Budja Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 ovo je stvarno genijalno, sta bi to trebalo da radi? da cuti i kenja ili relativizuje i uspostavlja simetrije? Recimo, da ne izigrava opstemesto intelektualca, vec da se oglasi kada ima nesto novo da kaze. Piketi je u svet pundit-a dosao iz sveta akademije. A ulogu analiticara i poznatost je zasluzio svojim akademskim radom, slicno kao i Krugman. Problem je u tome sto su njihove analize sada sve vise partizanske i zasnovane na cherry picking-u onoga sto odgovara datoj tezi a sve manje zasnovane na relativno nepristrasnom procuavanju cinjenica. Upravo tretman cinjenica je jedna od bitnih razlika izmedju kolumniste/analiticara i profesora istrazivaca.
Budja Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 I opet, ne mogu reci da se slazem s autorom, ali vazan clanak: Thomas Piketty The rise of Sanders Partager cet article How should we interpret the incredible success of the ‘socialist’ Bernie Sanders in the American Primaries? The Vermont senator now has the lead over Hillary Clinton amongst the Democrat supporters under 50 years and only the senior citizens’ vote has enabled Hillary to maintain her advantage. Faced with the Clinton electoral machine and the conservatism of the major media, Bernie will perhaps not win the primary. But it has been demonstrated that another Sanders, possibly younger and less white, could one day soon win the American presidential elections and change the face of the country. In many respects, we are witnessing the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Ronald Reagan at the November 1980 elections. Let’s glance back for an instant. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the United States pursued an ambitious policy of reduction in social inequalities. Partly to avoid any resemblance with Old Europe, seen then as extremely unequal and contrary to the American democratic spirit, in the inter-war years the country invented a highly progressive income and estate tax and set up levels of fiscal progressiveness never used on our side of the Atlantic. Between 1930 and 1980, for half a century, the rate of taxation applicable to the highest American incomes (over one million dollars a year) was on average 82%, with peaks at 91% from the 1940s to the 1960s, from Roosevelt to Kennedy, and it was still 70% when Reagan was elected in 1980. This policy in no way affected the strong growth of the post-war American economy, doubtless because there is not much point in paying super-managers 10 million dollars when one million will do. The estate tax, which was just as progressive, with rates in the range of 70-80% applicable to the biggest fortunes for decades (whereas this rate has rarely risen above 30-40% in Germany or in France), considerably reduced the concentration of American capital, without the wars and the destructions which did the job in Europe. In the 1930s, the United States also implemented a federal minimum wage, well before the European countries and at a level (expressed in 2016 dollars) which was above 10 dollars per hour at the end of the 1960s, by far the highest at the time. All this took place with practically no unemployment because the level of productivity and the educational system could allow it. This was also the period when the United States finally put an end to the legal racial discrimination still operational in the South, which was far from democratic, and launched new social policies. But all this aroused strong resistance, in particular amongst the financial elites and in the reactionary fringes of the white electorate. Humiliated in Vietnam, the America of the 1970s was further concerned by the fact that those who had been defeated in the war (with Germany and Japan in the lead) were catching up at top speed. America was also suffering from the oil crisis, inflation and the under-indexation of the tax schedules. Reagan surfed on all these frustrations and was elected in 1980 on a programme designed to reinstate a mythical capitalism said to have existed in the past. The culmination was the 1986 fiscal reform which ended half a century of steady fiscal progressivity and lowered the rates applicable to the highest incomes to 28%. This choice was never genuinely challenged by the Democrats of the Clinton years (1992-2000) and the Obama era (2008-2016) who were to stabilise the rate at around 40% (roughly half the average level for the period 1930-1980), the key element being an explosion of inequalities and huge salaries, in a context of weak economic growth (but slightly higher than in Europe, bogged down by other problems) and stagnation of the incomes of the majority. Reagan also decided to freeze the level of the federal minimum wage which, as from the 1980s, has been slowly but surely eroded by inflation (little more than 7 dollars per hour in 2016, as compared with almost 11 dollars in 1969). There again, this new politico-ideological regime has shown little sign of attenuation by the Democratic