Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Demeter
Demeter's Journal
Demeter's Journal
May 18, 2013
President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to reassure the American people that he has “played no role whatsoever” in the U.S. government over the past four years.
The President’s outrage only increased, he said, when he “recently became aware of a part of that government called the Department of Justice.”
Mr. Obama closed his address by indicating that beginning next week he would enforce what he called a “zero tolerance policy on governing.”
Obama Denies Role in Government by Andy Borowitz
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/05/obama-denies-role-in-government.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%28125%29President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to reassure the American people that he has “played no role whatsoever” in the U.S. government over the past four years.
“Right now, many of you are angry at the government, and no one is angrier than I am,” he said. “Quite frankly, I am glad that I have had no involvement in such an organization.”
The President’s outrage only increased, he said, when he “recently became aware of a part of that government called the Department of Justice.”
“The more I learn about the activities of these individuals, the more certain I am that I would not want to be associated with them,” he said. “They sound like bad news.”
Mr. Obama closed his address by indicating that beginning next week he would enforce what he called a “zero tolerance policy on governing.”
“If I find that any members of my Administration have had any intimate knowledge of, or involvement in, the workings of the United States government, they will be dealt with accordingly,” he said.
May 17, 2013
Don't you instantly feel like that poor little kitten, being scrubbed backwards and against nature by your own mother? If not, you are in the 1%, and don't belong on this site....
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3273223&pageno=3
Weekend Economists Go Through the Looking Glass May 17-19, 2013
Because the Tea Party brings instant connections to the Mad Hatter and the world of Lewis Carroll, we are going through the Looking Glass in hopes of finding our way back to the world we were born into:
CHAPTER I. Looking-Glass house
One thing was certain, that the WHITE kitten had had nothing to do with
it:--it was the black kitten's fault entirely. For the white kitten had
been having its face washed by the old cat for the last quarter of
an hour (and bearing it pretty well, considering); so you see that it
COULDN'T have had any hand in the mischief.
The way Dinah washed her children's faces was this: first she held the
poor thing down by its ear with one paw, and then with the other paw she
rubbed its face all over, the wrong way, beginning at the nose: and
just now, as I said, she was hard at work on the white kitten, which was
lying quite still and trying to purr--no doubt feeling that it was all
meant for its good.
One thing was certain, that the WHITE kitten had had nothing to do with
it:--it was the black kitten's fault entirely. For the white kitten had
been having its face washed by the old cat for the last quarter of
an hour (and bearing it pretty well, considering); so you see that it
COULDN'T have had any hand in the mischief.
The way Dinah washed her children's faces was this: first she held the
poor thing down by its ear with one paw, and then with the other paw she
rubbed its face all over, the wrong way, beginning at the nose: and
just now, as I said, she was hard at work on the white kitten, which was
lying quite still and trying to purr--no doubt feeling that it was all
meant for its good.
Don't you instantly feel like that poor little kitten, being scrubbed backwards and against nature by your own mother? If not, you are in the 1%, and don't belong on this site....
'Now, if you'll only attend, Kitty, and not talk so much, I'll tell you
all my ideas about Looking-glass House. First, there's the room you can
see through the glass--that's just the same as our drawing room, only
the things go the other way. I can see all of it when I get upon a
chair--all but the bit behind the fireplace. Oh! I do so wish I could
see THAT bit! I want so much to know whether they've a fire in the
winter: you never CAN tell, you know, unless our fire smokes, and then
smoke comes up in that room too--but that may be only pretence, just to
make it look as if they had a fire. Well then, the books are something
like our books, only the words go the wrong way; I know that, because
I've held up one of our books to the glass, and then they hold up one in
the other room.
all my ideas about Looking-glass House. First, there's the room you can
see through the glass--that's just the same as our drawing room, only
the things go the other way. I can see all of it when I get upon a
chair--all but the bit behind the fireplace. Oh! I do so wish I could
see THAT bit! I want so much to know whether they've a fire in the
winter: you never CAN tell, you know, unless our fire smokes, and then
smoke comes up in that room too--but that may be only pretence, just to
make it look as if they had a fire. Well then, the books are something
like our books, only the words go the wrong way; I know that, because
I've held up one of our books to the glass, and then they hold up one in
the other room.
