China's Marxist vision of state control and redistribution never went away

 

What is a communist? One who has yearnings

For equal division of unequal earnings.

Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing

To fork over his penny and pocket your shilling.

- Ebenezer Elliott (1781-1849)

 

… it’s back, says Rudd, and Xi’s Marxist vision means greater control over the private sector, an expanding role for state-owned enterprises and industrial policy, and the quest for “common prosperity” through redistribution — all of which is likely to shrink economic growth, he concludes. Rudd is the current Australian ambassador to the United States. …

Stevenson-Yang is … one of the few who isn’t puzzled by what’s happening in China, after living there for more than 20 years. The CCP “was always going to decouple. Once the party had acquired enough power, enough resources, enough money, it was always going to decouple,” she told CNBC.

The reforms that began in 1979, she says, “were always meant to be temporary, in order to bring in more resources.”

More.

Now your garden is evil: Privileged Swedish communists from Uppsala University say elites' use of water must be altered and redistributed to the poor

 What a shock, right?

From the story "From swimming pools to gardening, the rich’s privileged lifestyles are driving urban water crises, study says":

The study, which was led by Elisa Savelli at Uppsala University in Sweden, proposes a new approach to preserving water resources centered around “altering privileged lifestyles, limiting water use for amenities and redistributing income and water resources more equally.”     

Meanwhile lol:

The entire (100%) population of Sweden has access to a safe-drinking water source. 

GUILTY MUCH? The place is still 60% Lutheran.

But a lot of this is just far-north-garden-deprived envy:

 We English are often caricatured as garden fanatics but we have nothing on the northern Swedes. This gardening obsession is not uncommon up here. In the summer our local snowmobile dealership majors in ride-on lawnmowers. Locals fondle Husqvarnas the same way petrolheads caress Ferraris. Coachloads of northern Swedish townies criss-cross the countryside each summer visiting gardens.

The end is near: The majority increasingly uses the referendum to get what it cannot get from a legislature, and now to vote itself largess out of the public treasury

 Soon it will vote quite literally to redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who have it not.

Redistribution is old, but it's new again

The best thing about this Media Matters attack on Glenn Beck from 2010 is the line it draws from King through Sharpton to BLM

Beck distorts King's legacy while blaming Sharpton for having “perverted” it

'In fact, Sharpton accurately reflected the sentiments of King, who advocated for the “radical redistribution of economic power.” ...

'[A]uthor Nick Kotz writes that during a 1968 trip to Mississippi, King stated: “It didn't cost the nation one penny to integrate lunch counters” and "[i]t didn't cost the nation one penny to guarantee the right to vote." However, he concluded that “now, we are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars -- and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power.”'

King was a commie from the beginning. Beck just wants to pretend otherwise, like many Republican squishes do. It's whitey pretending things aren't that bad.

Sharpton, like King, is a true believer, if not nearly as intelligent: “the dream was not to put one black family in the White House. The dream was to make everything equal in everybody's house.”

Now the thugs of Black Lives Matter make this the number one demand for economic justice:

"Redistribution of wealth through a 'progressive restructuring of tax codes at the local, state, and federal levels.'"

They are out in your streets trying to make that happen.

What are you going to do about it?

 

Ben Shapiro's "peaceful ethnic cleansing" predates Richard Spencer's by a decade

Transfer is not a dirty word:

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It's an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.

That's Ben Shapiro in 2003.

Here's Richard Spencer, from 2013:

Real diversity and tolerance apparently go only so far, however. In an address at white supremacist Jared Taylor’s 2013 American Renaissance conference, Spencer called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.” As an example of how this could be accomplished, he cited the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, where new national boundaries were formed at the end of World War I. “Today, in the public imagination, ‘ethnic cleansing’ has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so),” Spencer said. “But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution — done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.”

Hooah Jim Geraghty!

Here:

Government doesn’t louse up everything, but it sure louses up a lot of what it promises to deliver:

from the Big Dig to Healthcare.gov;

from letting veterans die waiting for health care to failing to prioritize the levees around New Orleans and funding other projects instead;

from 9/11 to the failure to see the housing bubble that precipitated the Great Recession;

from misconduct in the Secret Service to the IRS targeting conservative groups;

from lavish conferences at the General Services Administration to the Solyndra grants;

from the runaway costs of California’s high-speed-rail project to Operation Fast and Furious;

from the OPM breach to giving Hezbollah a pass on trafficking cocaine.

