Tuesday, February 27, 2018

US Hegemony and Rising Powers in the Era of Trump [feedly]

US Hegemony and Rising Powers in the Era of Trump
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/27/02/2018/us-hegemony-and-rising-powers-era-trump

James Parisot and Salvador Santino F. Regilme Jr. introduce their book exploring America's responses to its loss of hegemony. The world appears to be shifting into an era of intensified uncertai...Read more

The world appears to be shifting into an era of intensified uncertainty. The rise of increasingly independent powers across the planet, coupled with an American president who seems to lack a coherent grasp of reality, suggests that the tendency towards US decline on the world stage may be progressing. On a broad scale, in the history of the modern world, large scale shifts in world power have gone hand-in-hand with major bouts of international conflict. For the sun never to set on the British Empire, a series of Anglo-Dutch Wars were fought from the mid-seventeenth century, the Seven Years' War solidified British predominance over the French, and the violent history of colonial rule along with the production of cotton by black slaves in the American south made possible British supremacy. While by the end of the 1800s the United States, inventor of the modern corporate form, was beginning to emerge as the world's dominant industrial power, it took two of the most destructive and massive wars in human history to finally begin to dislodge European global colonial rule and replace it with American hegemony. And, for that matter, American leadership in the international system always depended on countless overt and clandestine interventions across the world to make sure the USA stayed on top.

Yet it appears this American-led structure of global order may be disintegrating. The rise of China and other emerging and reemerging powers, along with a US president who lacks legitimacy both domestically and internationally, signifies a winding of the cracks of American global leadership. While Obama's strategy of keeping American number one perhaps more realistically understood as well the limits of American power, Trump's reign emerges to be one of historical illusion, seen in the fact that he recently publicly defended his own 'genius' and purportedly watches up to eight hours of television a day and brags about the size of his nuclear launch button. His Presidency, fueled by right-wing white supremacy and sexism as well as the mirage of infinite power in the minds of the financial elite, seems, if anything, to risk bringing us closer to global conflict in this transitionary age. Meanwhile, from the formation of the BRICS Development Bank to the New Silk Road, it appears that 'the rest' may need 'the west' less and less.

The risk for our age of transformation, then, is the question of war and peace. While previous major power transitions have gone hand-in-hand with large explosions of international violence, does the current transition entail similar prospects? No predominant world power can remain there forever. The unevenness of historical development has meant that the patterns of rule that leading world powers follow may get them to the top, but other powers may follow, and then surpass, these powers. While in the short run, American military power remains dominant, it is not always clear how effective—take Vietnam and Iraq for example—this power may be for sustaining hegemony. While Silicon Valley still absorbs highly educated brainpower from around the world, in the long run, China and other countries may continue to catch up and surpass American research and development facilities. And while, for now, Hollywood remains a staple of American soft power, could it be the case that one day, instead of the Chinese spending the RMB watching Marvel's Captain America, Americans may spend millions of dollars watching 'Captain China'?

While not presenting all the answers to these big questions, our book American Hegemony and the Rise of Emerging Powers: Cooperation and Conflict offers some tentative answers. One theme is ideological; whatever may be the case in terms of the material underpinnings of American power in the global political economy, the prospects of war and peace depend upon how actors in positions of great political power interpret international change, and what decisions they may make and risks they may take. It also suggests that it would likely be an overstatement to say American hegemony is in decline, at least in the short run. While it is the case that China's rise has transformed world power and rising powers are building new relations across the globe, the United States is not passively sitting by, but acting to reestablish its international weight, limiting the ability of emerging powers to build a network of power outside of American hegemony. The book also suggests that new relations of power, such as the development of a market for offshore RMB in London, may be subtler and hidden from the naked eye then we realize: or than most existing theories of international relations may account for.

On one hand, the Owl of Minerva may only be understood as dusk falls – so the potential for future conflict may only be understood in retrospect. Yet, if we do not do our best to locate sources of potential conflict then it may be the case that this dusk will fall only to cover smoke and bullets.

 

 

James Parisot received his PhD in Sociology from Binghamton University, USA, and is part-time Faculty in the Department of Sociology at Drexel University, USA. He has published articles in journals including, among others, Third World Quarterly, International Critical Thought and the Journal of Historical Sociology.

Salvador Santino F. Regilme Jr. is currently an Assistant Professor of International Relations (Universitair Docent) at the Institute for History, University of Leiden. He previously held tenure track faculty positions at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA and at De La Salle University-Manila, Philippines. He was appointed as Käte Hamburger Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Global Cooperation Research at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany and a Fox International Fellow at the MacMillan Center for Area and International Studies at Yale University, USA. In 2015, he earned his PhD (Dr.rer.pol.) at the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Employer-Side Payroll Taxes: Cuomo Goes to War Against Republican Tax Plan [feedly]

Employer-Side Payroll Taxes: Cuomo Goes to War Against Republican Tax Plan
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/employer-side-payroll-taxes-cuomo-goes-to-war-against-republican-tax-plan

Dean Baker
Truthout, February 26, 2018

See article on original site

The tax plan the Republicans pushed through at the end of last year was a grab bag of goodies for Republican donors. The centerpiece was of course the big tax for corporations, which included large reductions in the tax already owed on overseas profits. Also, the plan included massive gaming opportunities for people creating pass-through corporations, along with special treatment for the real estate and oil industry.