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3273223&pageno=3
May 17, 2013
America’s health care system is collapsing, and we can blame the Economics profession. Most economists approach health care in the wrong way, viewing it as a commodity like shoes or the laptop on which I write. Instead, health care is an idiosyncratic commodity, subject to uncertainty and “asymmetric information” leading to destructive behavior. Trying to force health care into a box, treating it like other commodities, economists have promoted cost sharing, market competition, and insurance oversight of health care providers that have inflated the administrative burden while denying ever more Americans access.
Health care spending has been rising throughout the world as aging and more affluent populations spend on their health. Nowhere, however, has the cost of health care risen as fast as in the United States where costs soared because of rising administrative expense. Compared with other affluent countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the OECD), the United States spends over twice as much per person as is spent elsewhere. Before 1971 when Canada enacted its Medicare program, a single-payer government funded health care system, Canada spent a higher share of its national income on health care than did the United States; since then, however, while Canada has controlled costs, spending has soared in the United States so that we now spend over $3000 more per person. That is $12,000 for a family of four that is not available for travel, education, housing, or food.
Elsewhere, increases in health care spending have been associated with improvements in the provision of health care and, therefore, go with increasing life expectancy. In the United States, however, spending has increased because of rising administrative costs and increases in the price of prescription drugs and, therefore, has yielded relatively few benefits in improvements in care. Comparing changes in health-care spending and life expectancy between 1971 and 2008, other affluent OECD members gained a year of life expectancy for every $453 in spending; in the United States, however, life expectancy has increased less and spending has risen sharply more so that each year of increased life expectancy has cost over twice as much as in these other countries. Health care spending in the United States has increased by $1283 for every additional year of life expectancy; had our spending per year of added life increased at only the rate of other countries we would be spending over $4500 less per person, $18,000 saved for the average family of four. Most of the difference in relative expenditures, most of the growing waste in spending in the United States, is due to increasing administrative costs in the provision of private health insurance and in the billing and insurance operations within doctors’ offices and in hospitals. The average physician in the United States now spends four-times as much interacting with insurance companies as does the average physician in Ontario, Canada, over $80,000 per physician compared with a little over $20,000 in Ontario. Prescription drug prices and administrative expenses have been the fastest rising costs in the United States health care system; from 1980 to 2005, administrative costs rose by 1300% while drug prices rose by nearly 2000%. There are now 2.5 million administrative support personnel in the American health care system; more than the number of nurses, and five times the number of physicians. We now have more health-care managers than physicians and surgeons.
Rising costs drive up health insurance premiums so that a family health insurance plan now costs about 40% of the average family wage income, up from 7% in 1960. Rising costs are denying ever more Americans access to health care even while businesses and governments wrestle with rising health care spending that squeezes resources available for other purposes. While other countries have controlled health care costs by restraining administrative expenses and drug prices, ballooning costs in the United States come from policies promoted by economists who have urged governments and providers to control costs by making consumers responsible for more of the costs even while raising administrative costs and ignoring monopolistic pricing of pharmaceuticals. Viewing the injured, sick, and disabled as “consumers,” economists see insurance as the source of rising costs because they are not responsible for the costs of care they receive and, therefore, overuse health care. Rising copayments and deductibles are intended to discourage “consumers” from “abusing” health care, as if the victims of auto accidents or cancer should shop around for cheaper, and competition among insurers while limiting provider services by providing more administrative supervision. Ignoring evidence that Americans are less likely to see doctors and other health providers than are residents of other affluent countries, these economists have blamed the high cost of our health care on insurance which, they assume, leads to wasteful over-practice and the provision of unnecessary health care services. Their solution is greater cost sharing, more regulation of providers, capitation, and even the end to insurance by substituting medical savings accounts for insurance...
The Unhappy Marriage of Economics and Health Care
http://www.healthcare-now.org/the-unhappy-marriage-of-economics-and-health-careAmerica’s health care system is collapsing, and we can blame the Economics profession. Most economists approach health care in the wrong way, viewing it as a commodity like shoes or the laptop on which I write. Instead, health care is an idiosyncratic commodity, subject to uncertainty and “asymmetric information” leading to destructive behavior. Trying to force health care into a box, treating it like other commodities, economists have promoted cost sharing, market competition, and insurance oversight of health care providers that have inflated the administrative burden while denying ever more Americans access.
Health care spending has been rising throughout the world as aging and more affluent populations spend on their health. Nowhere, however, has the cost of health care risen as fast as in the United States where costs soared because of rising administrative expense. Compared with other affluent countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the OECD), the United States spends over twice as much per person as is spent elsewhere. Before 1971 when Canada enacted its Medicare program, a single-payer government funded health care system, Canada spent a higher share of its national income on health care than did the United States; since then, however, while Canada has controlled costs, spending has soared in the United States so that we now spend over $3000 more per person. That is $12,000 for a family of four that is not available for travel, education, housing, or food.
