Neoclassical economists are in fact from Mars

Gavin Kennedy:

Neoclassical economists separate economics not just from societies as they operate and have long operated in the real world, but also from actual human behaviours generally.  The monolithic self-interest of the mathematical mind is fitted into a one-dimensional theory of human behaviour (brilliantly identified as'MaxU" by Deirdre McCloskey).  One-dimensional is the only way that the complex shades of human motivations can work in calculus and produce basic curves so wonderfully illustrated in basic textbook diagrams and memorised by brigades of students.  Once these familiar Economics 101 diagrams are etched in the visual memories of graduates, the implications of much in postgraduate minds becomes Jesuit-like irremovable, especially those who have never studied Smithian political economy, which just about covers most of them....

.... 

For [Adam] Smith, man is and always was a social animal.  He has never been a lone figure facing an utterly hostile world. Hobbes’s assertion of a solitary life of man ”as poor,nasty, brutish, and short” is imaginative to suit his subsequent thesis and never was a description of mankind (it does not even correspond to the lives of our nearest cousins, the chimpanzees, who like us share a common ancestor).  Man has always lived in societies with other men (and, of course, women) and mostly lived long enough to breed feed the group and thereby propagate the species for the past 200,000 years (and our predecessors for several millions years before then, whatever bronze-age tribes after 800 BCE wandering around the near-East imagined.

Employment Report: The New Normal Sucks...

Its lovely to graduate into an economy creating enough McJobs for Ezra Klein to say its pretty good jobs report ! !  

Thank you President Bush, thank you President Obama, thank you Congress---its been a bipartisan effort and I have to say... the new normal sucks.

Dean Baker:

The Labor Department reported the economy added 195,000 jobs in June. With upward revisions to the prior two months data, this brings the average gain over the last three months to 196,000. While the unemployment rate was unchanged at 7.6 percent, the employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) edged up to 58.7 percent, the highest since last November. 

Job growth was again heavily concentrated, with restaurants (51,700), retail trade (37,100) and employment services (18,600) accounting for more than half of the job growth in June. Total job growth in these sectors has averaged 105,000 over the last three months. These are all low-paying sectors to which workers turn when better-paying jobs are not available....

 ....This job report was somewhat better than had generally been expected, especially with the upward revisions to the prior two months’ data. There are still serious grounds for concern about the strength of the economy going forward. Job growth is unusually highly concentrated in low-paying sectors. This is not a sign of a healthy labor market. In this respect, it is striking that we continue to see a respectable rate of job creation in an economy that is growing at less than a 2.0 percent annual rate. The trend rate of growth is usually estimated at 2.2 to 2.4 percent. The other point worth remembering is that even at the 195,000 job pace of the last three months, it would take us to the end of the decade to make up the economy 8.5 million job deficit.

 Brad Delong:

A GOOD EMPLOYMENT REPORT BY OUR CURRENT LOW BAR OF DIMINISHED EXPECTATIONS

Since mid-2011, the U.S. economy has only been creating jobs at a pace fast enough to raise the employment to population ratio by half a percentage point.

Paul Krugman:

And mass unemployment goes on.

So how does this end? Here’s a depressing thought: maybe it doesn’t.
True, something could come along — a new technology that induces lots of investment, a war, or maybe just a sufficient accumulation of “use, decay, and obsolescence”, as Keynes put it. But at this point I have real doubts about whether there will be events that force policy action. 

First of all, I think many of us used to believe that sustained high unemployment would lead to substantial, perhaps accelerating deflation — and that this would push policymakers into doing something forceful. It’s now clear, however, that the relationship between inflation and unemployment flattens out at low inflation rates. We can probably have high unemployment and stable prices in Europe and America for a very long time — and all the wise heads will insist that it’s all structural, and nothing can be done until the public accepts drastic cuts in the safety net.

But won’t there be an ever-growing demand from the public for action? Actually, that’s not at all clear. While there is growing “austerity fatigue” in Europe, and this might provoke a crisis, the overwhelming result from U.S. political studies is that the level of unemployment matters hardly at all for elections; all that matters is the rate of change in the months leading up to the election. In other words, high unemployment could become accepted as the new normal, politically as well as in economic analysis.