In addition, the Republicans decided to take a big swing at more liberal states like California and New York, which both provide better services to their residents and vote Democratic in national elections. This was the logic of limiting the size of the deduction for state and local taxes to $10,000.

In these states, with their high house prices, even upper middle-income people can reach this cap on their property taxes alone. That means that none of their state income taxes will be deductible.

The cap can be a modest hit even on a person earning $80,000 or $100,000 a year, who could be paying another $600 to $800 a year as a result of the cap. The loss of this deduction can be a large hit on a worker earning $200,000 and a very large hit on a person earning $500,000. In the former case, a state income tax liability of $9,000 would mean an increase in federal taxes of more than $2,000 due to the cap on the deduction. Someone earning $500,000 can pay more $24,000 in state taxes. The loss of the deduction would boost federal taxes by more than $8,000.

While this provision has the effect of substantially raising the relative burden for higher-income people living in high tax states, progressives should still be concerned. This provision also means it will be harder for liberal states to do things like provide quality child care, decent health care, and free college for their residents.

Under the old law, the federal government effectively picked up 40 cents of every dollar that California or New York taxed its high-income households. Now that these wealthy households have to bear the full cost of their state and local taxes, we can expect that they will fight much harder against any future state and local tax increases, and quite likely will look for cuts in their tax burdens.

They will also put more effort into avoiding states taxes, for example, by lying about their primary residence, or in the extreme case moving to a lower tax state. In fact, this is exactly what Steven Moore, an economic adviser to the Trump campaign, gleefully predicted after the bill's passage.

While Moore may not see his dream of a mass migration of high-income families out of California, New York, and other liberal states, there is no dispute that the new tax law will make it more difficult for these states to raise revenue.

This is the context in which New York governor Andrew Cuomo's moves to undo the tax cap must be understood. He proposed a variety of measures that are aimed at protecting much or all of the deduction for New York state residents.

Probably the measure with the best chance of success is one that replaces a portion of the state income tax with an employer-side payroll tax. Under this plan, employers would pay a 5.0 percent tax on their workers' wages, which would be offset by a 5.0 percentage point reduction in their state income tax liability.

For example, suppose that a worker earning $100,000 a year previously paid five percent of their income, or $5,000, to the state in taxes. Under the Cuomo plan, the employer instead pays $5,000 for the payroll tax, but the worker owes no income tax.

We would expect that the employer would cut workers' pay by the $5,000 they had to pay in payroll taxes. This leaves the worker with $95,000 in pay, the same as they had previously after paying their state taxes, but now they only have to pay federal income taxes on this $95,000 in income, not $100,000.

This move effectively preserves the deduction for the state income tax. One of the clever features of the employer-side payroll tax is that even workers who do not itemize would benefit, since they would also see their taxable income reduced by the size of the payroll tax.

In practice, the story is a bit more complicated since Cuomo's plan has a $40,000 zero bracket, which means the tax is not paid on the first $40,000 in wages. He also made it voluntary so that employers could opt into this payroll tax system -- thereby saving workers money on their income taxes -- but they would not be required to go this route.

It is impressive to see Cuomo take the lead on this issue. If New York state workers are given the opportunity to have substantial savings on their income taxes, it is likely that workers in other states will push to get the same tax savings.

If enough states go this route, Congress is likely to change the law. This would be true even if Congress remained in Republican hands since the only people they would be penalizing with this provision would be the small number of high income people living in Republican states affected by the deduction cap.        

We are still in the early stages in this battle and Cuomo's proposal is just the first step. But it is important to realize what is at issue. This is not about giving a tax break to higher-income people; it is about preserving the ability for liberal states to pursue progressive policies. At a time when the federal government is controlled by the far right, it is important that liberals use the levers available to them to fight back.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Bernstein: What’s at stake in the Janus case. [feedly]

What's at stake in the Janus case.
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/whats-at-stake-in-the-janus-case/

Lots of people think unions are pretty much kaput, but that's not so, especially in the public sector, where union membership has been a bit north of one-third of the public-sector workforce, and remarkably steady, since the late 1970s (private sector coverage, by contrast, is 6.5%; see figure). That's why the Janus case being argued at the Supreme Court today is so vitally important. Its outcome will either strengthen or weaken public sector unions, and if the result is the latter, it will have political repercussions far beyond the voice of workers in their workplaces.

The Janus case is about whether public sector unions can require "agency fees." Such fees, also called "fair share" fees, are paid to the union to cover the cost of bargaining on behalf of all workers in the bargaining unit, not just union members. Absent such fees, there is a clear "free rider" problem wherein those benefiting from collective bargaining activities on their behalf pay no costs to cover the union's work. In that sense, Janus is kind of the public-sector corollary of the misnamed state "right-to-work" laws about which I've written elsewhere.