Elsewhere, increases in health care spending have been associated with improvements in the provision of health care and, therefore, go with increasing life expectancy. In the United States, however, spending has increased because of rising administrative costs and increases in the price of prescription drugs and, therefore, has yielded relatively few benefits in improvements in care. Comparing changes in health-care spending and life expectancy between 1971 and 2008, other affluent OECD members gained a year of life expectancy for every $453 in spending; in the United States, however, life expectancy has increased less and spending has risen sharply more so that each year of increased life expectancy has cost over twice as much as in these other countries. Health care spending in the United States has increased by $1283 for every additional year of life expectancy; had our spending per year of added life increased at only the rate of other countries we would be spending over $4500 less per person, $18,000 saved for the average family of four. Most of the difference in relative expenditures, most of the growing waste in spending in the United States, is due to increasing administrative costs in the provision of private health insurance and in the billing and insurance operations within doctors’ offices and in hospitals. The average physician in the United States now spends four-times as much interacting with insurance companies as does the average physician in Ontario, Canada, over $80,000 per physician compared with a little over $20,000 in Ontario. Prescription drug prices and administrative expenses have been the fastest rising costs in the United States health care system; from 1980 to 2005, administrative costs rose by 1300% while drug prices rose by nearly 2000%. There are now 2.5 million administrative support personnel in the American health care system; more than the number of nurses, and five times the number of physicians. We now have more health-care managers than physicians and surgeons.
Rising costs drive up health insurance premiums so that a family health insurance plan now costs about 40% of the average family wage income, up from 7% in 1960. Rising costs are denying ever more Americans access to health care even while businesses and governments wrestle with rising health care spending that squeezes resources available for other purposes. While other countries have controlled health care costs by restraining administrative expenses and drug prices, ballooning costs in the United States come from policies promoted by economists who have urged governments and providers to control costs by making consumers responsible for more of the costs even while raising administrative costs and ignoring monopolistic pricing of pharmaceuticals. Viewing the injured, sick, and disabled as “consumers,” economists see insurance as the source of rising costs because they are not responsible for the costs of care they receive and, therefore, overuse health care. Rising copayments and deductibles are intended to discourage “consumers” from “abusing” health care, as if the victims of auto accidents or cancer should shop around for cheaper, and competition among insurers while limiting provider services by providing more administrative supervision. Ignoring evidence that Americans are less likely to see doctors and other health providers than are residents of other affluent countries, these economists have blamed the high cost of our health care on insurance which, they assume, leads to wasteful over-practice and the provision of unnecessary health care services. Their solution is greater cost sharing, more regulation of providers, capitation, and even the end to insurance by substituting medical savings accounts for insurance...
May 17, 2013
Almost five years after Lehman Brothers Holding Inc (LEHMQ). filed for bankruptcy and set off the global financial crisis, managers of the bank’s estate are demanding millions of dollars from retirement homes, colleges and hospitals.
After selling most of its assets, Lehman now says it was shortchanged by scores of nonprofits that were forced to pay to exit derivatives that were unwound after the firm filed for Chapter 11 protection.
The Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, California, gave Lehman $2 million in October 2008 to cancel a swap contract used to manage fluctuating interest rates. Lehman says it wants $12.1 million more and has assessed at least an additional $4.7 million in interest, the research center said in its most recent financial statement. The amount Lehman is seeking is more than half of what Buck spent last year researching Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other diseases.
“Lehman is sort of a zombie-like bankruptcy entity: Instead of looking for brains, it’s looking for cash,” said Chip Bowles, a bankruptcy lawyer with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP in Louisville, Kentucky...
INCONCEIVABLE!
Lehman Reaches Beyond Grave Seeking Millions From Nonprofits
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/lehman-reaches-beyond-grave-to-grab-millions-from-nonprofits.htmlAlmost five years after Lehman Brothers Holding Inc (LEHMQ). filed for bankruptcy and set off the global financial crisis, managers of the bank’s estate are demanding millions of dollars from retirement homes, colleges and hospitals.
After selling most of its assets, Lehman now says it was shortchanged by scores of nonprofits that were forced to pay to exit derivatives that were unwound after the firm filed for Chapter 11 protection.
The Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, California, gave Lehman $2 million in October 2008 to cancel a swap contract used to manage fluctuating interest rates. Lehman says it wants $12.1 million more and has assessed at least an additional $4.7 million in interest, the research center said in its most recent financial statement. The amount Lehman is seeking is more than half of what Buck spent last year researching Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other diseases.
“Lehman is sort of a zombie-like bankruptcy entity: Instead of looking for brains, it’s looking for cash,” said Chip Bowles, a bankruptcy lawyer with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP in Louisville, Kentucky...
INCONCEIVABLE!
May 11, 2013
People over 65, a growing share of the US population, are suffering a crisis-ridden capitalist system. High unemployment, reduced private pensions, fewer job benefits, less job security, high personal debt levels, and falling real wages make Social Security payments more important than ever. Yet President Obama and Congress recently agreed to bargain over how much to reduce Social Security payments from current levels. That would not only hurt seniors - but also the children who help them...Consider these statistics covering 2010
(New York Times, April 20, pp B1 and B4). Married and single people over 65 earning $32,600 or less per year relied on Social Security for between 66% and 84% of their total annual income. That is the majority - 60% - of all US citizens over 65. Cutting Social Security payments seriously damages their lives. An additional 20% of the over-65 population, earning between $32,600 and $57,960, count on Social Security for 44% of their annual income. Cutting Social Security benefits is a cruel "thank you" for a lifetime's work, a default on the payroll taxes they paid into the Social Security system.
Cutting Social Security is an outrageous injustice that may provoke historic shifts and splits in the political landscape. A new left political movement may emerge driven less by students and the young than by their parents and even grandparents. Planned Social Security payment cuts would force many in the older generation to ask the younger for more help just when crisis capitalism distresses them both. Politically explosive pressures are building.
Since its 1935 beginning, the Social Security system has collected trillions in payroll taxes, half paid by employees and half by employers. But employers lowered wages and salaries because of what they paid to Social Security. For that reason, Social Security's whole inflow came ultimately from workers' wages and salaries. Other forms of income (interest, rent, dividends, and capital gains) - those received mostly by the rich - were exempted from the payroll tax. Also, the payroll tax hits high and low wage and salary earners with the same tax rate. It is not progressive like the federal income tax that imposes higher rates on higher earners. Worse, it is regressive because it applies only to the first $113,000 of income earned in 2013. Wages or salaries above $113,000 pay no payroll tax. Thus, the higher your income over $113,000, the smaller the share of your total income that goes to payroll taxes.
Worse still: Wage and salary earners had to pay excess payroll taxes for the last several decades. Washington taxed more than was needed to pay benefits to eligible Social Security recipients. Excess payroll tax collections were deposited into Social Security "trust funds" - now almost $3 trillion in size. The trust funds lent the excess to the US Treasury; they get interest on those loans. Social Security thus has two income sources: payroll taxes plus that interest. The US Treasury spent all its loans from Social Security on Washington's usual expenditures. By 2021, Social Security payments to the growing over-65 population will likely exceed the system's inflow of payroll taxes plus interest. Then the US Treasury will have to pay back to Social Security the trillions it borrowed. Setting regressive payroll taxes to yield an excess then lent to the US Treasury was an unnecessary injustice. Part of that money should have come instead from the existing progressive personal income tax. The other part should have come from higher corporate income (profits) taxes. Those least able to pay - middle income and poor - contributed $3 trillion in excess payroll taxes – in addition to the personal income taxes and legitimate payroll taxes they paid - to support Washington's budget. Yet now, because that budget has large deficit problems, the rich and big business favor cutting Social Security payouts. Millions who paid more than was needed into Social Security for years are now to be given less than was promised to them. What kind of system works like that?
MORE INJUSTICE AT LINK
Social Security's Explosive Injustices By Richard D Wolff
http://truth-out.org/news/item/16213-social-securitys-explosive-injusticesPeople over 65, a growing share of the US population, are suffering a crisis-ridden capitalist system. High unemployment, reduced private pensions, fewer job benefits, less job security, high personal debt levels, and falling real wages make Social Security payments more important than ever. Yet President Obama and Congress recently agreed to bargain over how much to reduce Social Security payments from current levels. That would not only hurt seniors - but also the children who help them...Consider these statistics covering 2010
(New York Times, April 20, pp B1 and B4). Married and single people over 65 earning $32,600 or less per year relied on Social Security for between 66% and 84% of their total annual income. That is the majority - 60% - of all US citizens over 65. Cutting Social Security payments seriously damages their lives. An additional 20% of the over-65 population, earning between $32,600 and $57,960, count on Social Security for 44% of their annual income. Cutting Social Security benefits is a cruel "thank you" for a lifetime's work, a default on the payroll taxes they paid into the Social Security system.
