Archives for category: Economy

Trump has assembled a cabinet of deplorables. One of the worst is Andrew Puzder, owner of fast-food chains, who doesn’t believe in workers’ rights or minimum wage.

In this article, JoAnne Wise describes what it was like to work for Hardee’s for 21 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/07/andy-puzder-will-be-a-disaster-for-workers-i-know-he-was-for-me/

“In 1984, I was hired as a cashier at Hardee’s in Columbia, S.C., making $4.25 an hour. By 2005, 21 years later, my pay was only at $8 an hour. That’s a $3.75 raise for a lifetime of work. Adjusted for inflation, it’s only a 2-cent raise.


“Andrew Puzder, the chief executive since 2000 of CKE — which owns Hardee’s, Carl’s Jr., and other fast-food companies — is now in line to become the country’s next labor secretary. The headlines ponder what this may mean for working people in America, but I already know.


“I already know what Trump/Puzder economics look like because I’m living it every day. Despite giving everything I had to Puzder’s company for 21 years, I left without a penny of savings, with no health care and no pension. Now, while I live in poverty, Trump, who promised to fix the rigged economy, has chosen for labor secretary someone who wants to rig it up even more. He’s chosen the chief executive of a company who recently made more than $10 million in a year, while I’m scraping by on Supplemental Security payments.”

Washington Post writer Catherine Rampell predicts that Trump’s choice of hardline right winger Mick Mulvaney for director of the Office of Management and Budget is the worst appointment yet. He is an ideologue who doesn’t see any reason for federal spending. She believes that Mulvany might set off a global economic crisis. I can tell you from my own brief experience in the federal government that OMB is the ultimate decider on every spending decision.

 

She writes:

 

Over the weekend, President-elect Donald Trump tapped Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) to be his director of the Office of Management and Budget. This Cabinet-level post is responsible for producing the federal budget, overseeing and evaluating executive branch agencies and otherwise advising the president on fiscal matters. It’s a position with tremendous, far-reaching power, even if the public doesn’t pay much attention to it.

 

Which is why it’s so concerning that Trump chose Mulvaney, who seems poised to help Trump ignite another worldwide financial crisis.

 

Mulvaney was first elected to Congress in 2010 as part of the anti-government, tea party wave. A founding member of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, he is among Congress’s most committed fiscal hawks. He has repeatedly voted against his own party’s budget proposals because they were insufficiently conservative.

 

Mulvaney, like Trump’s other cabinet picks, is inexperienced and unqualified. His strong point of view is at odds with Trump’s promises.

 

The world must be watching in amazement as our inexperienced and ignorant new president fills out his team with equally inexperienced and ignorant cabinet leaders.

 

I think that most of these choices were made by Mike Pence, who previously served in Congress. Trump very likely never heard of any of the people he has chosen; they are not the type likely to dine at the 21 Club in Manhattan or to hobnob with the celebrity culture. Pence knows them through his evangelical, hard-right connections.

Matt Taibbi labeled Goldman Sachs “the Vampire Squid” because of its financial power and its ability to manipulate and control whatever it wants.

 

In this article, he points out that Trump ridiculed his opponents for their connections to Goldman Sachs, but is now turning the nation’s economy over to…veterans of Goldman Sachs. The Vampire Squid is now a key player in Trump’s swamp.

 

“In his final pitch to voters in the days before the election, Trump used the image of [Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd] Blankfein in a TV ad to argue that insiders had ruined the lives of ordinary Americans to enrich themselves. Here is the narration you heard when Blankfein’s face came on screen:
“It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.”

 

“One surprise election result and a mountain of jubilant #draintheswamp hashtags later, Donald Trump has filled his White House with, you guessed it, Goldman veterans.
“His chief strategist, the unabashed white-supremacist loon Steve Bannon, is a former Goldman banker, as is adviser Anthony Scaramucci. Steve Mnuchin marks the fourth Goldman-pedigreed treasury secretary in the last four presidencies, after Bob Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Hank Paulson.
“But the real shocker is the recent appointment of Goldman Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn to the post of director of the National Economic Council. Bannon and Mnuchin were former, past Goldmanites. Cohn, meanwhile, is undoubtedly at least the number-two figure at the world’s most despised bank, if not the outright co-head with Blankfein. He has been at the center of many of its most infamous episodes, including the Greek affair.
“So much for draining the swamp.
“The new party line, emanating both from Washington and from Alt-Right yahoos on the Internet, is that people like Gary Cohn are no longer the swindling scum-lords Trump said they were a few months ago, but simply smart businessmen.”