I guess what I’m saying is that I worry that a more or less permanent depression could end up simply becoming accepted as the way things are, that we could suffer endless, gratuitous suffering, yet the political and policy elite would feel no need to change its ways.

 When do people start picking up their pitchforks?  I mean seriously...

GOP Campaign Platform 2014: Erode Wages/Destroy Jobs (Its not just Karen Handle)

So I caught a post this morning Four Years Into Recovery, Austerity’s Toll is At Least 3 Million Jobs via todays Next New Deal daily email

It reminded me I really want to revisit the pressing need in our state, and all across the country, to prioritize improving the labor market.

The other day I caught a tweet via Bryan Long

Young adults don't work because there are too many gvmt entitlements. http://t.co/GykDRaYzvQ Good logic Karen Handel. #gapol
— bryanlong (@bryanlong) July 1, 2013

Basically, Karen Handel, a Republican running for Senate here in Georgia thinks Government assistance is the reason people aren't working.

I was slightly amused because it exposed two things about Handel 1)she doesn't really have a clue whats happening on the ground across the country and 2) either she doesn't understand how the labor-leisure curves in microeconomics 101 works, or she does and it proves she is just doing the bidding of business owners.

Handle recommends we use Government coercion--which ends up immiserating not only the "lazy people" she claims just don't want to work but harms those already working 40, 50...60 hours at 2 and 3 jobs by lowering their wages and making their life harder as well.

So rather than allow market forces to do what they do best Handel thinks Stalin was on to something and we just immiesrate everyone to force a few bad apples off the Government benefits.  Its pretty appalling once you dig past the "I'm not politically correct" conservative-cool kid facade.

I quickly blasted off blog post (Karen Handle for Senate Platform: Erode Wages and Destroy Jobs)   while my wife was napping to break this down at length.

But I think its important to follow up on this post because it exposes a fundamental fault line within Republican policymakers more broadly.  I look around and I don't think I see a single Republican in Georgia who is fighting to improve the labor market in this state.**

They are perfectly happy watching hard working citizens fall further and further behind as long as profits are being made for the dwindling number of businesses able to stay afloat.  They shrug their shoulders and say the outcomes come from individual entrepreneurship and hard work--yet a stronger labor market would create more profits for entrepreneurs.  A stronger labor market would reduce unemployment and create more space for new entrepreneurs to join in the mix.  A win-win for all of us.

Our priority, when we see skyrocketing usage of food stamps or large numbers of long term unemployed workers shouldn't be to find ways to reduce the ability to acquire the safety-net but to improve the labor market--driving wages and benefits up for all workers.

Basically Karen Handle wants to destroy your safetynet and put downward pressure on your wages and benefits in order to punish lazy people.

Karen Handle wants to let the current winners in our economy keep on winning and throw hard working citizens under the bus--all in order to "show those lazy bums" whose boss.  Its not inspiring leadership.  Its not an agenda that will bring prosperity to our state or nation.  And its not a pretty picture when I look around and don't see a single Republican voice in this state looking to improve the labor market.

I don't think Karen Handle is alone.  I'd argue the entire Georgia GOP has taken this platform position.

We should expect to see the: Erode Wages/Destroy Jobs campaign platform from Republicans up and down the ballot in 2014.  Not only in Georgia but all across the nation.

[**Actually, as a point of clarification most Republicans I know at least say they want to improve the labor market, but I'm speaking of elected officials, TV entertainers, and policymakers who make up the "Republican agenda" and churn out the talking points.  I just think most Republicans I know don't connect the dots on the economic policy and realize their leadership are putting the interests of a small slice of rent seeking business owners--the "donor class"--ahead of whats best for all of us.]

**** For more on the Labor/Leisure curve I'm talking about check out this short and sweet video for the basic principles.  I argue that Handle is pointing to the substitution effect dominating the income effect (at some utility curve below the U1 in this video) and that we need to shift wages upwards so that the income effect can mobilize people into the job market--using the price system not Government force.

Karen Handle for Senate Platform: Erode Wages and Destroy Jobs.

So Karen Handle thinks that Government assistance is the reason people are out of work.



The reality is that working people of this nation face nothing short of a depression.  The political elites seem disinclined to do anything about it (see: recent fixation and prioritization of short term deficits over the very real problem of getting people working again).