The federal government has an abysmal record of abusing the public’s trust, finances, and its own authority. Now some people want it to take on a bigger role? If you want to enact a massive overhaul of America’s economy and government to redistribute wealth, you first have to demonstrate that you can accomplish something smaller, like ensuring every veteran gets adequate care. Until then, if you want to live like a Norwegian, buy a plane ticket.

Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement targets statues nationwide for Columbus Day on Monday

Let's see how many monuments are protected on Monday, seeing that authorities have had over two weeks to prepare for this.

From the story here:

The NYC-based antifa group Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (RAM) made the announcement on Thursday, September 21, calling on antifa groups nationwide to “decorate” their neighborhoods.

According to Far Left Watch, RAM is "an extremely militant group that advocates for the violent redistribution of property" and for "the abolition of gender."

If Trump wants to win on Obamacare, he should propose a Medicaid tax in exchange for repeal

If Trump wants to win on Obamacare, he should propose a Medicaid tax in exchange for repeal of Obamacare's individual and corporate mandates instead of the stinker bill now being proposed by the Republicans in the Senate.

That way those of us who can obtain real insurance like we did before will obtain it again but at a cheaper cost than now, and those who can't will still have Medicaid, but funded by dead certain payrolls instead of the hodge podge of state and federal funding now.

Because of Obamacare, those who have insurance are subsidizing at enormous expense to themselves those who have become covered since 2009 under the plan, mostly under Medicaid. Medicaid alone has swelled by 25 million people thanks to Obamacare. It's a massive income redistribution scheme from those who have insurance to those who don't, which is manifestly unfair. There are easily 48 million people in this country making less than $15,000 a year who have no skin in this game yet qualify for Medicaid.

The answer, short of returning to the status quo ante where millions are kicked off of Medicaid, is to make more people pay their fair share. This means taxing every dollar of compensation with a Medicaid tax, just like we do with Medicare. The burden should be born by everyone, including those now receiving Medicaid.

Currently we have about 55.5 million enrolled in Medicare, supported by a 1.45% payroll tax. It isn't enough support, but there it is.

Medicaid on the other hand has exploded under Obamacare to coverage of 75 million, but state budgets, like individuals' budgets under Obamacare's outrageously expensive health insurance, are breaking badly under the burden. 33 will fall short of revenue targets in the current fiscal year.

The proportional Medicaid payroll tax rate implied by 75 million program participants is at least 1.95%.

This is Trump's opportunity to put Medicaid on a sounder footing.

Republicans won't like this plan because it involves a new tax, even though many people are already paying this tax to one degree or another depending on their tax obligation in their state of residence. The revenues, insufficient as they are, are already collected at the state level, but variably.

So it's not really a new tax. It's a new collector.

Democrats ought to love this idea, for the obvious reason. It codifies the nation's "obligation" to the poor's healthcare in the form of a tax, just as Medicare codifies the nation's obligation to the elderly's healthcare. With it they can claim Obamacare is still the law of the land in some form.

Pelosi and the House Democrats are well positioned to deliver this in the form of a bill to send to the more evenly divided Senate because Paul Ryan and a coalition of 75 or so liberal Republicans could get it over the goal line, just like they did so many times before in league with the Democrats, making an end run around the House conservatives.

The Senate would go for the bill because it is simply more liberal all around. Democrats there would vote for this, along with liberal Republicans.

Trump needs to get this done and off the table.

We've been arguing about it now in earnest for 8 years already and are just plain sick of it.

Enough already!

Repeal Obamacare root and branch, and institute a Medicaid tax.

Trump correctly called the Paris Climate Accord a scheme to redistribute American wealth abroad

Here:

We have among the most abundant energy reserves in the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America's poorest workers out of poverty. Yet under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation, great wealth, phenomenal wealth. Not so long ago we had no idea we had such wealth. And leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness. The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries. ... 

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called "green climate fund" -- nice name -- which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America's existing and massive foreign aid payments.

Obama hates the middle class: Caller after caller today to Chris Plante reported 200%+ increases to their health insurance premiums because of Obamacare

Impoverishing the middle class has been Obama's goal all along. Obamacare redistributes the incomes of ordinary middle class people to the poor, just as higher taxes on the rich do. Here's how.

