How Good Is the Obama/Trump Economy? Consider Income Growth

This graph was copied from an article: https://qz.com/1342009/the-us-economy-grew-by-4-1-in-the-second-quarter-but-dont-celebrate-too-much/

It indicates that the recent continuous job growth period has been rather large compared to past times. I would be surprised if this doesn't result in good things since consumption is always a significant and large driver of the economy.

However, we have a long way to go. According to OECD study labor conditions confirms that US workers are getting ripped-off America has a huge inequality issue.

This comparison of nations inequality problem makes it clear.

What Will the Mid-Term Elections Be About?

Republicans, particularly those who listen to Steven Bannon and Donald Trump, will believe it's about their hatred of brown-skinned people, the border with Mexico, and the rest of their agenda. It shouldn't be. It's about something much bigger than that. It's about the Law and upholding the Law, so everyone in America can be better off. Our government isn't just for a few haters. It's to serve all of us. It's to protect people of color, gays, working poor, ultra wealthy billionaires who own a newspaper, families who need to stay together, everyone who needs lead-free water to drink, our soldiers who need to NOT be sent to stupid wars, Californians and others who face natural disasters & need government help, and many more things. We don't get to have all those things when our president and a majority of Congress are Hell-bent on serving a minority of Americans and their bizarre hatreds.

When the majority in the House and Senate won't even be seen in the same room with any Democrats, if they can avoid it, we have a problem. When our president says the press shouldn't be allowed to ask him questions or expect an answer, though those journalists pay taxes which fund the government. How can a government run by radicals serve us when they claim the majority are un-decorous for simply doing their jobs?

These mid-term elections aren't just about Donald Trump either. He's just one politician (albeit an important one) who is telling us to think about anything except his incompetence or criminality. The mid-terms are about how we got into this mess, where criminality abounds in the administration and the presidential campaign which preceded it, and how we get out of it by upholding the Law so that all of us can survive and do well.

We are stronger together.

Exoplanet Space Science and a Bit of Political Commentary

Hold onto your hats. This article is out of this world. These are short descriptions of some exoplanets. They are close to the size of Earth, give or take a few hundred percent and some may be inhabitable some day.

Welcome to Hell, planet Hell

This is probably how the Trump family feel about their world and where it's going.

The Mueller Inquiry equivalent ...

Trump may feel those gentle "raindrops of molten glass" coming down on him. All you and I see is a 'cool' blue planet.

Then there are the diamond worlds. We are hoping Rod Rosenstein can match them for durability in the coming months.

Here is a 'view' of the ones discovered up to 2012.

One webpage I see indicates there tend to be two kinds of exoplanets: those which are Earth-like and those which are Neptune-like.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/exoplanets-two-sizes-rocky-earths-mini-neptunes-04970.html

How many of these may we find habitable (where we could live)? Nobody knows for certain as there are factors we can't yet measure. But, this handy visual guide is a start.

http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases/nasakeplerdiscoversnewpotentiallyhabitableexoplanets

Economics Report: Good Friday

I just read an  interesting article from Bloomberg. The monthly economic numbers are out and things are still looking good, except for the (now) perennial problem of the federal debt.

It had some (slightly) startling information which could be very important for policy-makers.


We know a faster growing economy during the Obama years led to corporate growth and profits (at a slow rate) with NO significant increased middle-class worker compensation until the unemployment rate decreased to about 4%. Now unemployment is finally down to the 3% range and worker compensation is increasing some. That's one good factor.

Large corporations have been saving and buying back their own stock, so executives can benefit from higher stock prices. They haven't been paying employees more or hiring a lot more. Before today I haven't seen any reports about small corporations or proprietorships which hire and sell only domestically.


Now, according to the news, the GDP growth rate is up a bit and Americans are saving MORE, but it is only among proprietors. Those are good second and third factors.

Workers still aren't particularly sharing in the GDP or profits growth. Still, this makes me wonder if there will be some point at which proprietors or small corporations would have sufficient savings (or padding if you like) to begin paying employees more. That remains to be seen.

However, if this were to happen, then a sustained growth rate of some percentage, along with a low unemployment rate, and good savings rate, might lead to a better 'trickle down' effect. If that can be established it would be better than more aggressive government measures to enforce higher pay for the middle-class. The poor working class will always require a regularly raised minimum wage as other business factors rarely influence their wages.

The next positive factor could be a better government program for infrastructure spending. While the usual kinds of spending are always going to be necessary, it may also be possible to use the development of North Korea as a model for a greater corporate backed corporate development plan. If that can be done it would put to work much more of the (more or less) idle reserve savings of large corporations or other investors. That would push the economy along at an even faster growth rate.

With all those positive factors aligned, it might lead to a strong virtuous cycle for the economy the first time in many years.

Legislative Ideas

Earlier today I was lucky to tune in C-SPAN and saw several quick speeches on legislative issues. I thought it was a very interesting exchange. There was Warren (D-MA), Durbin (D-IL), Tillis (R-NC), Heller (R-NV), and Cornyn (R-TX) and they were discussing opioids, student loans, and immigration.

The main interest of the Republicans seems to be a limited immigration bill the House could pass. Of major importance to Pres. Trump is to not support the Obama DACA program. The interests of the Democrats were opioids, student loans, and a lot more on immigration than the Republicans want to do. They seemed to be at a bit of an impasse, so I'll suggest a few things which may help them move forward.

