Saturday, November 25th, 2017
Ezra Klein, Editor-at-Large - VOX
Stephan: I have been reading a lot of economics journals and reports trying to get a clear picture on what Trump and the Republicans are trying to do to the economy. Most of it is very opaque, and much of the conservative material is outright disinformation.
This article though in clear terms gives a real report on the consensus that has become clear to me from my hours in the swamp. The tax "reform" bills in both the House and the Senate right now, in my view, are a disaster waiting to happen should one of them, or some combination, be passed and signed into law.
Republican Speaker of the House, and Ayn Rand devotee, Paul Ryan (R-WI) .
Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
The University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business runs an ongoing survey of top economists spanning a wide number of specialties and political outlooks. The panel includes multiple Nobel Prize winners, White House veterans, and former presidents of the American Economic Association. Recently, they were asked about the Republican tax reform bills. The results weren’t encouraging.
The first question was straightforward. Would they agree that if the US passed a tax bill “similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate,” GDP would be “substantially higher a decade from now”? Of the 42 economists polled, only one thought the Republican bill would boost the economy. The plurality said it wouldn’t, and the remainder were uncertain or didn’t answer.
The survey includes an optional space for respondents to add a comment, and a few of the comments are notable. “Of course not,” wrote the University of Chicago’s Austan Goolsbee, who served as chief economist for President Obama. “Does anyone care […]
No Comments
Saturday, November 25th, 2017
, - Billboard/The Associated Press
Stephan: This is a very big deal, and an important trend that is getting almost no attention. Have you heard anyone talking about it? In its own way it is as important as the impending end of net neutrality, which is also getting very little attention.
As a result of these FCC changes -- I keep telling readers keep your eyes on the agency and department level actions -- what you will see on your local channels, or that you will hear on your local radio stations, or read in your local paper is going to be seriously affected. And not in a good way.
Christofascist billionaires and the companies they control, like Sinclair and Fox, are buying up small local media companies and forcing them to broadcast or print propaganda and disinformation.
When I was in China I was told that 10 companies control most of Chinese media. The Chinese who explained this to me were appalled when I told them in response that 90% of American media is controlled by only 6 companies, owned by 15 billionaires.
Ajit Pai
Credit: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
Federal regulators have weakened rules meant to support independent local media.
Now, one company can own newspapers and broadcast stations in one market, undoing a ban in place since 1975. Thursday’s decision by the Federal Communications Commission also makes it easier for one company to own two broadcast TV stations in one market and coordinate operations with stations owned by others.
Although the changes won’t affect AT&T’s pending bid for Time Warner and its cable channels, they come as cable and phone companies have grown into industry giants through acquisitions. The newspaper and broadcasting industries say they need the changes to deal with growing competition from the web and cable companies.
The Republican-dominated FCC approved the changes in a 3-2 vote along party lines. The two Democratic commissioners and other critics say that dumping these rules, by encouraging consolidation, hurts media diversity. Free Press, a group that opposes media mergers, said Thursday that it will challenge the rule changes in court.
“This act will pave the way for massive broadcast conglomerates to increasingly provide […]
No Comments
Saturday, November 25th, 2017
Jenny Jones, - The Guardian (U.K.)
Stephan: Here is another one of those critical trends shaping the future that is getting very little attention. Over the past several years I have done several stories on this, and almost no one reads them, and I rarely hear it discussed at the research conferences I go to.
But the truth is we are losing the ability to procreate. Sperm counts amongst western men have dropped by more than 50% since the late 1970s, and continue to go down. Do you think that might become a problem? Why is it happening? Toxins and hormones in food? In the water? In the air? Nobody knows because there is no major effort to answer the question.
‘Sperm counts among men in the west have more than halved in the past 40 years.’ Credit: Alamy
There is nothing like the image of deformed sperm to grab the attention of male politicians. The tentative link between male fertility and pollution has been put forward by medics in China and in a world where heterosexual men still make most of the decisions, I hope it makes pollution a personal priority for a few of them. It’s only one bit of research, among hundreds of more definitive studies into proven health conditions linked to pollution, but the world may become a slightly better place as a result.
When I was first elected to the London Assembly 17 years ago, we were told that air pollution was yesterday’s issue and the technological solutions were rolling off the production line. I wasn’t convinced and argued that we needed to change our lifestyles by driving less, but very few in the media, or politics, saw this as a priority. That changed as the medical evidence […]
No Comments
Saturday, November 25th, 2017
Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology - EcoWatch
Stephan: To be honest I have never been clear about GMOs, but I am clear about one thing: We don't really know the long-term implications of this technology so it is probably best to avoid it. Consequently, in our house, we do not eat GMO foods.
To choose healthier, non-GMO brands, check out the
Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
Citation: Survey Reports Improved Health After Avoiding Genetically Modified Foods. https://responsibletechnology.org/irtnew/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Improved-Health-by-Avoiding-GMOs-by-Jeffrey-Smith.pdf
A peer-reviewed article released Tuesday in the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine and conducted by the Institute for Responsible Technology revealed that the health of all of the participants improved after switching to a non-GMO diet or simply reducing the amount of GMO foods they ate.
The results, from more than 3,250 people, mostly in the U.S., closely matched reports by physicians around the nation who have seen similar results when their patients change to largely non-GMO and organic diets.
Participants reported improvements in 28 conditions; digestive problems was the most often cited at 85.2 percent. The vast majority said their conditions were significantly improved, nearly gone or completely recovered.
Health problems that improved include:
1. Digestive: 85.2%
2. Fatigue, low energy: 60.4%
3. Overweight or obesity: 54.6%
4. Clouding of consciousness, “brain fog”: 51.7%
5. Food allergies or sensitivities: 50.2%
6. Mood problems, such as anxiety or depression: 51.1%
7. Memory, concentration: 48.1%
8. Joint pain: 47.5%
9. Seasonal allergies: 46.6%
10. Gluten sensitivities: 42.2%
11. Insomnia: 33.2%
12. Other skin conditions (not eczema): 30.9%
13. Hormonal problems: 30.4%
14. Musculoskeletal pain: 25.2%
15. Autoimmune disease: 21.4%
16. Eczema: 20.8%
17. Cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure: 19.8%
This confirms the reports from hundreds of healthcare practitioners and thousands of individuals. When people from all walks […]
1 Comment
Friday, November 24th, 2017
Jamiles Lartey, - The Guardian (U.K.)
Stephan: In many ways the defining characteristic of any society is its judicial system. Is it equitable for all? Is it life-affirming? Is it free of political special interests?
In America our judicial system is now under the worst attack it has sustained in many decades; this from Trump and the Republicans. Note that this is an assessment published in a British newspaper. What do you think the effect of such articles are in terms of how we are seen by the rest of the world?
Donald Trump smiles at a Heritage Foundation event. The conservative thinktank, along with the Federalist Society, wields huge influence over Trump’s judicial appointments.
Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP
Donald Trump has sustained more than his fair share of political losses during the first 10 months of his presidency, mostly at the hands of the federal courts.
It was the federal courts that struck down his “Muslim travel ban” on threeseparate occasions, that blocked his ban on trans people in the military and that did the same to his attempt to defund so-called sanctuary cities.
But the makeup of America’s judges is quietly becoming the site of one of Trump’s most unequivocal successes: nominating and installing judges who reflect his own worldview at a speed and volume unseen in recent memory. Trump could conceivably have handpicked more than 30% of the nation’s federal judges before the end of his first term, his […]
1 Comment