Chris Plante himself reports that his household used to pay $551 a month before Obamacare, but now pays $1731, an increase of 214%.

My household in 2010 paid just $2552 a year for coverage with $2500 individual calendar year deductibles. Six years later for the same plan we pay $4252, an increase of 67%, but the individual calendar year deductibles have skyrocketed to $10,000 each, a 300% increase.

In other words, for the privilege of having coverage, we could end up on the hook for as much as $30,000 in any given year before the plan pays anything in a health emergency. You get some discount on services as in a preferred provider network, but you still have to pay.

I know because I had one in 2014 which drove my out of pocket medical expenses for the year well over $10,000. They're normally half that.

Obamacare is nothing more than a tax increase on the middle class, to subsidize "coverage", that is Medicaid, for the poor.

Publius Decius Mus eviscerates libertarian James Pethokoukis as a mere leftist materialist, calls him a traitor

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Here are some excerpts, but read the whole thing:

'In the leftist-Hegelian hive mind of which Pethokoukis is but one drone, the benefits of mass immigration and open trade are true simply; therefore popular objections are illegitimate. ... Pethokoukis ... has absorbed the core premises of the Left. “That’s racist!” This points to one of the deepest problems with “conservative intellectualism.” It accepts, out of conviction or fear or both, every restriction the Left places on it. The left rules out-of-bounds any discussion of the cultural or political effects of immigration as “racist,” and the conservatives go along. Hence they can only talk about immigration in economic terms, as if human beings were widgets.

'In fact, this particular intellectual rot defines almost all of “conservatism.” It’s allowed the Left to bully the Right out of talking or thinking about so many subjects that all conservatives can rouse themselves to address any more is the economy. They rationalize such a narrow focus by insisting economics trumps all. But the root is fear. Or was. Fear may have caused the initial retreat, but younger “conservatives” raised in the faith actually believe every line of the Leftist creed. Except the parts about redistribution, because Hayek. Also, the donors don’t like it. ,,,

'Like all self-castrated “conservatives,” Pethokoukis goes right along. Whether out of fear or conviction doesn’t even matter anymore.

'Either way, he—and all the others like him—are obstacles to the near- and long-term project of saving what’s left of American and Western civilization. To climb out of the hole we’re in, we don’t need liberals, we don’t need cowards, and we don’t need traitors.'

Scott Sumner is simply an ideologue, and a confused one at that, otherwise he wouldn't be as unhappy as he is

In "Libertarians have nowhere to turn" Scott Sumner the market monetarist laments:

'In my view neither major political party has libertarian inclinations. ... I'm slightly more sympathetic to the progressives who insist that I should really be a Democrat. They tell me "After all, you are rational. You believe in evolution and support carbon taxes and redistribution and think money was too tight during the Great Recession. You are pro-immigration and skeptical of the idea that America is an 'exceptional' nation, which must police the world." Those are all good arguments, but then I start obsessing about economics. After all, I am an economist.'

Apart from completely missing that the Democrat Party is the party of social freedom and the Republican Party is the party of economic freedom, it's rather singular for a self-described libertarian to embrace economic redistributionism so openly (not to mention a draconian form of taxation). To do so betrays a feeling for the left, not the right, which, if libertarians were only honest enough to admit it, has always been their inclination.

Sumner might reflect on the fact that we actually live in a perfect storm of libertarianism, in which economic (and social) actors have been unleashed to be all that they can be. The trouble is, only a few "succeed". The fact that income inequality has reasserted itself to a degree not seen since the gilded age is proof of the basic fact that not all men are created equal. The very best at making money have risen to the top and become enormously wealthy in an environment specifically designed to allow it to happen. The end result of economic libertarianism is that the very best will eventually succeed in hoarding all the goodies for themselves while the rest of us are left to serfdom. The end result of libertarianism is freedom for thee, but not for me.

The same can be illustrated on the social side, where some freak flags fly higher than all the rest. They rise to fame and influence beyond all their fellows in "art", "music", "literature" and "society", if you can call violent, vulgar and obscene Hollywood films, rap, "shady" novels and the Kardashians representative of those categories.

