A US Uncut article popped up on my Facebook discussing Congress possibly defunding banks to pay for the repair of US highways. This tickled my suspicious nerves. Of course, I had to look deeper into it. Then I found The Wall Street Journal’s article. This could actually be a thing.
Here is the problem with cutting the Fed dividend rate from 6% to 1.5%: Banks are counting on that 3.5% difference when creating short term (yearly) and long term budgets. So Janet Yellen is right, this does have unforeseen consequences. For many of them, Congress members are just diverting their eyes away. Some of the bigger banks could make up for the difference by not paying their execs HUGE bonuses, but not only will that not happen, the smaller banks don’t have that leeway.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I am all for requiring the rich to help keep this country great — or make it great again — by financing infrastructure directly and indirectly. On the other hand, a 3.5% drop in expected revenue/income/etc is a BIG drop to makeup.
As stated previously, the “big” banks have areas they could cut that would not affect their customers, clients, or the “average” American. These include: not remodeling the million dollar exec offices, lowering exec bonus, reducing “marketing” budgets for their largest clients (businesses spend money winning and dinning their clients, especially their big client. It is reasonable to assume banks do too), and much more. However, we can all assume that these reasonable adjustments will not be implemented. Instead, overage charges will increase, and loan terms will become less favorable and the “perks” will be reduced for the smaller clients.
Banks will react to this, they can’t not react. In the end, someone is going to be hurt, and I doubt it will be the wealthy.
In the wake of more violence in America, it seems as if members of Congress are purposefully trying to make the government more and more ignorant. I was completely unawares that the US Congress had forbad the research into gun violence by government scientists. How ludicrous is that!
Whether you are for or against gun regulation, it is irresponsible to disallow research into the matter. If you are for gun regulation, allow research so that we may understand whether or not we need regulation. If you are against gun regulation, allow research so that we may understand whether or not we need regulation.
This brings to mind that a state congress has also forbad the testimony of scientists when *discussing* the issue of climate change. Was that Florida? I don’t recall. Why are more and more anti-science politicians being elected to state and federal offices? Why are those anti-science politicians then being allowed to be part of science-policy-making committees?
The way I see it, if a group is against globally approved research, they must fear that the answers will prove them wrong.
It is sad to be an American today. It is so hard to be educated in this country.
EDIT: I should also add, that the CDC is not the appropriate agency to study gun related deaths. Also, there have been studies from other agencies over the years, though I don’t know which ones. However, gun violence — especially, mass shootings — remain a problem, and we as a society need to work towards an answer to reduce such events. We need to know why events happen, so that we can take action against them. “This will always be an issue, so let’s do nothing” is not an acceptable stance.
Who am I? Who am I?
I am the person who takes on the world’s problems personally. The world’s problems are my problems.
I am the person who sees us a global community.
I am the person who is sadden by the xenophobia created by artificial borders.
I am the person who sees the wars in the middle-east as not wars of other people, of other lands, of not-my-problem.
I am the person who sees the homeless on the side of the road and is grief stricken that I am not in a position to help.
I am the person who hears about the wars, the genocide, the terrors of the world and it breaks my heart.
There are members of my family who have said that the Syrian refugees should stay in their own country–indirectly because they are muslims. This makes my blood boil to hear that people say because of an unrelated demographic-characteristic, someone should not flee violence, and the possibility of death.
To me such people are no better than ISIS or Bashar al-Assad the president/leader of Syria. ISIS is beheading people and al-Assad is bombing everything trying to get rid of ISIS. Then the people sell all of their possessions trying to leave, only to get crammed on a boat to the point of double or triple capacity. Many die trying to leave. Men, and women. Young and old. They die at sea.
The ones who make it out then face xenophobia from many of the nations that surround them. They are not allowed to work. In Turkey, they are not allowed to even travel! This is outrageous. For those who shout, “well, why don’t you take them into your home?!” My answer is that I would. In a heartbeat. If only our country would allow them asylum.
I am the bleeding heart liberal. Is that not better than a cold hearted conservative?
Let us stop name calling. Let us set aside our hatred for others. Instead of saying “why help this group of people when ….”, let us work towards bettering the world. Let us work toward bettering humanity.
Who do I want to be in 10 years?
In 10 years, or today if possibly, I would like to be a productive member of society. Not just holding down a 9 to 5 job, and paying my taxes. I want to contribute to the betterment of society. Unfortunately, I am young and an idealist, among so many other labels.
There are many jobs and careers that I understand CAN ASSIST in the betterment of society; however, those jobs I do not see in themselves as a benefit to society. That mentality is part of my upbring, and I am working on changing that. With that said, I can’t for my own well being, work in those fields.
In another age, I might have been a philosopher–if there were ever an age that a woman could be such. The future is such a wonderful and dreadful thing to envision. My dream career would be to shape that future. Which may be why economics, especially behavioral economics interests me so greatly. However, even that may not get me to where I want to go.
In 10 years, I would like to see our civilization to the point where fewer people where food and shelter insecure. It is heartbreaking to see so many homeless and working poor struggling to get by. As a humanitarian, I cannot sit by and allow this to be.
In between now and the end of my life, I would like to be part of the change in society that eliminates poverty. Is this realistic? In my wording most definitely not. However, there is no excuse as to why we all should not be working toward the increase standard of living of society as a whole–especially the disadvantaged, the disabled, the homeless, the poor, and the ALL of society.
First off, classical economics in a nut is laissez-fair or “leave it alone and it will be fine.”
Up until the 1920s, recessions were more or less manageable. Perhaps not for those greatly affected, but society at large. Of course, the infrastructure of our society at the time could not have supported large government interference.
At the time, small communities were “thriving.” Everybody new their neighbor and few people moved far off from home upon reaching adulthood. Mothers made clothes for their family. If yoy hit hard times you could count on your community to lend a helping hand or at least provide small jobs so you could support your self.
At the turn of the century, society began to change. More and more people were moving to the city. We new fewer and fewer of our neighbors. It is my belief that this is where our roots of “support yourself you lazy bumb” really started to take root.
That’s why classical economics failed. People wanted more and more of the economic pie. Since people of power had the power to take what of the pie they wanted, they did. Since there was less pie to go around, the less powerful people had to borrow money in order to participate in the economic (false) boom of the time.
People of power no longer felt that they were accountable for the wellbeing of others because they weren’t around those of a “lesser” status. Had we continued to have the tight knit community we had before, powerful people would have been held more accountable.
Observations of society will show you that people of a higher social standing do not hold themselves accountable to those of a lower social standing. Bell hops for the most expensive apartments in Manhattan will tell you that most of the residents will only tip a few dollars (if that) because the residents know that amount is what would be expected at the lowest apartment buildings that still have bell hops.
Studies have shown that people who begin with an adherently better position believe they earned what wealth follows amd that those who started in a disadvantaged position deserve what poverty follows. Don’t believe me?
Check this link out: monopoly study
I am not saying that before the 20th century there were not greedy people. I am saying that there have always been greedy people and that as our society expands it becomes more and more difficult to hold (greedy) people of power accountable for taking care of their share of society. That is why classical economics has failed and why we now need keynesian economics. That is why we need a minimum wage. That is why we need regulations. Too many people will only give the bare minimum they are required to for society and they will take the rest.