alternation of Clinton and Obama. Today, Sanders’ success demonstrates that a substantial proportion of America is tired of the rise in inequality and these pseudo-alternatives and intends to return to a progressive agenda and the American tradition of egalitarianism. Hillary, who fought on the left of Obama in 2008, particularly on the issue of health insurance, today appears as the keeper of the status quo, the heir to the Reagan-Clinton-Obama political regime. Bernie clearly proposes to reinstate fiscal progressivity and a high minimum wage (15 dollars per hour). He also adds universal health care and free higher education in a country where inequality in access to education has reached incredible heights and has thus revealed the wide gulf between the reality and the winners of the system with their somewhat enervating speeches advocating a meritocratic approach. At the same time, the Republican Party is sinking into a discourse which is hyper-nationalist, anti-immigrant and anti-Islam (a religion that is almost non-existent in the United States), and also into an endless glorification of rich whites. The judges appointed under Reagan and Bush have lifted all legal restrictions over the influence of private money in political life, which considerably complicates the task of candidates like Sanders. But new forms of political mobilisation and participatory financing can win the day and steer America into a new political cycle. We are very far from the doom and gloom of the prophecies predicting the end of history. Translation of an op-ed published in Le Monde, February 14-15, 2016 Sta je problem clanka? Linearno gledanje istorije: Pretpostavka autora: Period od 1945 do 1970ih se moze replikovati u 2000im. Samo, problem je sto to nije moguce: 1. Fali 1 post-war period. 2. Fali konsolidacija dolara kao svetske rezervne valute. 3. Fali eliminisanje 1 Kine. ... Drugi problem clanka je sto se period od Regana naovamo gleda samo u pogledu nejednakosti. Piketi, recimo, priznaje da je rast u Reganovo doba bio veci u SAD nego u Evropi ali, avaj, to pripisuje slabosti Evore a ne Reganovoj politici. Drugo, weak economic growth na visem nivou dohotka je normalnost. Da li je, moze biti, period od 1945-1970 izuzetak od pravila a ne pravilo?
Weenie Pooh Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) Rekao bih da ga i ti i Eraser previše bukvalno tumačite. Meni deluje kao da govori samo o promeni davno postavljenog, izvinite na izrazu, narativa. Nije valjda debil pa da misli da je moguća direktna primena 70 godina stare ekonomske politike. Reaganomics da gube na popularnosti međ' narodom je prilično očigledno, a to što po televizijama i dalje mudro klimaju glavom dok neko kenja kako je flat tax majka mara i kako privreda sama po sebi cveta od deregulacije, to je do njih. Edited February 15, 2016 by Weenie Pooh
ravena Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 kad god napraviš ovakav uvod, ja obavezno ne čitam. Mogli bi ovakvi clanci u spoiler. Odgledao debatu. Muceni Carson bukvalno ne moze da dodje do reci, a i kad dodje bolje da ne dodje. ^_^ Rubio bolji za promenu. Nije propustio priliku da poentira sa porodicnim vrednostima. Show sa Cruzom. :ziga: Pa onda Trump ponovo spomene Carsona, izgleda da ce to svima biti prilika da spuste nesrecnog Teda kad god ne mogu da se sete neceg drugog. :ziga: "Moja majka je najjaca zena koju poznajem" "Trebalo bi da se kandiduje"
Budja Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Rekao bih da ga i ti i Eraser previše bukvalno tumačite. Meni deluje kao da govori samo o promeni davno postavljenog, izvinite na izrazu, narativa. Nije valjda debil pa da misli da je moguća direktna primena 70 godina stare ekonomske politike. Reaganomics da gube na popularnosti međ' narodom je prilično očigledno, a to što po televizijama i dalje mudro klimaju glavom dok neko kenja kako je flat tax majka mara i kako privreda sama po sebi cveta od deregulacije, to je do njih. Sto se poreza tice, da. To mu jeste agenda. Veci porez na imovinu svih vrsta. Edit: Da ne bude zabune, ja navijam za Bernija zbog rasparcavanja banaka, ne zbog vecih poreza. Edited February 16, 2016 by Budja
bigvlada Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 I opet, ne mogu reci da se slazem s autorom, ali vazan clanak: Thomas Piketty The rise of Sanders Partager cet article How should we interpret the incredible success of the ‘socialist’ Bernie Sanders in the American Primaries? The Vermont senator now has the lead over Hillary Clinton amongst the Democrat supporters under 50 years and only the senior citizens’ vote has enabled Hillary to maintain her advantage. Faced with the Clinton electoral machine and the conservatism of the major media, Bernie will perhaps not win the primary. But it has been demonstrated that another Sanders, possibly younger and less white, could one day soon win the American presidential elections and change the face of the country. In many respects, we are witnessing the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Ronald Reagan at the November 1980 elections. Let’s glance back for an instant. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the United States pursued an ambitious policy of reduction in social inequalities. Partly to avoid any resemblance with Old Europe, seen then as extremely unequal and contrary to the American democratic spirit, in the inter-war years the country invented a highly progressive income and estate tax and set up levels of fiscal progressiveness never used on our side of the Atlantic. Between 1930 and 1980, for half a century, the rate of taxation applicable to the highest American incomes (over one million dollars a year) was on average 82%, with peaks at 91% from the 1940s to the 1960s, from Roosevelt to Kennedy, and it was still 70% when Reagan was elected in 1980. This policy in no way affected the strong growth of the post-war American economy, doubtless because there is not much point in paying super-managers 10 million dollars when one million will do. The estate tax, which was just as progressive, with rates in the range of 70-80% applicable to the biggest fortunes for decades (whereas this rate has rarely risen above 30-40% in Germany or in France), considerably reduced the concentration of American capital, without the wars and the destructions which did the job in Europe. In the 1930s, the United States also implemented a federal minimum wage, well before the European countries and at a level (expressed in 2016 dollars) which was above 10 dollars per hour at the end of the 1960s, by far the highest at the time. All this took place with practically no unemployment because the level of productivity and the educational system could allow it. This was also the period when the United States finally put an end to the legal racial discrimination still operational in the South, which was far from democratic, and launched new social policies. But all this aroused strong resistance, in particular amongst the financial elites and in the reactionary fringes of the white electorate. Humiliated in Vietnam, the America of the 1970s was further concerned by the fact that those who had been defeated in the war (with Germany and Japan in the lead) were catching up at top speed. America was also suffering from the oil crisis, inflation and the under-indexation of the tax schedules. Reagan surfed on all these frustrations and was elected in 1980 on a programme designed to reinstate a mythical capitalism said to have existed in the past. The culmination was the 1986 fiscal reform which ended half a century of steady fiscal progressivity and lowered the rates applicable to the highest incomes to 28%. This choice was never genuinely challenged by the Democrats of the Clinton years (1992-2000) and the Obama era (2008-2016) who were to stabilise the rate at around 40% (roughly half the average level for the period 1930-1980), the key element being an explosion of inequalities and huge salaries, in a context of weak economic growth (but slightly higher than in Europe, bogged down by other problems) and stagnation of the incomes of the majority. Reagan also decided to freeze the level of the federal minimum wage which, as from the 1980s, has been slowly but surely eroded by inflation (little more than 7 dollars per hour in 2016, as compared with almost 11 dollars in 1969). There again, this new politico-ideological regime has shown little sign of attenuation by the Democratic alternation of Clinton and Obama. Today, Sanders’ success demonstrates that a substantial proportion of America is tired of the rise in inequality and these pseudo-alternatives and intends to return to a progressive agenda and the American tradition of egalitarianism. Hillary, who fought on the left of Obama in 2008, particularly on the issue of health insurance, today appears as the keeper of the status quo, the heir to the Reagan-Clinton-Obama political regime. Bernie clearly proposes to reinstate fiscal progressivity and a high minimum wage (15 dollars per hour). He also adds universal health care and free higher education in a country where inequality in access to education has reached incredible heights and has thus revealed the wide gulf between the reality and the winners of the system with their somewhat enervating speeches advocating a meritocratic approach. At the same time, the Republican Party is sinking into a discourse which is hyper-nationalist, anti-immigrant and anti-Islam (a religion that is almost non-existent in the United States), and also into an endless glorification of rich whites. The judges appointed under Reagan and Bush have lifted all legal restrictions over the influence of private money in political life, which considerably complicates the task of candidates like Sanders. But new forms of political mobilisation and participatory financing can win the day and steer America into a new political cycle. We are very far from the doom and gloom of the prophecies predicting the end of history. Translation of an op-ed