Krugman has been writing about this war on the unemployed recently here and here. Noting that efforts to make people desperate via a reduction of unemployment benefits would add fire to the crisis:

While cutting unemployment benefits will make the unemployed even more desperate, it will do nothing to create more jobs — which means that even if some of those currently unemployed do manage to find work, they will do so only by taking jobs away from those currently employed.

But wait — what about supply and demand? Won’t making the unemployed desperate put downward pressure on wages? And won’t lower labor costs encourage job growth? No — that’s a fallacy of composition. Cutting one worker’s wage may help save his or her job by making that worker cheaper than competing workers; but cutting everyone’s wages just reduces everyone’s income — and it worsens the burden of debt, which is one of the main forces holding the economy back.

Oh, and let’s not forget that cutting benefits to the unemployed, many of whom are living hand-to-mouth, will lead to lower overall spending — again, worsening the economic situation, and destroying more jobs.

Another real world reminder of how out of touch people like Handle are is the SNAP Challenge.  It is an effort to encourages people to experience what life is like for millions of low-income Americans living on the average daily allowance of only $4.  The rules of the SNAP challenge are:

• Each person should only spend $4 per day on food and drink.
• All food purchased and eaten in this time must be counted in total spending - this includes dining out.
• During this time, do not eat any food purchased prior to the start of the Challenge.
• Whenever possible, avoid accepting free food from family, friends and coworkers since these opportunities are not always available to those in need.
• Eat as healthy as possible, keeping in mind that this is how many people eat every day, whereas you can make up for lost nutrients next week.

A number of stand up members of Congress took the SNAP Challenge including an aide to a GOP congressman who failed at it, not even making it a week.

When there are 3 job seekers for every job opening the facts just do not fit Handle's claim.

But I wanted to take a second, to be fair, and accept it for a moment to see what it tells us about Handle's capacity as a policymaker to solve this problem as it will tell us more about Karen Handle and who guides her views. In the end the question of just how horrid the economy is for working people is far less important than the solutions and ways forward--especially when we are talking about someone who wants to make policy for us.

Handle proposes that we just cut the safety-net out from under people to make them more desperate.  As Krugman has noted this is just mean-spiritied; and while it speaks to her values I'd argue that more importantly it speaks to her beliefs about markets.

The GOP are famous for claiming to love the market system but then just end up pushing the priorities of rent seeking businesses.  This is another example.  Handle wants to make business owners happy by putting a downward pressure on wages.  She wants to do so at a time when hard working Georgians who are doing the exact thing Handle says they should be doing---playing by the rules, getting a job (or two or three), paying their taxes--are already desperate and unable to keep their heads above water.

Handle wants to punish lazy people and to succeed in her goal of doing so she is willing to throw hardworking people under the bus.  The problem we face is one of the types of jobs our economy is creating.  The fact is, good jobs are on decline and we have to start electing policymakers willing to implement strategies that will help incentivize good jobs.  The Center for Economic and Policy Research has done great research looking into the decline of good jobs in this country.

But Handle doesn't want to worry about the decline of good jobs and she does not want to look for market based solutions to the challenges we face. Handle wants to do the opposite--via cutting the safetynet--not out of a love of the market system, but out of a love of her political donors in the business community.

If Handle truly loved the market system she would seek to restructure the market so that upward pressure on wages inspired those "lazy bums" back in to the work arena.  Remember, her claim is that people are satisfied "on the dole" so to speak--wages are not incentivizing people into the workforce.

As John Schmitt and Janelle Jones note in their report Making Jobs Good, there has been, "a substantial decline over the last three decades in the share of “good jobs” in the U.S. economy. This fall-off in job quality took place despite a large increase in the educational attainment and age of the workforce, as well as the productivity of the average U.S. worker."

The fact that Handle skips over the jobs crisis we face is worth noting but again let accept her fundamental claim and see what markets tell us about this problem and why?

The reason wages are not pushing people into the job market is that good jobs are not being created.  To utilize markets rather than Government force is something she might cheer in theory but she seems to take a more authoritarian position.  I think it was Lenin who once said ’If you don’t work, you don’t eat" and its a claim that I believe was ingrained in the Stalin-era 1936 Constitution of the USSR.

Handle wants us to embrace these Soviet Era truths as the solution.