Conservatism, primarily rooted in religion, has historically functioned in society to apply the brakes to keep these actors from getting out of control and acquiring undue influence, whether socially or economically. The left only imagines itself capable of replacing religion's heretofore tempering role, which primarily functioned through willful self-restraint. Hence the efforts to reduce income inequality by force through taxation schemes, which obviously aren't working. On the social side the left has had even less success, except by recourse to venomous speech and conduct codes which meet with little assent and not a little fear and loathing among the many.

Freedom, as currently conceived in all its sterility, is quite literally killing America.

Kevin Drum admits ObamaCare is a cost to the middle class, not a benefit

Here in Mother Jones last November:

[N]early all [ObamaCare's] benefits flow to the poor. ... winners are those with household incomes below $25,000 or so, and losers are those with incomes above $25,000. ... If you think of Obamacare as something that benefits the working and middle classes, you're probably wrong. It may benefit a few of them, but overall it's a cost to them ... the bottom line is simple: like most of the social welfare programs championed by Democrats, Obamacare is primarily aimed at the poor. Once again, the working and middle classes are left on the outside looking in.

--------------------------------------------------------

First Obama did nothing about housing, the sine qua non of the middle class: Over five million completed foreclosures eliminated millions from the middle class without firing a shot.

Then he did nothing about jobs, without which no one buys a house: 18 million have been added to the potential workforce but haven't actually joined it.

Then he rammed through healthcare reform, which was designed to raise costs on the middle class.

And people wonder how Obama could even think of taxing their 529 plans?

The middle class is the enemy of the revolution, the object of the transformation, the source for the redistribution.

22 States and DC raise minimum wage this year: Expect teen employment to remain in depression or decline further

Teen employment levels today at 4.6 million are still 2.9 million below their 2006 peak of almost 7.5 million.

This is not just an artifact of the 2008 Panic.

The Federal minimum wage was increased nearly 41% over three years beginning before the panic began, from $5.15 to $5.85 in July 2007, to $6.55 in July 2008, and to $7.25 in July 2009. It is noteworthy that teen employment suffered almost immediately with the first increase in 2007, not reachieving the 2006 peak teen employment level in July of 2007 even as full-time employment hit an all-time record high. Teen employment continued to decline each summer through 2011 before stabilizing at the new low level, averaging about 4.4 million now vs. about 5.9 million previously. Raising the minimum wage has effectively sidelined 1.5 million teenagers permanently.

Raising the minimum wage now in 45% of the country only means inexperienced people like teenagers will find it even more difficult to find that first job going forward.

This is not free-market economics. It is crony capitalism which redistributes income to low-wage-earning adults at the expense of the young.

Call it part of the liberal war on children. Hey, if you forgot to abort 'em, impoverish them!

Obama says you're better off than when he took office, except you are not

click to enlarge

Obama says, quoted here:

"Like the rest of America, black America in the aggregate is better off now than it was when I came into office."

On the contrary:

Full-time jobs have not recovered to their 2007 peak and won't until summer 2015, if we are lucky. That will be eight years later, when full-time jobs in the past have always bounced back after at most three years in post-war recessions. Obama has done nothing for jobs, except to let the problem fester and try to heal itself.

Health insurance costs much more, covers much less and has narrower and less convenient networks. The proof of this is in the polling, where the majority of Americans remain opposed to ObamaCare. The minority which likes ObamaCare is benefiting from it at the expense of those who don't, who are more numerous. It's called income redistribution. Otherwise known as socialism. You know, like in Cuba, Obama's new best friend.

Owners' equity in household real estate stands at 53.94%, still almost 10% below where it was in 2005. Completed foreclosures in the last month are still running 95% above normal.

More than half of the 66% of Americans who have saved anything for retirement have individually saved less than $25,000. American taxpayers are forced to contribute on average 13.5% to the pensions of the country's government employees and save for themselves only at the rate of 5%.

But perhaps the most damning indictment of Obama is how Americans of all stripes have been impoverished under his watch. Real median household income in the US is lower now than when the recession ended in Obama's first term in 2009, and much lower than when he took office:

"At this point, real household incomes are in worse shape than they were four years ago when the recession ended."

Lies told often enough can become the truth, but they are still lies.

Liberal WaPo defends economist who says middle class is just fine because of . . . transfer payments!

Where have I heard this before?