 

 

 

I attended a lecture recently at the New York Public Library and heard Paul Krugman speak. The general atmosphere was somber, as it was clear that he was depressed about the election, as were the 1,500 or so people in the audience. To all the pundits who extract lessons for the Democrats, Krugman pointed out that Hillary now has a lead of 2.7 million votes. But she lost because of the Electoral College, which was put into the Constitution to placate the slave states. He also talked about the carelessness of the media, which pushed Trymp’s trope about the emails, when there was nothing in them. He faulted the media for making a big deal out of Trump’s over-publicized deal to save 750 or so jobs. He pointed out that 75,000 people are fired or laid off every single day, so this was an insignicant blip.
His lecture reminded me of a post-election analysis by Nate Silver. He is a numbers guru who has an interesting website. I followed him during the campaign, and he was more cautious than other pollsters but still predicted a Clinton win. By analyzing voting patterns, he discovered that the best predictor of votes for Trump or Clinton was education. Where there were high levels of BA degrees, Clinton won. Where there were the lowest, Trump won. 
Trump was right when he declared during the GOP primaries: 
“I love the uneducated!”
Let’s watch and see what he does to their healthcare, their schools, and the economy.

Mike Konzcal of the Roosevelt Institute sat down and watched Donald Trump’s campaign speeches in search of the rhetoric that turned out to be effective.

 

Contrary to common belief, working people are not turned off by the rich; if anything, they admired Trump’s opulence and outrageous displays of ostentation. He had made it; they could too. Sort of like Trump University, where the Master of Money promised that  you too could get rich by studying his example.

 

What Konczal realized after a time was that Trump focused on jobs and wages and spoke in simplistic language that fired up the crowds and led them to believe that he could restore good jobs that had been lost to automation and free trade. Trump made promises that he could not keep but did not care. In that sense, he was like other demagogues in history who make bold promises while scapegoating the “others,” the minorities who are to blame for our problems.

 

He writes:

 

His speeches are full of virulent ethnic nationalism, to be sure — that’s what I noticed during the campaign — but he also has a way of approaching the economy that sabotages Democratic positions effectively, even when those positions are strong.
There was a time I assumed if the Democrats “moved left” they could win over the working class, even those who don’t usually vote. Now I realize that this move is far more complicated than simply getting past neoliberalism. With Trump at the helm of the conservative movement for the foreseeable future, creating effective agendas and messages that hit home will be even harder.

 

Trump talked about jobs. All the time. This gets lost in the coverage, which focused on the inflammatory scandals. Listen:

 

When I win on November 8, I am going to bring back your jobs. The long nightmare of jobs leaving Michigan will be coming to an end. We will make Michigan the economic envy of the world once again. The political class in Washington has betrayed you. They’ve uprooted your jobs, and your communities, and shipped your wealth all over the world. They put new skyscrapers up in Beijing while your factories in Michigan crumbled. I will end the theft of American prosperity. I will fight for every last Michigan job. — Trump, Michigan, October 31, 2016
It’s the first and most consistent thing he discusses. It’s implied that he’s speaking of a specific kind of job, a white, male, breadwinning manufacturing job. He doesn’t discuss “the economy” and how it could work for all, he doesn’t talk about inequality, he doesn’t talk about automation and service work. He just declares that you will have a high-paying manufacturing job when he is president…

 

Trump never blames the rich for people’s problems. He doesn’t mention corporations, or anything relating to class struggle. His economic enemies are Washington elites, media, other countries, and immigrants. Even when financial elites and corporations do something, they are a combination of pawns and partners of DC elites.

 

It’s important to watch that trick, it conceals who has agency under runaway inequality. From a June speech in western Pennsylvania: “Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization, moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas. Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.” The rich buy politicians (and Trump, of course, can’t be bought!) but he doesn’t turn around and denigrate those rich people.

