Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Before affirmative action there was structural racism keeping people from getting ahead. You're never gonna please everybody.
I don't much sympathize with those who grouse about AA for having to share some of their privilege with people who never had it so good. They're OK with injustice as long it only affects somebody else.
When you talk about elites, are you talking about the same group of people, or just whoever happens to have money and power at any given time? Is it more "Illuminati"-style, where there is literally a handful of very powerful people at work behind the scenes? Or is it more like "wealthy people who all have the same mindset and just want more wealth"? Like, for example, would Bill Gates, who made most of his fortune after the Reagan Revolution, be considered an "eilte"?
Thom often calls "right to work" states "right to work for less" states. Many of those states are in the South and less-populated areas of the MidWest and Rockies. For the both areas, a lot of the desire for individualism can be traced back to the actual geography and population of the area. That is, it's a whole lot easier to want to be on your own if you're literally living on your own. And the the South, there is also an element of backlash against the Civil Rights movement that is still present. Note that I am not saying racism. I am from the South, and I can tell you that all races got along just fine. The resentment came from outsiders telling us what to do. Thom has said many times that LBJ knew he would lose the South when he signed the Civil Rights Act. But I don't think LBJ realized just how long the effects would last. "Yankee go home" doesn't just mean the person should go home, but the pro-union ideas should go too.
You are right - the only way to fix this is at the Federal level. And that is very, very unlikely to happen anytime soon.
In all of my time in Chicago - about 16 years now - it seems like everyone I know does something to avoid paying taxes: Mostly by shopping in a different area whenever possible. (By the way - that doesn't work if you're buying a car. They send you the tax bill when you register it to your address.) Anyway, it only seems normal that companies would want to do the same - avoid taxes whenever possible.
This was very significant in another way. As long as there was a threat of communism the elites in our society were always careful to keep a "capitalism with a human face" in place. FDR, for example, was as he was and was elected and reelected because there was a real threat of communist revolution in that period, as you'd hear from experts and lay people who lived through that era. The quasi socialism of the New Deal and other welfare statisms, like the Great Society and such, were compromises with socialism to keep capitalism from going assunder.
When the threat of communism was gone the elites could drop any pretense about freedom and equality for all and openly and brazenly pursue their agenda.
Capital flight and capital strikes `and `such are indeed `a `problem and underscores a need for a more centralized Federal tax policy. The reason states like Illinois and cities like Chicago are hurting is Grover Nordquist's tax policies which were designed to shrink the government to the size that he could "drown it in the bathtub" and "make a few of the states go bankrupt just to teach them a lesson". The Feds cut off the states so then the states cut off the cities. This made it necessary for the states to generate some revenue or stay in misery (or, for the common people of those states to remain in hardship, not their business and other wealthy elites). A tax policy of healthy Federal revenue to adequately fund the states and a system of tariffs to prevent capital flight to lower wage, lower tax and lower regulation parts of the world from the United States (like before Reagan and Bush I and II) is what is necessary.
chuckle8 ~ No you wouldn't! Toner goes in your laserjet. It is a solid powder. Ink is liquid. It usually goes in an "inkjet" printer in small cartridges. Not being familiar with a 03A cartridge I might assume that is an inkjet cartridge. It is therefore liquid.
If so you are correct! Bring the "photosmart" cartridges into Costco. However, like I said, make sure they are relatively new--no more than a year--cartridges and do not have that self resetting toner counter feature in them. You can probably get three refills without problems. You can tell what shape they are in from printing a calibration page and checking for blank spots. If there are any blank spots throw the cartridge away.
As far as the laserjet cartridges are concerned, like I said, flip it over... If you see a green roller just order a new one. It don't get any better than that. Also, at 300K prints consider servicing the thing yourself and save a fortune. Keep the printer going for at least 1.5M prints. (I've seen some go for 3M.) That is about what they are good for.
Happy printing!!
That's the same reason any company that can is leaving Illinois and heading south. The news here treats it like a victory when a company like Caterpillar decides not to leave, even though they had to get special tax breaks to stay. Tax breaks which put them more in line with what they would be paying in a redder state.
I said he was a "little hypocritical", then I pointed out that he didn't really have a choice. Relax.
And I am not a Republican, nor do I defend them. However, for a true nation-wide Progressive governing plan to work, a majority of the people would have to be on board. A Libertarian plan doesn't require anyone to participate who doesn't want to. That's kind of the whole point - you're on your own.
I may be wrong, but isn't the assumption nowadays that most politicians, from either party, are just looking out for themselves? Doesn't Thom say that even? That modern politicians spend more time raising money than anything else? Money for their own reelections.
With that in mind, doesn't that lead some people to want to vote for the party that promises to keep government out of your life? Like, "Go, be as corrupt as you want in Washington. Just leave me out of it..."
Can you also see how some people (I am not saying I am one of them) can couple the country's current economic problems with the other changes that were happening at the same time? Like:
- Computers really took off in the 70s - they might deserve some of the blame. More automation, less person-to-person contact, advantages for the wealthy who could afford computers, etc...
