David Mason's Blog

David Mason Commented on China Now Has World's 3 Largest Banks by David Mason

2009-04-07T12:27:48Z

I agree completely, NCD. In my book, and on my site, I have written often about how out-of-line CEO salaries in the US are, compared to other countries and compared to past decades in the U.S. And the financial industry, including the bankers, have been among the worst culprits.

See my blog on "CEO Pay and the Bailout"--from last fall--even before all the s*** hit the fan.

http://endoftheamericancentury.blogspot.com/2008/09/ceo-pay-and-bailout.html

David Mason Commented on It Takes a European to Prosecute U.S. Torturers by David Mason

2009-04-04T12:39:00Z

I would not defend Bashir, but it seems to me there are just as many legal grounds to indict Bush for war crimes as there are against Bashir. One reason, perhaps, why Bush was so opposed to the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court!

David Mason Commented on The Limits Of Power by Lila Shapiro

2009-03-29T18:09:12Z

Andrew Bacevich visited Butler University a few weeks ago, so we had a chance to discuss his books and his ideas with him. I have posted a review of his book and that discussion on my blog at: http://endoftheamericancentury.blogspot.com/2009/03/andrew-bacevich-on-limits-of-us-power.html

David Mason recommended The Limits Of Power by Lila Shapiro

2009-02-02T17:17:49Z

David Mason Commented on Limit Bailout CEOs to U.S. President's Salary by David Mason

2009-02-03T20:20:57Z

Bill, I focus on CEO pay mainly as a symbolic measure. It is simply bad form for these guys to be taking home millions when taxpayers are bailing them out. But I also think that symbolism is important, and that such limits might send a message about the excesses, greed and extravagance of top executives in corporate America. One of the points of my post is that these levels of compensation are far out of line with past levels, and with those in other countries.

Merrill--I think it is irrelevant whether or not these particular CEOs are scoundrels (though I think some of them are!). It is just that the chiefs of the firms receiving the most bailout money should not be using taxpayer money, in essence, to feather their own nests.

David Mason recommended Limit Bailout CEOs to U.S. President's Salary by David Mason

2009-01-31T20:25:44Z

David Mason recommended Retrenchment, Not Recovery by David Mason

2009-01-27T21:19:54Z

David Mason Commented on Retrenchment, Not Recovery by David Mason

2009-01-29T00:24:23Z

Thanks for both A and B, Thera. As to A, can you tell me how to edit posts I have already made? I am relatively new to TPM, and I haven't been able to figure out how to edit things I have already posted.

On B, I think you are right on. But it going to be a huge problem for the economy as a whole if it is "without consumers." No consumers=no production=no jobs. I see this as part of a seismic shift in the U.S., and in the global economy. But I am not at all sure what it means coming out the other end!

David Mason Commented on This is not the time to cut taxes by David Mason

2009-01-13T23:09:23Z

I would encourage people to read the whole op-ed piece at the CSM link. My post was simply an excerpt from that piece. In the original, I mention that there is almost no economic or historical evidence that shows that tax cuts lead to net increases in government revenue. And we are desperately in need of such revenue, at a time when the government is bankrupt and the spending needs overwhelming.

As to macroeconomics, most textbooks suggest that tax cuts generate much less economic activity than government spending. And at least two Nobel prize winning economists, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, have argued as I do against (most) tax cuts.

David Mason recommended U.S. Continues to Flout International Law: The Cluster Bomb Treaty by David Mason

2008-12-19T17:07:21Z

David Mason Commented on U.S. Continues to Flout International Law: The Cluster Bomb Treaty by David Mason

2008-12-19T22:34:31Z

In response to El Presidente, not signing a single particular treaty might not be flouting international law. But rejecting this treaty was part of a broader pattern of the U.S. rejecting (and sometimes violating) international treaties. The problem has been particularly bad under Bush, but predates him.

Before I wrote the title for my piece, I wondered if "flout" was too strong a word, so I looked it up in the dictionary. Flout is "to treat with disdain, scorn or contempt; scoff at; mock." The behavior of the current administration, at least, toward international law, international moral standards, and international organizations soundly fits that definition, in my view.

David Mason Commented on The End of Affluence by David Mason

2008-12-04T16:10:11Z

I am relatively new to blogging, and to TPM, but I am so impressed with the smart, thought-provoking and civil (!) comments here. I wish some of you would come post such gems on my own site!

As Thera points out, there are so many elements of this thread it is difficult to deal with them all. But let me try to respond to some of them.

First of all, I hasten to point out that I certainly do not favor the immiseration of the U.S. worker and consumer! My post was simply pointing out what is already happening, and bound to continue. I absolutely agree with Destor, Purble, Bluebell and others the the American worker has gotten the shaft over the last decade or so. Indeed, this is a central premise of my book. For most Americans, real wages have remained stagnant since the 1970s, and the only reason that HOUSEHOLD incomes have increased is because more of the family members (especially women) are now working. The only real INCREASES in incomes have been among the richest fifth of the population, and especially among the richest 5 percent. (If I could figure out how, I could post here a copy of Figure 2.1 from my book on "Average Household Incomes of Rich and Poor, 1967-2006". They are flat fro all groups except the very top ones).

This leads to another point made by SleepinJeezus, Zeno, Tiggers, Dorn and others that what this country needs is wealth redistribution. I also agree totally with that. Compared to the other rich countries in the world (i.e. the 30 or so OECD countries), the U.S. has about the most unequal distribution of wealth and incomes, and the highest rates of poverty. In my book, I point to the multiple dimensions of inequality in the U.S. as a principle factor in U.S. domestic and international decline. It damages our education system, our health care system, our political system, and our image abroad.

Eds and others point to the need for more investment in education, technology, infrastructure, etc. to help rebuild the U.S. I also agree with that. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that the U.S. educational system is the best in the world, as you so often here politicians saying. We may have some of the best universities in the world. But on average, and by almost every comparative measure, the U.S. educational system is pretty dismal, and U.S. students at all levels fare poorly in comparisons with, and in competition with, those in other countries.

So I agree with just about all of you that consumption is not the CAUSE of all of our problems, and that there are many solutions besides simply cutting back on our spending. My argument is that this cutback is inevitable, given the hole we have dug ourselves into. And while we need wealth distribution and much more spending on health care, education, infrastructure, innovation, etc., this is going to be very tough in a situation where the government is bankrupt and the economy is in steep decline.

David Mason Commented on U.S. Intelligence Predicts Declining U.S. Global Influence by David Mason

2008-12-01T21:24:11Z

An interesting thought, Tanya. I would add another example: the European Union. The intellectual founders of the original Common Market (Monnet and Schuman) believed that countries that trade with each other are less likely to fight each other. So setting up a free trade area between serial enemies Germany and France was seen as a way to build cooperation from the bottom up, and lessen the likelihood of yet another war. So far it has worked!