Year in review

Posted: 1 January 2018 in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Banksy-Eternity1

It’s the start of a new year, and thus the appropriate time to look back on the old one.

Over the course of 2017, I cut back on the number of posts (to a total of about 600), partly because I decided not to post on weekends (other than cartoons) and partly because I shifted some of what had been shorter posts in the past to my Twitter feed.*

Still, the posts on the blog received about 100 thousand views—half from the United States and the other half from 180 or so different countries and territories around the world—during 2017.

As I noted at the time, the blog reached one million total views in March. And, according to my rough calculations, I have written something on the order of two million words in more than five thousand posts since I started the blog in 2009.

Here are the individual posts (most from 2017, some from previous years) that received the most views last year:

The unholy alliance of Trump voters

Radicals versus liberals

Hillbilly Elegy

Capital (gains) vs. labor (income)

Poverty of redistribution liberalism

Neoclassical economists and the minimum wage

Nobel economics: the behaviorism of economic decisions and its secret

Capitalocene

Trickledown economics—then and now

Narrative economics

Class, in a nutshell

The top and the very top

Why human capital is not capital

“Labour is a disgrace”

Globalization—how did they get it so wrong?

Late capitalism?

White trash

I want to thank the folks at the Real-World Economics Review BlogProgress in Political Economy, and Democracy at Work for reposting some of the items that originally appeared here, thus expanding the conversation.

I especially want to thank the many readers—Wordpress and email followers (more than a thousand of you), as well as regular and infrequent visitors—who, my hope is, find the occasional useful insights in what I link to and comment on. . .

 

*My plan is to cut back the number of posts even further in 2018, in order to have more time to work on my current book, “Utopia and Critique.”

download

Special mention

FishYearinReview_1000

204492

Special mention

Missing  7_ChrisBritt_TrumpPoor_122417dAPR

profits-stocks

There’s no real mystery behind the spectacular gains in the stock market over the course of 2017. Much of it can be explained by the rise in U.S. corporate profits.

But, as is clear from the chart above, the relationship between corporate profits (after tax, in red, measured on the right-hand side) and the stock market (the Dow Jones Industrial Index, in blue on the left) actually goes back almost a decade. Corporate profits have increased, from their low in the fourth quarter of 2008, some 176 percent. Meanwhile, the stock market has risen 182 percent from its own low in the first quarter of 2009.

Corporate profits are, of course, a signal to investors that their stocks will likely rise in value. Moreover, increased profits allow corporations themselves to buy back a portion of their stocks. Finally, wealthy individuals, who manage to capture a large share of the growing surplus appropriated by corporations, have had a larger and larger mountain cash to speculate on stocks.

Clearly, the United States has had a profit-led recovery since the crash of 2007-08, which is both a cause and consequence of the stock-market bubble.

However, that recovery has left most other Americans behind. First, corporate profits have increased in large part because workers’ wages have largely stagnated. Second, most American workers don’t own any stocks, either directly or indirectly. Stock ownership itself is highly concentrated, as the top 10 percent of households own well over 80 percent of the U.S. stock market.

And looking forward? I don’t make predictions but it’s obvious that the Republican administration is determined to do all it can to keep corporate profits growing and to make sure wealthy individuals keep a larger share of the surplus they receive. As long as that happens, we’ll continue to see the kind of lopsided recovery—including banner gains in the stock market—that has characterized the U.S. economy for the better part of the past decade.

121217SteevBreen_Creators

Special mention

20171221edohc-a_RGB  20171220edshe-b

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Over the course of the last two days, I’ve discussed mean gifts (which promise significant tax relief only to a small group of corporations and wealthy individuals) and mean exchanges (which leave middle-class Americans with a declining share of national income).

Now, thanks to recently completed Reuters investigation, we’re forced to confront the reality in the United States of mean exchanges that transform generous donations into desperate, mean gifts. I’m referring to the largely unregulated trade in body parts.

The selling of body parts—heads, knees, feet, torsos, and entire bodies—actually begins with the gifting of the bodies of deceased Americans, who have decided to donate their bodies to science. But in many cases it’s a mean gift, not because of the intentions of the givers (who in many cases do want to contribute to the advancement of the scientific study of the human body), but because body brokers often prey on poor people (who can’t afford the price of a proper burial).

The industry’s business model hinges on access to a large supply of free bodies, which often come from the poor. In return for a body, brokers typically cremate a portion of the donor at no charge. By offering free cremation, some deathcare industry veterans say, brokers appeal to low-income families at their most vulnerable. Many have drained their savings paying for a loved one’s medical treatment and can’t afford a traditional funeral.

“People who have financial means get the chance to have the moral, ethical and spiritual debates about which method to choose,” said Dawn Vander Kolk, an Illinois hospice social worker. “But if they don’t have money, they may end up with the option of last resort: body donation.”

Then, the body brokers—aka non-transplant tissue banks (that are distinct from organ and tissue transplant banks, which the U.S. government closely regulates)—turn around and sell or rent bodies and body parts for use in research or education.*

“The current state of affairs is a free-for-all,” said Angela McArthur, who directs the body donation program at the University of Minnesota Medical School and formerly chaired her state’s anatomical donation commission. “We are seeing similar problems to what we saw with grave-robbers centuries ago,” she said, referring to the 19th-century practice of obtaining cadavers in ways that violated the dignity of the dead.

“I don’t know if I can state this strongly enough,” McArthur said. “What they are doing is profiting from the sale of humans.”

The body brokers can charge what they want to for cadavers or deceased body parts. They negotiate prices with with research facilities—$250 for a hand, $450 for a knee, $5000 for a whole body—and even put their inventory on sale when they become overstocked.

PROCESS

The result is a profitable exchange for the body brokers—who of course are getting their raw materials for free—and the destruction of the gifts people have attempted to make to science.

Gail Williams-Sears, a nurse in Newport News, Virginia, said neither she nor her father realized Science Care might profit when he donated his body before his death in 2013. John M. Williams Jr, who lived 88 years, served in World War II and the Korean War, earned a master’s degree in social work and spent decades in Maryland state government advocating for children.

“Dad was very frugal,” his daughter said. “He thought it was ridiculous to pay a large amount of money to be put in the ground.” His decision to donate his body was also motivated by a lifelong interest in good health, his Christian faith and science fiction books and movies, she said. Whenever he was admitted to the hospital, he made sure to bring the donor documents with him, in case he died, his daughter said.

“I don’t remember anything in the literature that said anything about them selling his body,” she said. “I thought it was just his body going for research and it wasn’t to get gains off of someone’s charity. Well, I guess we’ve gotten to a world where everybody just makes money off of everything.”

The United States is now based on an economy in which many people can’t afford to die, and whose final gifts to science are annulled by the profit-making exchanges of largely unregulated body brokers.

 

*Selling hearts, kidneys and tendons for transplant is illegal in the United States. But no federal law governs the sale of cadavers or body parts to academic, medical, or scientific facilities.

rss.tribunecontentagency.com20171219edshe-b-1024x664

Special mention

RallT20171227_low MarguJ20171226_low