Cutting Social Security is an outrageous injustice that may provoke historic shifts and splits in the political landscape. A new left political movement may emerge driven less by students and the young than by their parents and even grandparents. Planned Social Security payment cuts would force many in the older generation to ask the younger for more help just when crisis capitalism distresses them both. Politically explosive pressures are building.
Since its 1935 beginning, the Social Security system has collected trillions in payroll taxes, half paid by employees and half by employers. But employers lowered wages and salaries because of what they paid to Social Security. For that reason, Social Security's whole inflow came ultimately from workers' wages and salaries. Other forms of income (interest, rent, dividends, and capital gains) - those received mostly by the rich - were exempted from the payroll tax. Also, the payroll tax hits high and low wage and salary earners with the same tax rate. It is not progressive like the federal income tax that imposes higher rates on higher earners. Worse, it is regressive because it applies only to the first $113,000 of income earned in 2013. Wages or salaries above $113,000 pay no payroll tax. Thus, the higher your income over $113,000, the smaller the share of your total income that goes to payroll taxes.
Worse still: Wage and salary earners had to pay excess payroll taxes for the last several decades. Washington taxed more than was needed to pay benefits to eligible Social Security recipients. Excess payroll tax collections were deposited into Social Security "trust funds" - now almost $3 trillion in size. The trust funds lent the excess to the US Treasury; they get interest on those loans. Social Security thus has two income sources: payroll taxes plus that interest. The US Treasury spent all its loans from Social Security on Washington's usual expenditures. By 2021, Social Security payments to the growing over-65 population will likely exceed the system's inflow of payroll taxes plus interest. Then the US Treasury will have to pay back to Social Security the trillions it borrowed. Setting regressive payroll taxes to yield an excess then lent to the US Treasury was an unnecessary injustice. Part of that money should have come instead from the existing progressive personal income tax. The other part should have come from higher corporate income (profits) taxes. Those least able to pay - middle income and poor - contributed $3 trillion in excess payroll taxes – in addition to the personal income taxes and legitimate payroll taxes they paid - to support Washington's budget. Yet now, because that budget has large deficit problems, the rich and big business favor cutting Social Security payouts. Millions who paid more than was needed into Social Security for years are now to be given less than was promised to them. What kind of system works like that?
MORE INJUSTICE AT LINK
May 10, 2013
The concept of "Mother" evokes ideas of responsibility, nurturing, unconditional love, patience, and altruism. Wow. That is a lot of pressure. Sure, those are all great values to embody, but being a mom would be a lot easier if the expectations of her identity were: wearing pants with elastic waist bands, the ability to have two conversations simultaneously, the courage to laugh in the face of a tantrum, the capacity to push a swing for a half hour while dreaming about Ryan Gosling's abs, the emotional courage to read the endless news coverage on the multitude of toxins our children are exposed to everyday, and the willingness to eat half-chewed discarded sandwich crusts. By these criteria -- I am pretty sure I am the best mom ever.
In today's world, couples share parental and domestic responsibilities more than ever before. That said, not only does "mother know best" still linger as a cultural norm, but she should know best. Moms are expected to instinctually know all the secrets of her child. Personally, my mother instincts point me straight to the computer.... nowadays Google knows best. But I'm pretty sure most dads have fingers too, so now the playing field is even. Thanks, technology! Equal opportunity mother instincts for all! Now both moms and dads can scour the Internet in search of non-toxic toys free of off-gasssing chemicals.
As a mother, my greatest hope is for my daughter to grow up healthy in a world that is not an environmentally catastrophic post-apocalyptic trashcan controlled by robots. It's hard being an eco-warrior purist parent. Corporations are rarely transparent about the chemicals used in their products or the way their employees are treated. It is up to us, the consumers, to find out the truth about how we vote with our dollars.
All these issues are interconnected. Excessive use of chemicals is intimately tied to the health of the employees who are handling these products. This also raises human rights issues and of course impacts the well-being of our planet. Women make up only 4 percent of the CEO's running Fortune 500 companies, who make upwards of 300 percent more than their employees. When we support big business, we also support environmental destruction, economic disparity, human rights abuses, gender inequality, and dangerous toxic exposure. We actively redefine our economy towards sustainability when, alternatively, we support local, small business with a social/environmental impact as their mission.
