Does the Third Way get it right about our Trade Deficit with Asia?

Third Way is incredibly influential with establishment Democrats. Rank and File Democrats don't always feel the same. So I wanted to critique their articles so people I know can make an intelligent decision.

In an Article titled "Losing Ground in Asia: Why the U.S. Export Market Share Has Plummeted" by Third Way the authors note that despite the Obama's efforts to do an "Asian Pivot" - that includes his push of the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty - we have not only not gained ground, we've lost ground on exports. They claim:

"Despite this policy shift, when it comes to economic performance in Asia, America is failing." [3rdWay]

They then provide a report:

"This report examined 26 entities (25 countries, including the United States, as well as the combined rest of world) and their share of the Asian import market from 2000 to 2014." [3rdWay]

They claim:

1. The Asian import market grew by 261% between 2000 and 2014, from $1.5 trillion to $5.4 trillion.
2. Despite the Asian market boom, the U.S. market share fell by 46%, the biggest drop of any of the 25 largest exporters into Asia except Japan.
3. While U.S. market share in Asia is fading, China has been the largest beneficiary.

They then use this decline in Market share as an argument:

"Over the next several months, the United States and 11 nations are expected to conclude negotiations on the TPP. This is a sure fire way to increase U.S. market share in these important Asian economies. The global economy is projected to grow by over $60 trillion in the next 15 years, and almost 90% of that will occur outside of the United States, making global commerce an even larger part of future American success.4 By tapping into these lucrative markets, the United States can retake its lost share of these expanding economies, which means more wealth and prosperity for the middle class and the U.S. economy." [3rdWay]

But is that, in fact, true?

Outside Agitators and the Black Lives Matter Movement

I support the Black Lives Matter Movement. Our current de-professionalized standing army police forces oppress everyone. Professional police aren't supposed to do that, but militarized police do. And while they oppress everyone, they oppress minority populations the most. They oppress black folks in large numbers way out of proportion to their population. And they oppress Indigenous persons statistically at the greatest percentage rate. This has to end. And every progressive needs to embrace this cause, because economic equity requires justice and fairness in distribution of public good as well as equality in opportunity. If a person can't safely drive to or home from work, then they don't have liberty they are being oppressed.

And I understand radicalism. It is very tempting to become more radical as more and more evidence is available of the plots and sociopathic programs of powerful people with very little sense, compassion or even empathy for others. It is easy to divide the world into white and black and hate those who don't clearly understand how hurt one is. But that is not how you make progress.

Henry George on the Income Tax and Monopoly

This post is designed to analyze an excerpt from Henry George's writings

Henry George wrote on the Income Tax in 1887:

"The world calls on me to abandon my absurd theory of taxing land values and to support instead an income tax as a means of relieving working people of unjust burdens"

He didn't reject it outright. But he did have caveats:

"If the world sees me further, and is prepared to advocate an income tax in lieu of other means of raising public revenue, or any considerable part of it - as for instance, that now collected at our custom houses by onerous duties upon the bringing into the country of things the people want - it would give me much pleasure and would do a great public service."

Here he's advocating the core principle of progressive taxation. It's not about punishing people, but it is about equity, "fairness or justice in the way people are treated." When the Income tax was first created it's primary goal was "unearned income", which included income from "other people's money", the money privilege and other forms of privilege, and did not normally apply to ordinary wages. Such a tax was far superior to the existing taxes which burdened workers, farmers and other ordinary people.

Billionaires Privateering on the high seas of Education

Modern privateers don't come across with eye patches or peg legs. And they don't wear fancy hats or run for President (except for the Donald) . They mostly work behind the scenes, with PR firms, "charitable donations" and paid think tanks doing their bidding. They run flotillas of law firms, PR firms, faux think tanks manned by men in suits. Sometimes they seem to even have convinced themselves that they are doing charity, doing good with their money, and that they are the "heros." But in reality these pirate fleets do as much or more, with the power of finance and undue influence, than their Sea Dog forebears ever could do. This is the case with education Anti-Reform. The only way you can sniff out who is in it for the public benefit is and who is doing "'private, separate advantage" and buccaneering, sometimes, is to dig into where the money is going.

The Southern Revanchist takeover of the GOP

There is a great article today In a Blog by Doug Muder, titled The Weakly Sift, titled "Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party" [Not a Tea Party] which so expresses what I've been feeling for some time. That it adds some additional clarity. He writes about how Lincoln agonized about the Civil war, while he realized after after reading the book "Jefferson Davis, American" that Jefferson Davis wanted to prolong it. He then notes that, although the USA won the first part of the civil war:

"Here’s what my teachers’ should have told me: “Reconstruction was the second phase of the Civil War. It lasted until 1877, when the Confederates won.” I think that would have gotten my attention." Weekly Sift]

The Campaign against the 7th Amendment right to trial by Jury

I believe that the right to a Jury trial in Civil trials is a fundamental right that ought to be up to the discretion of the litigants and not the judges. And I believe that the 7th Amendment establishes that right. I also believe that it is our Justices and Legislators who are infringing on that right by denying people access to Jury trials, illegally reducing their findings of fact on Jury awards, and using "standing" arguments to deny due process in civil proceedings.

Jury Trials, Judicial Tyranny and the Seventh Amendment

I believe that people have a 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil proceedings if they wish it and that the case for that is established in the history of Common Law and the creation of the 7th amendment.