- The breakdown of traditional family roles. (again, I am not saying I believe this) A large influx of women in the workplace not only created changes in domestic life, but also created more competition for jobs.
- The collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes, I know this didn't happen until 1991, but the "writing was on the wall", so to speak. That lack of a clearly defined enemy, PLUS that change of that enemy into capitalism, which made them our economic competition instead of our military one, could also be a little to blame.
- Affirmative Action really took off in the 70s and 80s as well, and there are plenty of people who point to that as a possible reason for our current problems. (Those unintended consequences Republicans always like to bash the Democrats about. For every one person who got ahead because of A.A., dozens more because resentful. I've heard it compared to American's bombing of terrorists in the Middle East - sure, it solved one problem, but just created more in the process.)
Actually, now that I read those altogether, they all seem to point to one thing: Fewer jobs (automation), and too many people to fill them.
I teach American History from the post-Revolutionary period to modern times. Starting with the annexation of Florida, I tell the students, "You're going to be hearing a lot of this in American History - if you have something we want, we like to point guns at you and make you sign it over to us." By the time we get to learning about the Panama Canal, the students know what's coming....
No. I worked for McDonalds for one summer as a teen. I worked for a different chain retail place in my 20s. But they probably have a similar business model when it comes to workers.
True. I wish I would have written down the name of the company, but whenever we wanted to hire someone, we ran their information through this third-party company who did a background check. That information included any other chain stores the person worked at, why they left, if that store would rehire them, and also, sometimes, what other chain stores had an active application for that person.
In other words - we knew how desparate you were for a job, if we could see that you had applied at dozens of places over the previous weeks. Which is a good way of knowing just how little you'd be willing to work for.
Also, we frequently caught people leaving out unpleasant things on their applications, like being fired for stealing from another company.
I guess that all fits well into the "corporations are evil and out to stick it to the workers" meme.
The oil embargo was the final push for manufacturing to leave the cities in the '70s because suburbs offered lower taxes and out of the country in the '80s as it and other factors, i.e., labor collective bargaining agreements, taxes, regulations, etc., made the per unit cost of production greater than they wanted to afford. When the elites lost their colonial power they had to cannibalize and colonize their fellow Americans and Europeans and go global.
DAM -- Thanks for all the info. Based on what you have said (please correct my thinking, if I have misinterpreted what you have said), I think I will take the print cartridges for the hp photosmart 7960 into Costco. For the hp laserjet 5P, I will keep buying those $130 cartridges.
Exposing my ignorance even more, I need to ask is toner what is inside the 03A cartridge I buy? I would be hard pressed to know the difference between toner and ink.
No Kend, it's not nearly so simple. The reason your northwestern provinces are doing so well is because they are less developed and thus have much more economic opportunity and many more resources for the taking. It's like the Old West in the United States where anybody could come, stake their claim and work the land. That's, in large part, where the American work ethic came from, it's the frontier mentality. There were so many resources and there was so much land that there was little excuse for not being prosperous. Your northwestern provinces have less taxes because they need less taxes. Our Alaska is still like that.
That's in stark contrast to the crowded European continent or to Quebec that is highly developed, has no frontier and everyone depends on one employer or another. There are far fewer means to be a self made man or woman there. You'll always find that places like the American West or northwestern Canada that are sparsley populated and less developed have much more of what is called "conservative" thinking than the eastern United States, for example, or southeastern Canada or Europe that are much more urban, crowded and developed.
That's my observation but long before me that was corroborated by the Henry George school of economics.
Mark S -- In support of Thom's reason, wasn't the Powell memo before the oil embargo? Although scarcity of raw materials is hard to argue against, the fear in the elites caused by the masses refusing to go fight their war is also hard to argue against. Also per Thom in the "Crash of 2016", the elite did not like the masses becoming enamored with socialism. Yet another motivation for the Reagan era.
Also, Matt, quite logically, when a society is less equal there is much less social mobility and when a society is more equal there is much more. As chuckle8 told you, there was much more before Reagan.
Much like Satan who is described as continuously railing accusations against the brethren of God the Republican party loves to create problems and then turn around and blame the helpless victims for causing it. Perhaps Thom could reach as many people by writing his books on palm leaves, rolling them up and sticking them into bottles and hurling them into the ocean? Maybe he could start a campfire and use smoke signals to reach his audience? Or, maybe he could ring a bell in the village square and yell at the top of his lungs to anyone in earshot? Oh wait, how about reducing his books to microfilm and attaching it to a carrier pigeon? Maybe he could just tattoo his book to his body and streak through town after town? How about telepathy?
I'm out of ideas! Any suggestions Aliceinwonderland?