1. Create more judges and legal counsel positions to solve the immigration backlog. Make sure that this number can be reduced later when the situation is under control. The judges should be non-partisan.

2. Immediately reunite as many of the families as can be done safely. For children not reunited it is critical that their whereabouts and identities and safety be identified and made certain.

3. Appoint a qualified non-partisan professional to run the opioid program and ensure it has sufficient budget to reach any areas in America where the statistics show there is a significant opioid addiction problem.

Elections are soon, so more may be done on these or other issues in a short time. But, these 3 points are short-term and relatively balanced between the interests of the two parties.

"Where" Should the Democrats "Be" for the Midterms

I've been listening and reading about how the Democrats should position themselves for the upcoming elections. Here are just a couple of articles in today's media.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-kuttner-democrats-midterms_us_5b54fdbee4b0de86f48e4926

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-byrd-democrats-radical-base-midterms_us_5b549c90e4b0de86f48e0387

I've also heard some people saying the Democrats need to "return" to the way they were long ago and "stand for the working man". I don't think that's really possible either.

The argument that Democrats need to move to the Left would mean losing a lot of centrists who simply don't fit as Republicans. It may be that they support Civil Rights or unions or a more sane foreign policy, but there are many people who view themselves as on the Left, but not Liberal or Socialist. Moving to the Left would lose some of those. In fact, during the early years of the Obama presidency we had several Conservative Democrat senators who kept irking the party by breaking off and not supporting the president's agenda at critical moments. Support for those senators dropped and they lost their seats. This cost the Democrats the majority in the senate and we have seen what that means in terms of judicial appointments and running the senate with normal order. Under Mitch McConnell (R-KY) it's been a disaster. If you prefer Democratic majority in the Senate you have to accept some centrist or Conservative Democrats.

There are several arguments about how the Democrats should position themselves regarding economics. There is the Black Caucus view where fairness is critical. There is the working man caucus where a strong economy with employment is critical. There is the Wall St. view which is that the economy should just go faster, so they can make more money. All of these are rational and important. From the 1980s when the Democrats sought new campaign funds and Wall St. responded and from the 1990s when Silicon Valley (near San Francisco) responded, our Congressional numbers are very strong with New Yorkers and Californians and our campaign coffers are doing well enough. We can largely thank Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer for those. But, where does that leave us on the economics? Generally, under both Clinton and Obama, we have run the economy fast, encouraged free and fair trade deals, and tried to get more fairness in the share of corporate profits each group gets. Republicans have favored the first two, but have stopped most efforts at the last. Under Pres. "Dubya" Bush there was a minimum wage increase which helped alleviate some of the problems of the first recession, but when Pres. Obama took office the Republican Senate refused even a minimum wage raise during the great recession of 2007-09. We still need to look at ways to make the economy work better for EVERYONE. That's a key Democratic goal.

In the 1960s & 70s the Democrats were the party of the working man and we supported unions 100%. Then Nixon invented the Southern Strategy and a lot of the racist working men went with Ford and Reagan and the unions began to take a beating. Democrats still support the unions, but the unions are a lot less powerful today. If the racists prefer Democratic policies to Reagan, Bush, and Trump policies, then vote for Democrats!

Generally, if you want support from the party you vote for the candidates and you give money to campaigns. It has worked in the past and will work in the future.

Economics and Taxes and Hidden Assets

Quarts.com published an interesting article: The mystery of Russia's missing wealth shows how Putin retains his power — Quartz

about Russia's wealth and how their nation's wealth has been distributed over the decades since 1900. I think it's enlightening because they face some of the same problems America has today. Of course, their economy under Communism had wealth and much of that was redistributed to the oligarchs when their quiet revolution (to Democracy) happened. But, their tax system and the hidden wealth and their lack of a strong reinvestment plan is not so different from the plan they had in Kansas a few years ago. It nearly bankrupted Kansas. Then they decided to incorporate a lot of that into the recent federal government tax law changes.

The way I see it we have a lot of money which is being used for corporate stock buybacks instead of being reinvested in the company and its workers and we have a lot of investment which needs to be done in America, North Korea, and in new technologies (wind, solar, medical tech, etc.). Isn't it time to marry the two and get to using the free-floating money in most productive ways?

Instead of a large government based bond program to raise money for infrastructure works (construction or maintenance), why not depend on all the corporations which are sitting on large bank accounts (Apple is one) to invest in safe long-term infrastructure programs. China, Russia, and many others want to invest in N. Korea. Why not put all that wealth to use instead of sitting on it where it doesn't earn any return?

How the rich get richer – money in the world economy | DW Documentary - YouTube 

Cuba is changing and now they have changed their constitution to allow private property. Isn't that what free market capitalists call a "clarion call"? Time to invest!

Cuba will recognize private property in its new constitution 

In America we have a new phenomenon: corporations (some are LLCs) where money from anywhere in the world can hide. Recently Treasurer Steve Mnuchin announced a new IRS rule to keep private the sources of the money in those.

https://www.huffingtonpost. com/entry/treasury-dark-money- transparency_us_ 5b4dbd8be4b0fd5c73bebb3d 

The government is making it easier for "dark money" donors to go unnamed 

Rather than just hiding money, shouldn't people be putting it to use? It's time to invest in useful ways.