I wanted to create an earth-friendly cocoon for my little girl to sleep in. In my quest for organic sheets, blankets, and pillows, I stumbled upon Live Good and was moved by their story. The founder, Jennifer Chi, worked as an international human rights investigator and observed countless workers overseas get sick from toxic materials, unsanitary conditions, while laboring for excessively long hours and minimal financial compensation. Live Good not only uses all natural, organic products, but is also manufactured here in the United States so Ms. Chi can personally guarantee her employees are not exploited. When asked about her company Chi says:
Our culture projects the same demands onto our planet as we do on mothers around the globe. Hey, Mommy Earth, mind if we suck on your teat for oil, water, and food until you are all dried up and empty? And then we'll need to poop all over you with our trash and landfills and hope you figure out some way to absorb them. Oh, I almost forgot -- is it cool if we fart car fumes for you to soak up in your atmosphere while pissing poison on the ground? Thanks mom! You're the best. Sadly, humanity is taking advantage of our planet like an ungrateful teenager. Let's clean up our room and show our Mother Earth some respect.
Mothering Our Mother Earth / Toni Nagy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toni-nagy/mothering-our-mother-eart_b_3245939.htmlThe concept of "Mother" evokes ideas of responsibility, nurturing, unconditional love, patience, and altruism. Wow. That is a lot of pressure. Sure, those are all great values to embody, but being a mom would be a lot easier if the expectations of her identity were: wearing pants with elastic waist bands, the ability to have two conversations simultaneously, the courage to laugh in the face of a tantrum, the capacity to push a swing for a half hour while dreaming about Ryan Gosling's abs, the emotional courage to read the endless news coverage on the multitude of toxins our children are exposed to everyday, and the willingness to eat half-chewed discarded sandwich crusts. By these criteria -- I am pretty sure I am the best mom ever.
In today's world, couples share parental and domestic responsibilities more than ever before. That said, not only does "mother know best" still linger as a cultural norm, but she should know best. Moms are expected to instinctually know all the secrets of her child. Personally, my mother instincts point me straight to the computer.... nowadays Google knows best. But I'm pretty sure most dads have fingers too, so now the playing field is even. Thanks, technology! Equal opportunity mother instincts for all! Now both moms and dads can scour the Internet in search of non-toxic toys free of off-gasssing chemicals.
As a mother, my greatest hope is for my daughter to grow up healthy in a world that is not an environmentally catastrophic post-apocalyptic trashcan controlled by robots. It's hard being an eco-warrior purist parent. Corporations are rarely transparent about the chemicals used in their products or the way their employees are treated. It is up to us, the consumers, to find out the truth about how we vote with our dollars.
All these issues are interconnected. Excessive use of chemicals is intimately tied to the health of the employees who are handling these products. This also raises human rights issues and of course impacts the well-being of our planet. Women make up only 4 percent of the CEO's running Fortune 500 companies, who make upwards of 300 percent more than their employees. When we support big business, we also support environmental destruction, economic disparity, human rights abuses, gender inequality, and dangerous toxic exposure. We actively redefine our economy towards sustainability when, alternatively, we support local, small business with a social/environmental impact as their mission.
I wanted to create an earth-friendly cocoon for my little girl to sleep in. In my quest for organic sheets, blankets, and pillows, I stumbled upon Live Good and was moved by their story. The founder, Jennifer Chi, worked as an international human rights investigator and observed countless workers overseas get sick from toxic materials, unsanitary conditions, while laboring for excessively long hours and minimal financial compensation. Live Good not only uses all natural, organic products, but is also manufactured here in the United States so Ms. Chi can personally guarantee her employees are not exploited. When asked about her company Chi says:
"As a woman, I feel fortunate to have been born and raised in the United States. The one thing that is always on my mind when traveling abroad is the state of women in that particular region. Although I find all cultures and countries to be beautiful in their own way, I see that gender inequality is alarmingly prevalent around the world. Growing up in the States, I had the opportunity to attain a college and graduate school education -- an opportunity that most women in developing nations do not have. Why was it important to manufacture in the USA? I wanted my company to be a strong reflection of my values and principles, which are rooted in the American civil liberties culture.