Consider The Washington Post, here:

"CBO saw a dramatic difference in middle class income gains because it captures information that tax records miss, such as income from transfer programs such as Social Security and Medicare, [economist Stephen J.] Rose said."

A libertarian made this same argument to me very recently: that the middle class is intact if you count transfer payments made under the tax code.

For a libertarian to argue with a straight face that the middle class is intact because of income redistribution is an offense to capitalism. To be middle class from the purely economic point of view is to have achieved a level of economic independence and status not shared by the lower class. It is symbolized by home ownership, and by that new car smell every few years. Dependence on government transfer payments to maintain such status does nothing but obscure the truth of what is really going on.

This is consistent with the wider practice of economic liberalism in our time, which is similarly designed to hide the truth while posing as its custodian at the same time.

Mark-to-market accounting rules have been changed since April 2009 under Financial Accounting Standards Board rule 157, making price discovery of many "assets" nearly impossible. Circumstances became catastrophic under the old rule during 2008, so the solution was to change the rule. Call it moving the goal posts.

The Fed, acting as the Board's tag team wrestling partner, through QE has been buying up the crappy assets of the banks and transferring them to its own balance sheet in order to hide the truth of their crappiness and restore the banks to health. At the same time the Fed makes war against the free market with its repression of interest rates to the zero bound, driving up the value of risk assets, especially housing, stocks, bonds and commodities while punishing savers and aspirants to the middle class. It's not a coincidence that this helps only the elites, who cannot continue to spend money they don't have unless they can borrow it on the cheap.

A truly conservative economic universe, that is, one aligned with reality, would not permit any of this. 

Too bad we don't live there anymore. Libertarians shouldn't pretend that we do.

Pope Francis pontificates, calls for legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State

In front of the UN this morning, quoted at length and discussed here:

"[E]quitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society."

Ed Morrissey tap dances all around this:

"It’s clear, though, that he wasn’t calling for widespread and massive confiscation of wealth by governments."

Yes he is, while calling for it at every level knowing that that's not going to happen, and hiding behind the word "legitimate", a qualification foreign to the language of Jesus on the subject. 

Well, you first. The pope, the Vatican and the people of the Roman Catholic faith should take the lead: Let the redistribution begin with them, with the enormous wealth of the church. When we see them impoverishing themselves for the sake of the poor perhaps we'll take this more seriously.

Until then, this is just more pontificating.

What part of "that ye have" don't they understand?

"Sell that ye have and give alms." -- Luke 12:33

59% Of American Adults Sympathize With The Main Goal Of Communism, And 83% Of Democrats Do

The goal? Wealth redistribution.

Gallup. April 2013. Here.

Garbage in, K-12 . . . garbage out forevermore.

No wonder upper class self-identification is down a whopping 29% under the leader. 

Blame The Yankees For The Minimum Wage: A Northern Tariff On The South

Doin' right ain't got no end

Jay Cost for The Weekly Standard, here:

Obama’s [State of the Union] address inadvertently referenced the government’s proclivity to play favorites. The minimum wage is a hallowed talking point for wealthy liberals posing as hardscrabble populists, but in fact its original purpose was to serve as a sort of domestic tariff. By 1937 Northern industries had come to terms with organized labor, but the South still resisted. Fearing a flight of capital to Dixie, it was Northern businessmen who made the difference in pushing a minimum wage through Congress.

Liberal Democrats had outsized majorities during this period of the New Deal, but Southerners controlled key choke points within the legislature, notably the House Rules Committee. It was only a broad coalition that included liberals, organized labor, and, crucially, Northern industrialists that brought the Fair Labor Standards Act to a vote on the floor. Unsurprisingly, the wage floor was set so low that only the South was really affected. And even then, it only passed after it was loaded up with exemptions for all sorts of politically privileged groups.

This decidedly inegalitarian back story of the minimum wage has mostly been lost to history. One would be hardpressed to find a book about the New Deal in Barnes & Noble that discusses this at any length. This is not a coincidence; advocates of bold, activist government want to forget all the inequalities it creates. So it is with Obama. His signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is one of the most grossly unfair pieces of legislation to become law in modern times. Underwritten by a logroll among elite interests as varied as the drug manufacturers and the feminist left, it is an enormous redistribution of wealth from the young to the old, the healthy to the sick, without due regard to socioeconomic status.