published in Le Monde, February 14-15, 2016 Meni je ovo dobar tekst u kome se legitimno i argumentovano brani pozicija. Kada bi mu neko argumentovano odgovorio i dodatno pojasnio soledece tacke to bi bilo idealno: 1. Da li se stvarno post WW2 period moze podeliti na dio Reagana i od Reagana? (Da li je zaista tada doslo do promene u politickoj logici) 2. Ukoliko je odgovor da da li taj period pre treba idealizovati. (Danas je manji procenat populacije u siromastvu npr) 3. Da li je Sanders povratak na starog ili uspostavljanje neceg novog (Npr da li su tada vece pare prikupljene od poreza isle na besplatne fakultete i zdravstvo ili je u pitanju bila drugacija raspodela) Imam utisak da Toma navrce vodu ne svoju vodenicu. Elem, pošto me je malo popustio grip da se nadovežem i na tvoj prethodni post koji sam komentarisao. Dakle, zašto misliš da će biti teško zatvoriti poreske rupe? Nisu li prošle godine prešli preko lokalnih zakona i naredili svim državama da moraju da sklapaju gej brakove? Da li im je za to trebala većina u oba doma? Zašto se isto ne bi moglo uraditi i u pogledu poreza, jer je ionako uglavnom Delaver glavni krivac za sadašnje stanje? Što se tiče strahova da će kompanije pobeći u strane zemlje, mislim da je to loš pokušaj plašenja. Tržišta im ostaju ista a ako neka kompanija to uradi kako bi smanjila porez, uvek im se (sada kao stranoj kompaniji) može uvesti dodatna carina na robu i usluge. Da, mogu da ih tuže WTO, ali ti sporovi traju dugo a kompanije tržišni udeo gube odmah. Slažem se sa svim što si boldovao,mislim da su oni posle rata imali sistem koji je u datim okolnostima omogućavao stabilan rast bdp-a i kupovne moći a usudiću se da tvrdim da je sistem načet i na kraju napušten sa nastajanjem i rastom ofšor lokacija. I sa njima se mogu obračunati, samo da postoji politička volja. Ako su iz političkih razloga mogli da decenijama drže sankcije Kubi, sličan princip mogu da primene na sve uvozno-izvozne ili generalno sve kompanije iz tercijarnog sektora koje su registrovane na Kajmanskim, Kanalskim, Bermudskim i sličnim ostrvima kao i svim drugim kompanijama koje posluju sa njima. Ovo, kombinovano sa pritiskom EU bi bilo dovoljno da natera britansku vladu da konačno napravi veliko spremanje svog finansjiskog sektora. Ne verujem da EU ima snage da sama prva napravi jedan takav korak. Berni mi deluje kao osoba koja bi bila sklona akciji u tom pravcu.
teacher Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 oni koji domanovićevski sumnjaju (to kod nas ne može) u bernijev kapacitet da se ono što (godinama) priča i ostvari i traže odgovore na način kako će obećano biti ispunjeno, oni zapravo postavljaju pitanja na koji način bi se to ostvarilo u postojećem sistemu. ovde se radi o revoluciji, a mozak naviknut (a bogami i uljuljkan) u korporativni sistem legalizovane krađe para od ljudi, to ne može ili ne želi da pojmi. to su ljudi koji su se postavili na vrh piramide, a koji zarađuju na osnovu rada i kreativnosti drugih. berni želi malo da prodrma tu piramidu i odmah nastaje panika, od čauša, preko medija do ljudi koji su se bolesno obogatili u bolesnom sistemu. naravno da se može sve uraditi kad berni dobije trumpa sa 15 poena razlike,
3opge Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 cenim da misli na wall street i sve burzovne i korporativne muljatore i sve one koji imaju mogucnost da trpaju sebi u dzep kolko mogu da napune. mozda je tebi i to kreativnost?
Hella Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Sta podrazumevas pod korporativnim sistemom? Meni se cini da kreativni ljudi danas imaju ozbiljne sanse da se obogate. Oni koji se bogate od tudjeg rada se uglavnom bogate na racun nekreativnih radnika ciji rad svako moze da obavlja. naravno da se može sve uraditi kad berni dobije trumpa sa 15 poena razlike, -1 I have this feeling man, 'cause you know, it's just a handful of people who run everything, you know … that's true, it's provable. It's not … I'm not a fucking conspiracy nut, it's provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Baghdad." "You got it …"
Budja Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 naravno da se može sve uraditi kad berni dobije trumpa sa 15 poena razlike, Gde je tu Blumberg za koga bi Eraser glasao?
dragance Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Sta podrazumevas pod korporativnim sistemom? Meni se cini da kreativni ljudi danas imaju ozbiljne sanse da se obogate. Oni koji se bogate od tudjeg rada se uglavnom bogate na racun nekreativnih radnika ciji rad svako moze da obavlja. Upravo obrnuto, oni du izvor cashflowa i "investitora" tim kreativnim kojima posle zavrnu gušu i preuzmu biznis "da bi bolje isušili svaki cent", uglavnom spekulativno. Kupiš ili kroz hostile takeover mazneš obećavajući biznis, naravno ne svojim novcem već kroz loading debt, strip all the assets, nasminkaj da su veći nego sto jesu, float/list at much higher price than real value, grab money and run. Doduse, možda se i ovo smatra kreativnim (racunovodjstvom)?
Recommended Posts