Remember, market prices, to crib Hayek and Mises, bring individual actions and decisions into harmony with each other, with no guidance from any higher source.  If the paltry safety net is what is keeping some people from utilizing their resources in a more productive manner, then we should want to see higher wages and better jobs that drive people back into the job market.  For a worker both labor and leisure are desirable economic goods.  Handle is making the claim that market prices are keeping leisure more highly valued than labor and her answer to use Government coercion to change behaviors.

If Handle was looking for culprit of the dwindling work ethic she sees around her, she might--if she was a believer in markets--point the decline of good jobs across the nation.  She might point out that this change in our economy didn't just happen as a fluke but occurred via policy changes and political priorities and she might try to provide the leadership to push for changes to restructure our markets to start creating better jobs.  Lets face it, its going to require major leadership and political firepower on both sides of the aisle to bring about the changes we need  to fix the decline in quality jobs. I for one wish Handle would be on board to do so.

Sadly, Karen Handles answer is to use state power to increase immiseration and remove what little safety-net we currently have.  Karen Handle wants to put downward pressure on wages not just for the lazy bums but those already working two and three jobs.  We should be seeking policies that improve labor market conditions so that the rise of wages bring people back into the workforce and off of Government assistance.

Karen Handle wants to crib her Senate campaign platform from Lenin and Stalin to force compliance in a miserable economy.  Lets all hope, for the sake of everyone, that the Georgia GOP nominate someone who wants to crib their political platform from market liberals like Hayek and Mises who opposed Government force/coercion and believed in the power of markets to harness to motivate individual actions.

UPDATE: Also see my follow up post.

Do not run for public office if you have no interest in Governing.

Republicans are proving once again they have zero interest in governing:

Over the past hundred days, Republicans have blocked 15 separate attempts to go to a budget conference with the House of Representatives. Now that the House and Senate have passed their own versions, each is supposed to appoint representatives to a committee that reconciles them into one bill that can be passed by each body and signed by the president.

If you don't want to govern then why are you seeking public office?

The biggest threat to the GOP philosophy is a functional government--thats why they fight to hard to underfund it and use every trick in the book to block efforts to get anything accomplished.

Learning to build a political movement: five lessons from North Carolina

I am a firm believer that there needs to be a conscious effort by citizens to reengage themselves with the political process--dragging their friends and family, kicking and screaming, along with them.

We don't build a democratic movement responsive to the interests and concerns of everyday people by voting once every four years focusing on picking the right leader to solve things.  We build a democratic movement by investing ourselves in the larger community.  Identifying local issues and campaigns to take part in.  Growing networks of people willing to confront political power in the streets and in the halls of power not just when administrators of society deem it appropriate (election day) but when those in power are doing wrong.

We have to learn how to build up effective coalitions willing to force power to respond.

Learning to leverage political power via democratic actions means we have to learn how to protest and confront power in the most impactful ways possible.

Thats why I like this post by Scott Keyes over at Think Progress on: What Future Protests Can Learn From Moral Mondays

Scott provides a recap of five lessons we should all learn from the awesome work taking place in North Carolina so that we are all able to organize better, more effective protests:

Training protesters beforehand. Moral Monday organizers left no stone unturned in preparing protestors prior to the event. Three hours before it began, organizers met with about 250 protestors at a nearby church. Those who had previously been arrested were instructed to sit in the right pews — getting arrested for protesting twice carries a much larger penalty — while those who were willing to be arrested that day were told to sit on the left. After a series of speeches and songs, lawyers and organizers came in to instruct those who would engage in civil disobedience exactly what to expect, what to do, and what not to do. The organizers walked them meticulously through each step — what the police would tell them, where to stand, not to resist, what they would be charged with, what the booking process would be like, and so forth — and gave each person willing to be arrested a green armband so as to identify and separate them from the rest of the crowd. By the end of the training, each protester knew exactly how to conduct themselves. With thousands of protesters on hand later that day, this training beforehand kept the event from spiraling out of control, particularly as the arrests began coming down.