I also wanted to support the local economy and am very proud to share that Live Good is helping sustain several U.S. textile mills. However, my decision to manufacture in America does not mean that I'm against growing economies elsewhere. People always ask me why I chose to support the U.S. economy as if I made a deliberate choice not to support the growth of another country. If you truly understand how the global economy works, you will see that growth in one region inevitably leads to growth for all. We really are all connected... it's a wonderful thing."
I also wanted to support the local economy and am very proud to share that Live Good is helping sustain several U.S. textile mills. However, my decision to manufacture in America does not mean that I'm against growing economies elsewhere. People always ask me why I chose to support the U.S. economy as if I made a deliberate choice not to support the growth of another country. If you truly understand how the global economy works, you will see that growth in one region inevitably leads to growth for all. We really are all connected... it's a wonderful thing."
Our culture projects the same demands onto our planet as we do on mothers around the globe. Hey, Mommy Earth, mind if we suck on your teat for oil, water, and food until you are all dried up and empty? And then we'll need to poop all over you with our trash and landfills and hope you figure out some way to absorb them. Oh, I almost forgot -- is it cool if we fart car fumes for you to soak up in your atmosphere while pissing poison on the ground? Thanks mom! You're the best. Sadly, humanity is taking advantage of our planet like an ungrateful teenager. Let's clean up our room and show our Mother Earth some respect.
May 10, 2013
This weekend we are going to tell tales of mothers: yours, mine, ours, theirs, it doesn't matter. We can critique mothers in film and fiction, history and art, human or otherwise.
What makes one a mother? Does one have to be female, or does it just help?
There are many levels of motherhood. There's the actual physical fact of motherhood: from egg to baby in 9 months or so (human) or varying for other species.
There's the psychological aspect; who cares for the child: The physical mother, the father, some unrelated caregiver or more distant relation? Nobody?
There's the social, cultural aspect: teachers who are motherly, books which depict motherly characters doing motherly things.
And then, there's the training aspect. What makes one suited for motherhood of any kind?
Have at it, Weekenders. And while we are at it, we will document what the economy is doing to us all (hint: mothering is not in the picture).
Weekend Economists Salute Mothers Everywhere May 10-12, 2013
This weekend we are going to tell tales of mothers: yours, mine, ours, theirs, it doesn't matter. We can critique mothers in film and fiction, history and art, human or otherwise.
What makes one a mother? Does one have to be female, or does it just help?
There are many levels of motherhood. There's the actual physical fact of motherhood: from egg to baby in 9 months or so (human) or varying for other species.
There's the psychological aspect; who cares for the child: The physical mother, the father, some unrelated caregiver or more distant relation? Nobody?
There's the social, cultural aspect: teachers who are motherly, books which depict motherly characters doing motherly things.
And then, there's the training aspect. What makes one suited for motherhood of any kind?
Have at it, Weekenders. And while we are at it, we will document what the economy is doing to us all (hint: mothering is not in the picture).
May 10, 2013
How did I miss this before? Book marking!
May 10, 2013
The euro crisis has already transformed the European Union from a voluntary association of equal states into a creditor-debtor relationship from which there is no easy escape. The creditors stand to lose large sums should a member state exit the monetary union, yet debtors are subjected to policies that deepen their depression, aggravate their debt burden, and perpetuate their subordinate position. As a result, the crisis is now threatening to destroy the EU itself. That would be a tragedy of historic proportions, which only German leadership can prevent.
The causes of the crisis cannot be properly understood without recognizing the euro’s fatal flaw: By creating an independent central bank, member countries have become indebted in a currency that they do not control. At first, both the authorities and market participants treated all government bonds as if they were riskless, creating a perverse incentive for banks to load up on the weaker bonds. When the Greek crisis raised the specter of default, financial markets reacted with a vengeance, relegating all heavily indebted eurozone members to the status of a Third World country over-extended in a foreign currency. Subsequently, the heavily indebted member countries were treated as if they were solely responsible for their misfortunes, and the structural defect of the euro remained uncorrected.
Once this is understood, the solution practically suggests itself. It can be summed up in one word: Eurobonds. If countries that abide by the EU’s new Fiscal Compact were allowed to convert their entire stock of government debt into Eurobonds, the positive impact would be little short of the miraculous. The danger of default would disappear, as would risk premiums. Banks’ balance sheets would receive an immediate boost, as would the heavily indebted countries’ budgets. Italy, for example, would save up to 4% of its GDP; its budget would move into surplus; and fiscal stimulus would replace austerity. As a result, its economy would grow, and its debt ratio would fall. Most of the seemingly intractable problems would vanish into thin air. It would be like waking from a nightmare.
