series of strategic votes throughout the fall to dismantle, defund, and delay Obamacare.” He said Republicans “will continue to pursue the strategy of systematically derailing this train wreck and replacing it with a patient-centered system.”

At the end of the day, the battle over Obamacare is largely a side show that Republican leaders have to deal with. The real fight, where Republicans have genuine leverage, is over how much the government will spend next fiscal year and whether Congress will make permanent the lower spending levels after the automatic cuts known as sequestration.

 

[zero shift]

Is Texas's new gained economic growth even benefiting the population? I mean aren't poverty rates stagnant if not worse?

http://www.kxan.com/news/as-texas-economy-grows-so-does-proverty-rate

They are the Colombia of America.

 

[The Librarian]

I didn't see any of that Nate Silver/PPP spat on Twitter, but whatever PPP has done, Nate Cohn has something not-so good to say about them.

 

[Wilsongt]

Wow.


House passes bill to delay health care subsidies

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed a bill Thursday to ban new subsidies to help people buy health insurance until the Obama administration enacts a new verification system to ensure benefits go only to those who are eligible.

Democrats say the bill, which has no chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate, would unnecessarily delay subsidies slated to start next year.

Thursday's vote was the 41st by House Republicans to repeal, de-fund or change the health care law since it was passed in 2010 without a single Republican vote. A few changes have been enacted, but the effort has largely been unsuccessful.

The 235-191 vote was mostly along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.

This week, House Republican leaders delayed voting on a bill to fund the government beyond the end of the month after some GOP lawmakers complained the measure didn't adequately withhold funding for the health care law. If the impasse persists, it could result in a partial government shutdown at the end of the month.

"Delay, defund, repeal, replace. That is exactly what we want to do, because this law has become so amazingly unpopular with the American people," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

Under the law, many low- and middle-income families that don't get health insurance through work will be eligible for subsidies to help buy insurance through state-based exchanges. Eligibility is based on income.

Republicans say there aren't enough safeguards to prevent fraud. They say federal regulations issued over the summer would enable people to get subsidies without adequately verifying their income. The bill would delay the subsidies until the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services certifies that they will only go to people who are eligible.

"This bill would protect American taxpayers from the staggering amount of fraud and abuse in Obamacare exchanges," said Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn. the main sponsor of the bill.

Under the law, people applying for subsidies will be asked to estimate their family incomes for 2014. Open enrollment starts next month.

Income estimates will be checked against tax and Social Security records, according to the Obama administration. If there are significant discrepancies, there will be additional checks using information from a credit rating agency. If taxpayers still get more subsidies than they are entitled to, they may have to repay part or all of them when they file their federal tax returns the following year.

Democrats note that the subsidies will be paid directly to insurance companies, making it even more difficult for people to profit from fraud. Taxpayers will receive benefits through reduced premiums.

"Your bill will do nothing but prevent millions of hard-working American families from gaining affordable health care coverage," said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

So, they are worried about subsidy fraud, but what about medicare fraud that runs rampant? One of your very own benefited highly from it, and is now a governor. Hm.

There are truly no more words to explain how repulsive the House GOP currently is...

 

[empty vessel]

Krugman had a good chart up today regarding inequality:

Quote: "Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90-95 group; in fact, the great bulk went to the top 1 percent. The bulk of the gains of the top 1, in turn, went to the top 0.1; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01."

Also, new Piketty-Saez data on income is out, which is where Krugman derives this from. Excel data here: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2012prel.xls.

During the 2009-2012 recovery from the financial crisis, the top 1% took 95% of the income growth.

 

[Wilsongt]

Krugman had a good chart up today regarding inequality:

Quote: "Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90-95 group; in fact, the great bulk went to the top 1 percent. The bulk of the gains of the top 1, in turn, went to the top 0.1; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01."

Also, new Piketty-Saez data on income is out, which is where Krugman derives this from. Excel data here: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2012prel.xls.

During the 2009-2012 recovery from the financial crisis, the top 1% took 95% of the income growth.

Of course. Big CEO of companies cheat and make lots of money. Fire people and make even more profits. Fire even more people and make MORE profits. All the while, those who were fired are struggling while their former employeers laugh their way all the way to their Scrooge McDuck sized bank accounts. It's a brilliant scheme.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Of course. Big CEO of companies cheat and make lots of money. Fire people and make even more profits. Fire even more people and make MORE profits. All the while, those who were fired are struggling while their former employeers laugh their way all the way to their Scrooge McDuck sized bank accounts. It's a brilliant scheme.

Dat Capitalism.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Here is EPI's take on it.
http://www.epi.org/blog/mayor-gray-sign-large-retailer-accountability/

 

[B-Dubs]

Here is EPI's take on it.
http://www.epi.org/blog/mayor-gray-sign-large-retailer-accountability/

I am happy EPI points out the fact that Walmart won't add jobs to DC. They'll be lucky to break even and even then everyone will wind up making less than they did before Walmart. Walmart's fucking up of local economies is very well documented so I wonder why anyone even believes their shit anymore.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

I didn't see any of that Nate Silver/PPP spat on Twitter, but whatever PPP has done, Nate Cohn has something not-so good to say about them.