Cooperate with police. One hallmark of the protests were how cooperative they were with law enforcement throughout the process. Organizers understood that police officers were not the enemy. (In fact, because the police don’t have collective bargaining rights in North Carolina, protesters were advocating on their behalf as well.) ThinkProgress spoke with officers who lauded how organizers had cooperated with them throughout every step of the process, keeping them informed of what time they would set up, where folks would organize, and so on. On the rare occasion that a protester began hurling insults at an officer, organizers were quick to intervene and remind the individual who the actual opponents were. Cooperating with the police kept the protests civil, even as arrests happened, thus keeping the focus on the rally’s message instead of on clashes with officers. One policeman told ThinkProgress that, in his experience, protesters had been “very nice,” “orderly,” and “great to deal with.”

Putting your most sympathetic activists front and center. Protests and movements often garner the most attention when there’s an individual or two whose life embodies the struggle at hand. That’s not to say that outside observers don’t pay attention to the abstract cause of voter suppression, for instance, but it becomes far more tangible for onlookers when there is a person whose individual voting rights are being threatened. Moral Monday organizers understand this. On the June 24th protest, they put 92-year-oldRosanell Eaton front and center, leading the group of 120 protesters as they walked into the legislative building and prepared to be arrested. Eaton had grown up in the Jim Crow South and had been forced 70 years ago to remember and recite the preamble to the Constitution on the spot just to register to vote. Now, with North Carolina considering voter ID legislation that could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of minorities in the state, she felt the need to stand up and protest. “She thought things were smooth sailing,” her daughter, Armenta, told ThinkProgress. “She’s seen the good, bad, and the ugly. Now she’s seeing the ugly again.” Putting these sympathetic characters up front makes it far more likely a protest will garner media attention.

Supporting those getting arrested. Throughout the day, organizers and protesters were able to create a remarkable sense of community, especially in support of those who chose to be arrested. Half of those gathered at the church organizing meeting beforehand were supporters who wouldn’t be getting arrested that day, but came out to support those who would anyway. At the actual event, just before protesters marched inside the legislative building, thousands of supporters lined up in two columns to create a tunnel walk for those engaged in civil disobedience, chanting “thank you” and showering the marchers with hugs and handshakes. Afterward, hundreds gathered outside to cheer on those arrested as they were loaded onto the paddywagon buses parked outside. Finally, many drove out to the county detention center to greet arrestees as they were released, cheering loudly as each new person exited the building. Though each action may not have been monumentous by itself, collectively they created a strong sense of community that not only supported those making a big sacrifice, but also encouraged others to do so on future Moral Mondays.

Meticulous organization. Every step of the process, from the initial meeting at the church to the press conference highlighting individuals who were impacted by North Carolina lawmakers’ decisions to the protest itself, was highly organized. Protests are notoriously unpredictable affairs, but an ounce of organization can head off major problems. For example, as protesters streamed into the state legislative building, organizers were on hand to count the number of people going in and cut it off after a certain amount, lest they overcrowd the small building and force police to shut the entire protest down. In addition, organizers kept those thousands of people who couldn’t fit in the legislative building engaged with other support activities, like demonstrating out by the buses to support those who had been arrested, or carpooling out to the detention center to greet them afterward. Finally, a potluck back at the church was organized afterward where protesters could debrief and swap stories about the day.

Shelby County v. Holder is a setback for democracy at the local level...

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder is a setback for democracy.  Spencer Overton makes a really important addendum to that point-- Shelby County v. Holder is especially a setback for democracy at the local level.

This explains why the GOP is so thrilled about the ruling.

I'll outsource to Overton:

Overwhelming evidence shows that too many politicians continue to win elections by unfairly manipulating election rules based on how voters look or talk. The Court’s decision makes this problem worse. The biggest problem will be the manipulation of election rules for local offices that are often non-partisan and escape national attention.

In Nueces County, Texas, for example, the rapidly growing Latino community surpassed 56 percent of the county’s population, and in response, county officials gerrymandered county commission election districts to weaken the Latino vote.

Without Section 5 protections to block this type of racial manipulation, Americans in areas like Nueces County will be vulnerable to unfair election changes. Voters often lack the thousands and sometimes millions of dollars required to bring a lawsuit to stop unfair changes. Even aside from expense, lawsuits are not the best tools to protect voting rights. Lawsuits can take years, and too often, do not stop unfair voting rules before they are used in elections.