The named plaintiff, Mark Janus, is an Illinois social worker covered under a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the public workers' union AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees). He's not an AFSCME member, but he's required to pay a fee to cover the cost of his representation. Note that such fees can only be used for this purpose, and not for, say, political activities by the union.

The Trump administration is supporting Janus, hoping to persuade the court to overturn its 1977 ruling allowing states to require fair share fees for government employees. Two dozen states and the District of Columbia require such payments, covering roughly 5 million public-sector workers.

You can read up on the technical background in various places, but if you want to know what's really going on here, you have to read this NYT expose of the very deep-pocketed, anti-union forces behind the Janus case:

In the summer of 2016, government workers in Illinois received a mailing that offered them tips on how to leave their union. By paying a so-called fair-share fee instead of standard union dues, the mailing said, they would no longer be bound by union rules and could not be punished for refusing to strike.

The mailing, sent by a group called the Illinois Policy Institute, may have seemed like disinterested advice. In fact, it was one prong of a broader campaign against public-sector unions, backed by some of the biggest donors on the right. It is an effort that will reach its apex on Monday, when the Supreme Court hears a case that could cripple public-sector unions by allowing the workers they represent to avoid paying fees.

The piece carefully goes through this "broader campaign," which has strong, and obvious, political motivations. The reason the SCOTUS is hearing Janus today is simple. It is because there is no single, larger, unified, better-resourced, pro-worker political voice in American politics today than that of the unions. Obviously, they're far from alone, but even in their diminished capacity, this remains the case, and that flat public sector line in the figure above is a main reason why.

Will a win for the plaintiff in Janus change that? Well, here's a political science finding mentioned in the Times' piece:

A recent paper by Mr. Hertel-Fernandez and two colleagues may foretell what Democrats can expect if Mr. Uihlein and his fellow philanthropists [the conservatives backers of Janus–JB] succeed. It found that the Democratic share of the presidential vote dropped by an average of 3.5 percentage points after the passage of so-called right-to-work laws allowing employees to avoid paying union fees. That is larger than Democrats' margin of defeat in several states that could have reversed their last three presidential losses.

So, attention must be paid. The court considered a similar case in 2016, when it split 4-4 following the death of Justice Scalia, but there's considerable concern as to the outcome given the makeup of the current court. A lot hangs in the balance.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Enlighten Radio:New Mornings on the Moose Turd Cafe - Best plate in town

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: New Mornings on the Moose Turd Cafe - Best plate in town
Link: http://www.enlightenradio.org/2018/02/new-mornings-on-moose-turd-cafe-best.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Monday, February 26, 2018

Enlighten Radio:Moose Turd Cafe Changes -- And Programming for Week of Feb 26

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: Moose Turd Cafe Changes -- And Programming for Week of Feb 26
Link: http://www.enlightenradio.org/2018/02/moose-turd-cafe-changes-and-programming.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Moose Turd Cafe Changes -- And Programming for Week of Feb 26

Greetings Friends

The Moose Turd Cafe moves up to 7:AM this morning and features a 2-hour special

1. Richard Wolfe's Economic Update and other economic news

2. Teachers Strike Updates!

3 Barack Obama in Atlanta

4. Reading Craig Johnson's Walt Longmire novels.


10: AM -- We record Fanny Crawford and Stas Zielkowski doing their classic storytelling.

Noon: and onward: a continuation of the EnlightenRadio.org celebration of Black History Month.

On the Clockwheel:

  • 200 hours of john coltrane
  • UCLA archive of speeches by diverse African American leaders, poets, scientists, legends and presidents
Coming up in March: INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S Month -- Stay tuned to the blog.

Check out our podcasts, and the podbean app, at democracyroad.podbean.com.

Our email host@enlightenradio.org

Our on air phone is: 304-885-0708

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Paul Krugman Looks Back at the Last Twenty Years of the Macroeconomic Policy Debate [feedly]


wonky but interesting...


Paul Krugman Looks Back at the Last Twenty Years of the Macroeconomic Policy Debate
http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/paul-krugman-looks-back-at-the-last-twenty-years-of-the-macroeconomic-policy-debate/

Everybody interested in macroeconomics or macroeconomic policy should know this topic backwards and forwards by heart. My problem is that I do not see how I can add value to it. The only thing I can think of to do is to propose two rules:

  1. Paul Krugman is right.
  2. If you think Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to rule #1.

I do wish that those who were not bad actors who made mistakes would 'fess up to them. Those who don't will get moved to the "bad actor" category: and, yes, I am looking at you, Marvin Goodfriend.

The only remaining question, I think, is whether these should all be read in chronological or reverse chronological order. I find myself torn, with arguments on both sides having force:

Ben Bernanke (1999): Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/bernanke_paralysis.pdf

Source

VISIT WEBSITE

 -- via my feedly newsfeed