PPP's response:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/full-e-mail-chain-with-nate-cohn.html

 

[Chichikov]

Krugman had a good chart up today regarding inequality:

Quote: "Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90-95 group; in fact, the great bulk went to the top 1 percent. The bulk of the gains of the top 1, in turn, went to the top 0.1; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01."

Also, new Piketty-Saez data on income is out, which is where Krugman derives this from. Excel data here: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2012prel.xls.

During the 2009-2012 recovery from the financial crisis, the top 1% took 95% of the income growth.

They worked hard to break the economy, so it's only fair they get the most rewards from the recovery.
What.

 

[Samk]

Back to Syria: Let's talk logistics for a second. What are the odds that Russia's plan to have the CW confiscated will actually work? It's hard enough to do something like this in a peaceful country, much less one in a bloody civil war.

 

[mckmas8808]

Of course. Big CEO of companies cheat and make lots of money. Fire people and make even more profits. Fire even more people and make MORE profits. All the while, those who were fired are struggling while their former employeers laugh their way all the way to their Scrooge McDuck sized bank accounts. It's a brilliant scheme.

And then ask why those people that they fired can't get a job. And say all they want to do is live off the government.

 

[Videoneon]

So, this is late, but uh..

Colbert is going in heavily on Rand Paul's bullshit. Dude has had like 4 different opinion on Syria within the last week. Glad someone is calling him out on his crap.

This was interesting. I have no idea what Rand the Magnificent actually has to say on Syria.

 

[Wilsongt]

And then ask why those people that they fired can't get a job. And say all they want to do is live off the government.

Hey, as long as the share holders are happy, it doesn't matter what happens to the people that actually make these companies the money and keep it running.

The truly proverbial "Fuck you, I got mine." mentality.

 

[Sibylus]

Back to Syria: Let's talk logistics for a second. What are the odds that Russia's plan to have the CW confiscated will actually work? It's hard enough to do something like this in a peaceful country, much less one in a bloody civil war.

Process would likely take years, but it's the best option of those readily available.

 

[jamesinclair]

Econ 101 question:

In a perfectly competitive market, there are no economic profits

Theres is no such thing as perfect competition, but retail of basic goods (toilet paper etc) is pretty damn close

How then do stores like wal-mart rake in the profits?

 

[thepotatoman]

Econ 101 question:

In a perfectly competitive market, there are no economic profits

Theres is no such thing as perfect competition, but retail of basic goods (toilet paper etc) is pretty damn close

How then do stores like wal-mart rake in the profits?

In such a perfect capitalist scenario there would be no need for a middle man, so Wal-Mart wouldn't even exist. No need for managers or businesses as we know it really either. You'd just sell your products or services directly to the person that needs it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Econ 101 question:

In a perfectly competitive market, there are no economic profits

Theres is no such thing as perfect competition, but retail of basic goods (toilet paper etc) is pretty damn close

How then do stores like wal-mart rake in the profits?

Volume.

 

[AnotherNils]

Volume.

In turn, they use that volume to secure sweetheart prices with manufacturers that have become dependent on how much of their business walmart has become.

 

[Black Mamba]

Econ 101 question:

In a perfectly competitive market, there are no economic profits

Theres is no such thing as perfect competition, but retail of basic goods (toilet paper etc) is pretty damn close

How then do stores like wal-mart rake in the profits?

You're misunderstanding what a perfectly competitive market requires.

It not only requires lots of competition among homogeneous goods, it also requires perfect information from not just the producers, but consumers and workers. This does not exist anywhere in the real world.

That is, the people working in a toiler paper factory make less than the perfect competition model says they should earn. And since consumers don't know the cost curves, they don't readjust their personal demand curves from that knowledge.

Furthermore, perfect competition brings us to the perfectly competitive price when the amount of firms approaches infinity. In reality, how many firms are there selling TP? At costco, I only see 2 (Charmin, Kirkland). Other stores have a few more. But if it's 10 or even 20, you're not hitting the perfectly competitive price.

When you use an actual mathematical model for any industry, the actual amount of firms will determine the price based on where the Demand and Supply curves are. It's not actually just Demand = Supply. It's marginal revenues vs marginal costs that matter and the amount of firms affects the price point.

edit: For instance, you could look at the Cournot Model for price determination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cournot_competition

 

[Samk]

Also in Econ 101 they don't account for economies of scale. Furthermore, economic profit does not include "entrepuer earnings". Economic profit is profit after everyone gets paid.

When there's no economic profit in an industry it means that there's no longer any incentive for firms to enter.

 

[mckmas8808]

In such a perfect capitalist scenario there would be no need for a middle man, so Wal-Mart wouldn't even exist. No need for managers or businesses as we know it really either. You'd just sell your products or services directly to the person that needs it.

That's crazy and wrong. The pure fact that someone would need to transport and store the goods means that places like "Walmart" need to exist.