In my opinion until Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, George Bush Sr & Jr, and every other right wing yahoo wannabe author comes up with some other way of publishing a book the current status quo is up for grabs and fine and dandy for anyone to use and be free of "hypocritical" accusations of any kind. Whatever happened to not judging? When you point your finger the best thing to do is to first point it in the mirror and ask yourself if that fits you too. In the long run it sure saves a lot of embarrassment.
Palindromedary ~ ChicagoMatt just asked you a question in post #62 if you feel so inclined to respond.
Republicans are all about hypocrisy. Grand old hypocrites... of course this is a much different scenario which does have an alternative: granting amnesty! (Duhh...) And hiring American landscapers and cleaning ladies, and paying them well. - AIW
Sorry it took so long to reply to this.
I've posted some serious questions about Atheism on some anonymous blogs before, but all I ever get are teenagers attacking the church, not serious answers. You've obviously scholarly and instrospective, so I was going to ask you. But since you're not Atheist, I don't think you could answer it well.
But basically, I wondered what kept someone who didn't believe in God or an afterlife going? Like, why bother to do anything, if the ultimate end result was nothing? I got a lot of people saying they wanted to help people or make the world a better place, but it all seems so pointless, to me at least, if everyone ends up non-existant anyway. I'm not sure if I'm wording the question correctly.
All about money. Money money money. Um-hum.... - AIW
I see your point. It's similar to some anti-amnesty Republicans I know who have undocumented workers as landscapers and cleaning ladies - there is no alternative here.
True. The one I am thinking of Thom actually recorded. But like I said, he's got bills to pay too.
Are you one of those doomsday preppers? I know a few guys like that. Thom said he knew some too once. Personally, I am going the other route - if things fall apart, I want to fall in the first day so I don't have to be around to see the results.
And if everyone starts running out of water, my position right next to the Great Lakes puts me at an advantage...
My insurace company's website lists all of the doctors' ages and where they got their medical degree. Almost all of the younger ones (under 40) around here got their medical degrees overseas - particularly in India and Poland.
A common Republican anti-socialist talking point is the "brain drain" the comes along with socialism. That is, the people who have rare skills and can charge more for them (like doctors) tend to migrate out of socialist countries and into capitalist ones. That probably has a little to do with arrogance and a lack of national identity as well.
For the same reason, big cities tend to attract more doctors as well. You can make more money here. I've also been told that Hawaii has a disproportionate number of doctors. I can't blame them. If I had that kind of job - the kind you can do anywhere and get paid well for - Hawaii would be high on my list as well.
Matt, you need to get a more firm grasp of the obvious. The pre Reagan, post WW II period was absolutely the best, most carefree economic period in the U.S., ever! And that is not controversial. Not coincidentally, that was also the time of the most equality in U.S.society with the largest blue collar middle class.
I disagree with Thom as to why that ended. I think Reagan's policies caused much of it - his general unconcern for the country as a whole in favor of a concern only for the elites caused us to go from being the world's greatest exporter of finnished goods to being the world's greatest exporter of jobs - but the real reason for the ending of our carefree opulence was the ending of our imperial, colonial hedgemony. The decline of our economy began substantially before Reagan, it began with the Arab countries' - beginning with Iraq's - nationalization of their oil indusries in 1973. (It then, incidentally, immediately became the policy, under the "Kissinger Plan", to take that oil back by force. That policy was finally effected in 2003.) We didn't have recessions, of the kind we'd had since, before that.
Reagan's policies, were, essentially, the elites' way of dealing with the new scarcity resulting from the loss of control of oil production making sure we, the common people, rather than they, felt the consequences of that new scarcity.
In sociology, Karl Marx is considered a "conflict theorist", i.e., someone who believes that people's vested interess, concerns and purposes, in a society like ours are fundamenally in conflict with one another. The tennant, the landlord; the buyer, the merchant; the employee and employer all have purposes and vested interests fundamentally in conflict and thus regard each other with a fair degree of emnity. Each is trying to get the most in return for the least and there isn't much room for ethics and, given the competitive nature of our society, ethics are seen as foolishness.
Matt, if you'd've been working in managemet some other places - like UPS, where I worked at 17 in the '70s - you'd've been instructed to do some very unethical things. Essentially, you'd've been told to push your people to and beyond their limit to get the very limit of their productivity.
Where I worked recently, at an assembly line, quasi sweatshop through a temp agency, where there was no union - or any kind of - representation for the workers' concerns or even any attention paid to labor and safety laws. If people try to be dilligent to be conscientious employees to satisfy their bosses in a spirit of cooperation with them and start to work hard and fast, trying to do their best, the bosses simply speed up the line until nobody can keep up again and then verbally abuse the people for not keeping up.
The bosses have strict production quotas that are calculated to be barely reacheable and only if nobody is afforded any time to even scratch their noses, so to speak. Older and more frail workers are weeded out and discarded like so much refuse.
My friend, who was a Teamster union truck driver, once said to me, "You can replace all the workers everywhere with machines and have everything fully automated, there's only one problem with that. Machines don't buy anything."