In accordance with the Fiscal Compact, member countries would be allowed to issue new Eurobonds only to replace maturing ones; after five years, the debts outstanding would be gradually reduced to 60% of GDP. If a member country ran up additional debts, it could borrow only in its own name. Admittedly, the Fiscal Compact needs some modifications to ensure that the penalties for noncompliance are automatic, prompt, and not too severe to be credible. A tighter Fiscal Compact would practically eliminate the risk of default. Thus, Eurobonds would not ruin Germany’s credit rating. On the contrary, they would compare favorably with the bonds of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. To be sure, Eurobonds are not a panacea. The boost derived from Eurobonds may not be sufficient to ensure recovery; additional fiscal and/or monetary stimulus may be needed. But having such a problem would be a luxury. More troubling, Eurobonds would not eliminate divergences in competitiveness. Individual countries would still need to undertake structural reforms. The EU would also need a banking union to make credit available on equal terms in every country. (The Cyprus rescue made the need more acute by making the field even more uneven.) But Germany’s acceptance of Eurobonds would transform the atmosphere and facilitate the needed reforms.
Unfortunately, Germany remains adamantly opposed to Eurobonds...
MUCH MORE AT LINK....MUST READ!
‘Germany’s Choice’ by George Soros
http://www.nationofchange.org/germany-s-choice-george-soros-1368027114The euro crisis has already transformed the European Union from a voluntary association of equal states into a creditor-debtor relationship from which there is no easy escape. The creditors stand to lose large sums should a member state exit the monetary union, yet debtors are subjected to policies that deepen their depression, aggravate their debt burden, and perpetuate their subordinate position. As a result, the crisis is now threatening to destroy the EU itself. That would be a tragedy of historic proportions, which only German leadership can prevent.
The causes of the crisis cannot be properly understood without recognizing the euro’s fatal flaw: By creating an independent central bank, member countries have become indebted in a currency that they do not control. At first, both the authorities and market participants treated all government bonds as if they were riskless, creating a perverse incentive for banks to load up on the weaker bonds. When the Greek crisis raised the specter of default, financial markets reacted with a vengeance, relegating all heavily indebted eurozone members to the status of a Third World country over-extended in a foreign currency. Subsequently, the heavily indebted member countries were treated as if they were solely responsible for their misfortunes, and the structural defect of the euro remained uncorrected.
Once this is understood, the solution practically suggests itself. It can be summed up in one word: Eurobonds. If countries that abide by the EU’s new Fiscal Compact were allowed to convert their entire stock of government debt into Eurobonds, the positive impact would be little short of the miraculous. The danger of default would disappear, as would risk premiums. Banks’ balance sheets would receive an immediate boost, as would the heavily indebted countries’ budgets. Italy, for example, would save up to 4% of its GDP; its budget would move into surplus; and fiscal stimulus would replace austerity. As a result, its economy would grow, and its debt ratio would fall. Most of the seemingly intractable problems would vanish into thin air. It would be like waking from a nightmare.
In accordance with the Fiscal Compact, member countries would be allowed to issue new Eurobonds only to replace maturing ones; after five years, the debts outstanding would be gradually reduced to 60% of GDP. If a member country ran up additional debts, it could borrow only in its own name. Admittedly, the Fiscal Compact needs some modifications to ensure that the penalties for noncompliance are automatic, prompt, and not too severe to be credible. A tighter Fiscal Compact would practically eliminate the risk of default. Thus, Eurobonds would not ruin Germany’s credit rating. On the contrary, they would compare favorably with the bonds of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. To be sure, Eurobonds are not a panacea. The boost derived from Eurobonds may not be sufficient to ensure recovery; additional fiscal and/or monetary stimulus may be needed. But having such a problem would be a luxury. More troubling, Eurobonds would not eliminate divergences in competitiveness. Individual countries would still need to undertake structural reforms. The EU would also need a banking union to make credit available on equal terms in every country. (The Cyprus rescue made the need more acute by making the field even more uneven.) But Germany’s acceptance of Eurobonds would transform the atmosphere and facilitate the needed reforms.
Unfortunately, Germany remains adamantly opposed to Eurobonds...
MUCH MORE AT LINK....MUST READ!
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Sep 25, 2003, 02:04 PM
Number of posts: 85,373