 

Now, as we watch Trump staff his cabinet with billionaires and generals, we must be prepared to hold him accountable for making promises that he has already forgotten. His idea of “Make America Great Again” seems to be to turn the clock back a century, when corporations, working conditions, and the climate were unregulated. That would be the 1920s. In the field of education, he seems to want to turn the clock back two centuries, before there were public schools. At that time, states gave money to religious schools in some communities, like New York City. The idea of public schools, open to all, was a victory for democracy. If he really wanted to make America great again, he would want to make our public schools the best in the world. But he doesn’t. He wants to replace them with vouchers and charters. Back to 1820.

 

Andy Puzder, owner of multiple fast-food restaurants, is the likely choice of Trump for the post of Secretary of Labor. He advised Trump during the campaign and raised money for him.

 

He believes that machines can replace people, and that will be an effective way to cope with rising wages and costs.

 

He objected to a federal increase in the minimum wage for fast-food workers, although he is paid millions every year.

 

“Government needs to get out of the way,” Puzder told Yahoo! Finance in an interview Monday. “If government gets out of the way, businesses will create jobs and wages will go up.”

 

So far, the federal government has largely stayed out of the way. Congress has not taken up President Barack Obama’s call to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from $7.25. And with the exception of a few companies, like Costco, In-N-Out Burger and Boloco, businesses haven’t taken the initiative to create higher paying jobs.

 

Puzder made $4.4 million in 2012, according to Forbes. That’s about 291 times what a minimum wage worker makes in a year, if they’re earning the federal minimum and working full-time. The average fast food CEO made 721 times what minimum wage workers took in in 2013, according to a recent report from the Economic Policy Institute.

 

The Nation wrote:

 

We need a system where people are paid enough during their working years to put money away in order to retire peacefully in old age.

 

We need to change the current system, where people like Puzder make more in one day($17,192) than one of his minimum-wage employees would earn after working full-time for an entire year ($15,130).

 

This system was created by people like Puzder and political leaders who, like him, blame the very people who are just trying to make ends meet. But we have the power to change how the system works.

 

Not surprisingly, the road to change doesn’t involve taking away supports from the people who need them most. It involves creating good jobs for the people who need them most; jobs that provide a fair wage and benefits—that give people options rather than forcing them to choose between bad and worse.

 

 

Donald Trump has boasted about saving 1,000 jobs that Carrier planned to send to Mexico.

 

But Senator Bernie Sanders says the deal is a sham because Trump gave Carrier tax breaks instead of insisting it pay its taxes. Carrier is owned by United Rechnolgies, a major defense contractor.

 

“In exchange for allowing United Technologies to continue to offshore more than 1,000 jobs, Trump will reportedly give the company tax and regulatory favors that the corporation has sought. Just a short few months ago, Trump was pledging to force United Technologies to “pay a damn tax.” He was insisting on very steep tariffs for companies like Carrier that left the United States and wanted to sell their foreign-made products back in the United States. Instead of a damn tax, the company will be rewarded with a damn tax cut. Wow! How’s that for standing up to corporate greed? How’s that for punishing corporations that shut down in the United States and move abroad?”

Mitchell Robinson, a professor of Music at Michigan State, has travelled the world and discovered that others do not share our obsession with charters and standardized testing. The so-called reform movement has blithely closed hundreds or thousands of public schools and replaced many of them with charter schools. In the rush to privatization, reformers forgot about the purpose of public Ed ivatuion, which is not to make students ready for college and careers but ready to lead a good life.

Robinson writes:

“The charter school “debate” is no longer about charter schools vs. public schools (charters are not public schools — that myth has been exploded), or even about “for profit” vs. “not for profit” charters (the evidence HERE suggests this is really a difference without a distinction).”

No, the real issue here is about the true purpose of education, and whether continuing to support two separate but unequal, and inequitable, school systems is doing anything to improve education for all children. By any objective measure, the answer is a resounding “NO!”