 

[Gotchaye]

Econ 101 question:

In a perfectly competitive market, there are no economic profits

Theres is no such thing as perfect competition, but retail of basic goods (toilet paper etc) is pretty damn close

How then do stores like wal-mart rake in the profits?

It depends on what you mean by "economic profits"; there isn't a number in the real world that you can point to which corresponds to the econ 101 sense of the term.

If econ 101 profits are corporate profits, and a company is making no profit and there is no expectation of it making a profit, why on earth would anyone own shares in that company? Why are you paying a whole bunch of employees to make no profit? Just shut the whole thing down and sell off the parts for real profit.

The lesson to take from econ 101 is that if you have perfect competition then there is no more efficient way to get the same thing down, barring new technology (and obviously this isn't even true in many cases). If the market is efficient, then accounting profits should on average be as low as possible while still being high enough to convince people to invest in the company. To square the two concepts you have to account for the opportunity cost of the investors' money and of the physical stuff the company owns.

Consider that the market for fast food labor is incredibly competitive. But even without a minimum wage the equilibrium wage offered would be high enough to attract some people to the job. It would probably even be possible for most people to survive for some length of time on those wages alone (this would not be fun). There's no puzzle here - there's still "profit" accruing to laborers even though there's nearly perfect competition for jobs. If fast food jobs paid people nothing at all, or only enough to cover costs directly associated with doing the job and nothing else, no one would take them.

 

[Chichikov]

And to no one's surprise, America's Finest News Source has the best commentary on the inequality report.

 

[Karakand]

Econ 101 question:

In a perfectly competitive market, there are no economic profits

Theres is no such thing as perfect competition, but retail of basic goods (toilet paper etc) is pretty damn close

How then do stores like wal-mart rake in the profits?

surplus value

 

[empty vessel]

If econ 101 profits are corporate profits, and a company is making no profit and there is no expectation of it making a profit, why on earth would anyone own shares in that company? Why are you paying a whole bunch of employees to make no profit? Just shut the whole thing down and sell off the parts for real profit.

If those who worked at the company owned it, this scenario would be ideal. Companies only require profit if they have absent owners. Wages are the reward for labor.

 

[tanooki141]

Watching the Rand Paul segment on Colbert's website and came across this.

I'm dying over here, it's just too much.

"It's the hand that I had the problem with, not the foot."

 

[thepotatoman]

That's crazy and wrong. The pure fact that someone would need to transport and store the goods means that places like "Walmart" need to exist.

Obviously. That's kind of my point. There's no such thing as perfect capitalism. If you're going to start saying for it to be perfect except for that, you might as well start peeling away at all the other imperfections.

 

[Wilsongt]

Watching the Rand Paul segment on Colbert's website and came across this.

I'm dying over here, it's just too much.

"It's the hand that I had the problem with, not the foot."

Oh wow. Hahaha.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I am happy EPI points out the fact that Walmart won't add jobs to DC. They'll be lucky to break even and even then everyone will wind up making less than they did before Walmart. Walmart's fucking up of local economies is very well documented so I wonder why anyone even believes their shit anymore.

I'm kinda selfish so I'm happy they'll be near me.

But my real problem is its targeted. Why not just have a living wage for everyone? Why do non big box workers have to live on less?

 

[Oblivion]

Things just keep getting worse for conservatives. Rite-aid says they're gonna help destroy freedom as well:

Rite Aid Corporation announced that it will host licensed insurance agents at nearly 2,000 locations across the country starting Oct. 1 to teach customers about the new insurance exchanges. The agents will meet one-on-one with patients, who will be able to sign up for coverage on the spot, the company said. The pharmacies will also distribute written materials about ObamaCare.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius praised Rite Aid's plans while visiting a store location in Hoboken, N.J.... Insurance agents participating Rite Aid's effort will receive specific training related to the Affordable Care Act, according to Rite Aid Chairman John Standley.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/12/20461702-rite-aid-on-board-with-obamacare-outreach?lite


This makes 3 huge pharmacy chains that are on Obamacare's side. So which big pharmacies do we have left that right-wingers can go to out of principle?

 

[B-Dubs]

Watching the Rand Paul segment on Colbert's website and came across this.

I'm dying over here, it's just too much.

"It's the hand that I had the problem with, not the foot."

Yea, Rand Paul is as much of a joke as Ron Paul. Why anyone respects either I have no idea.

 

[Black Mamba]

Things just keep getting worse for conservatives. Rite-aid says they're gonna help destroy freedom as well:



http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/12/20461702-rite-aid-on-board-with-obamacare-outreach?lite

Companies that deal in the health care world trying to make sure their customers know what they're doing.

DAMN SOCIALISM!!!!!!

Yea, Rand Paul is as much of a joke as Ron Paul. Why anyone respects either I have no idea.

The Pauls talk about a time when freedom ringed, money had value, and unicorns sodomized them at night for pleasure.

 

[thepotatoman]

The socialists are taking over our corporations from the inside now!

 

[Jimothy]

The socialists are taking over our corporations from the inside now!

Socialists, in my corporation?