Though we tend to focus more on national politics, the manipulation of local election rules has significant consequences. County commissioners, city and town council members, school board members, sheriffs and other elected local officials make important decisions related to education, criminal justice, human services and economic opportunity that shape our daily lives.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress should work together to address these problems and modernize the Voting Rights Act. Specifically, Congress should: (1) update the Act’s preclearance and litigation provisions; and (2) require that states and localities disclose new voting rules and their effects on voters.

The fixation on national politics and sexy issues is a major problem.  The erosion of this Federal check on local abuse of power here in the South is worrisome.

The decline of Western Civilization... #gaPol edition

So Gov. Nathan Deal’s controversial political appointee Phil Kent called for a culture war here in Georgia in response to the Supreme Court DOMA ruling.

I rolled my eyes earlier today.
  
But I think its worth reflecting on.  This effort to reignite a culture war is another reminder that Dixiecrats of a generation ago have all shifted over to the GOP.

The Dixiecrats one trick pony is to use Chrisitanity and fear of the "other".

Sadly Dixiecrats have taken control of the GOP here in Georgia.  At a time when we should be focusing on jobs and investment in our future we have to shift our focus to bronze age social practices...

Should you call for a "culture war" when you have no clue what you are talking about?

Appears Phil Kent, the anti-immigrant extremist appointed by Republican Governor Nathan Deal,  called for a culture war on Fox TV yesterday on the Georgia Gang in response to the DOMA ruling.


Pardon me for rolling my eyes.

The entire "traditional marriage" angry white male shtick played well in the 80's and 90's; but it looks down right silly in 2013 when everyone and their sister has easy access to this newfangled intra-nets thing-y.

Now that we have google all we need to do to learn about "traditional marriage" is check out some of the most recent work being done by anthropologists--you know, the people who spend their lives studying and researching human culture and traditions.

It just so happens within one minute I had located a response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage .  Bush like Kent sees gay marriage as a "threat to civilization". The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists responded to Bush at the time:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

In a news article on the AAA's statement  in 2004, Dan Segal, a professor of anthropology and history from Pitzer College noted the "traditional marriage" claim was patently false and that anyone with one semester of Anthropology under their belt would know that.  Segal provided a few examples:

"sanctified same-sex unions in the fourth century in Christianity" and to the Greeks and Romans applying the concept of marriage to same-sex couples, not to mention the Native American berdache tradition in which males married males."

Just type-- donatio propter nuptias--  into a search engine for pete's sake!

This may be a good time to remind you blue state liberals that the state Legislatures in red America is really where all the major action is going to be over the next decade.  Invest your political dollars accordingly.

Here in Georgia we just got redistricted by a Republican controlled legislature with some serious Flat Earth Society credentials; Phil Kent is just the tip of the iceberg, I kid you not.

No matter how silly it is, you haven't seen the last of the culture war flag waving over the DOMA ruling, as it brings up the turnout numbers of the right wing on election day.  A right wing that sadly has a lot of political clout in Georgia.

But nevermind all that, Phil Kent just reminded me I never received a dowry from the Gullege family back in 2008 when I got married.

I want my cattle and land!

DOMA, a stagnant economy, and we are Ready for Hillary?---Caveat emptor

Yesterday's DOMA ruling struck me as missing one important note--Bill Clinton brought you DOMA.

It reminded me of how vacuous and disconcerting the Ready for Hillary efforts are in terms of reminding us that the majority of politically engaged people really aren't that politically engaged at all.

From appearances on Facebook the bulk of the Ready for Hillary crew seem to be politico's trying to line themselves up a campaign job or political appointments and then those who are utterly oblivious to what actually happened during the Clinton years and the economic and political agenda they pushed.

So I picked up my copy of Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems and was reading through the opening  introduction on the early Clinton years to refresh my memory.

As Ferguson points out, much of the efforts of the Clinton administration was built around appeal to Republican votes (such as DOMA) and massive lobbying of the business community.

The horrid economy that is producing massive profits for CEO's but zero quality jobs and an army of multinational corporate-employed part time workers--yeah Clinton helped lay the groundwork.  The trades deals full of protectionisms for the 1% and free markets for you and yours--an agenda of Government redistribution of wealth upwards.  Yeah, all of that was in part brought to you by the Clinton team.

Its a team that is working to get us Ready for Hillary.... Caveat emptor.