The charter lobby has attempted, through spending millions of dollars on PR and marketing, to redefine the purpose of education from one about producing well-rounded citizens who are capable of making valuable contributions to our society and leading fulfilling lives, to a business-driven agenda of producing workers for corporate America. The latter “purpose” now drives much of our state and federal education legislation, which is rife with references to “21st Century Skills,” and insuring that high school graduates are stamped as being “college and career-ready”.

What the charter chains overlook is that the purpose of education is to prepare young people for lives of caring, compassion, and responsility.

“This is a radical repurposing of a public goal to meet the needs of private corporations, and is echoed in the mission and “vision” statements of the leading charter school management companies zzz.”

Harold Meyerson is the editor of The American Prospect. He has written the most thoughtful article I have read about the election. He takes a long view, putting the election into a social and economic framework.

He calls the 2016 election “the post-middle-class election,” and ties its themes to the collapse of the middle class and the engorgement of the 1%. This situation created both an opening for Bernie Sanders but also for the rage of the white working-class, which responded to Trump’s white nationalist appeal.

He attended both conventions.

Here are his commentaries.

Democrats Night #1: The splits in the Sanders revolution; what happens to revolutions when they win some power and compromise; situating Bernie in the American socialist continuum: http://prospect.org/article/sighted-and-blinkered

Democrats Night #3: Mommy party vs. daddy party; what’s distinctive about an Obama speech – and presidency; Democrats find a way to attack Trump the autocrat: http://prospect.org/article/obama-confronts-trumps-shaky-grasp-democracy

Republicans Night #2: Cultural rage; GOP combats crime wave of 1988: http://prospect.org/article/trump-show-trapped-time

Republicans Night #4: Trump’s anti-democratic ethos; his debt to Roger Ailes: http://prospect.org/article/trumps-dystopia

This is a provocative, must-read article by Barry C. Lynn of the New America Foundation and Phillip Longman, a senior editor at the Washington Monthly. They review the history of Populism and import its essential ideas into the present era.

The… first Populists drew upon a political philosophy with roots back to the American Revolution. Part of this tradition is familiar—a belief that government must be run by the people. Populists called for direct election of senators and led the push for referendums and initiatives to bypass corrupt legislatures. But another part is largely forgotten—that the people are sovereign over the economy and have a responsibility to structure markets to promote the common good.

This was the “democratic republicanism” of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It holds that, just like political power, economic power must be distributed as widely as possible. Thus, the Populists focused much of their energy on combating efforts to monopolize commerce and natural resources, especially land. They also closely studied how to govern large corporations, and strongly supported unionization of workers and farmers to counter the power of concentrated capital.

Read their proposals for restoring power to the people.

This is one I like a lot, and I would add charter schools to their list:

What would a True Populist do today? Insist that the managers of any corporation receiving more than a quarter of its revenues from taxpayers—including defense contractors, universities, and hospitals—work at government wages. And require that the bosses of local public utilities earn no more than the public servants who regulate them.

They also propose breaking up the giant monopolies of Google, Amazon, and Facebook, and localizing retail, banking and other services.

Since the 1970s, both Democrats and Republicans have undone almost all these laws. The result has been a concentration of power and wealth that would have horrified True Populists. In groceries, pharmacies, hardware, and office supply, control has been consolidated in as few as one or two giants. So, too, wealth—the Walton family alone is now as rich as 140 million other Americans combined. And with the rise of online goliaths like Amazon, which aims to be the “Everything Store,” control will only be yet further concentrated.

What would a True Populist do today? Besides neutralizing large online retailers, a True Populist would revive the laws Americans used to localize banking, farming, and retail through the heart of the twentieth century.

About fifteen years ago, the Bush administration dropped the guard against vertical integration. Since then Comcast, which distributes television shows, has been allowed to merge with NBC, which produces shows. Amazon, the dominant retail marketplace for books, has been allowed to go big time into publishing books. And Google, which dominates search, has been allowed to compete directly with companies like Yelp, which rely on Google’s search engine.

What would a True Populist do today? Break up Amazon, Facebook, Google, Comcast, and any other essential network monopoly by banning them from owning companies that depend on their services.

Wow! Now here is some fresh thinking.