"Legal" corporate crime

 Krugman @ NYTs:

In recent decisions, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has made clear its view that corporations are people, with all the attendant rights. They are entitled to free speech, which in their case means spending lots of money to bend the political process to their ends. They are entitled to religious beliefs, including those that mean denying benefits to their workers...

There is, however, one big difference between corporate persons and the likes of

you and me: On current trends, we’re heading toward a world in which only the human people pay taxes.

The federal government still gets a tenth of its revenue from corporate  profits. But it used to get a lot more — a third of revenue came from profits taxes in the early 1950s, a quarter or more well into the 1960s.... Part of the decline since then reflects a fall in the tax rate, but mainly it reflects ever-more-aggressive corporate tax avoidance — avoidance that politicians have done little to prevent.

Which brings us to the tax-avoidance strategy du jour: “inversion.” This refers to a legal maneuver in which a company declares that its U.S. operations are owned by its foreign subsidiary, not the other way around, and uses this role reversal to shift reported profits out of American jurisdiction to someplace with a lower tax rate...

Paul Krugman talks Piketty's "Capital In The 21st Century" with Bill Moyers

"Wall Street Isn't Worth It"

Economist John Quiggan @ Jacobin:

---

The financial sector has grown massively since the 1970s, whether size is measured in terms of the volume of transactions, the number and remuneration of highly skilled professionals, the share of corporate profits, or, most importantly, the political power of the finance capital. As Frase observes, referencing Felix Salmon, the huge returns extracted by this sector distort the distribution of income for the economy as a whole. The market return on any activity must be adjusted for the cut taken by the financial sector. This fact makes the attempt to assign ethical status to marginal productivity academic, in the worst sense of the term.

Taking this further, any strategy for the Left that yields more than modest changes in the distribution of income, wealth and power, must involve a direct conflict with the financial sector, and must imply a substantial contraction in the size, wealth and power of that sector. A necessary condition for such a strategy to be feasible is the premise that the incomes flowing to the financial sector come at the expense of the rest of the economy, and in particular, at the expense of working people.

Stiglitz on inequality...again

Nobel Prize-winning Joe Stiglitz addressed the recent AFL-CIO convention:

I'm an economist-- I study how economies work and don't work. It’s been clear to me that our economy has been sick for a long time.  One of the reasons it's been so sick is inequality, and I decided to write an article and a book about it.

Two years ago, I wrote an article for Vanity Fair called, "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%,” which really got to the gist of it.  For too long, the hardworking and rule-abiding had seen their paychecks shrink or stay the same, while the rule-breakers raked in huge profits and wealth.  It made our economy sick, and our politics sick, too.  

You all know the facts:  while the productivity of America's workers has soared, wages have stagnated. You've worked hard – since 1979, your output per hour has increased 40%, but pay has barely increased. Meanwhile, the top 1% take home more than 20% of the national income.

The Great Recession made things worse.  Some say that the recession ended in 2009.  But for most Americans, that's simply wrong:  95% of the gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the upper 1%.  The rest — the 99% — never really recovered.

Justice for all...

The Daily Show on "Too Big To Jail"

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

"Much of Dodd-Frank is dying on the vine"

Erika Eichelberger @ Mother Jones:

The Dodd-Frank financial reform act of 2010 turns three years old this month. But because of intense Wall Street lobbying, only about a third of the provisions it requires have actually been made into rules by Wall Street regulators, and many have gaping loopholes designed by industry lobbyists. A new analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit that advocates for government transparency, starkly illustrates why regulatory agencies are so swayed by industry: over the past three years, those whose job it is to police Wall Street have met with big banks 14 times more often than pro-reform groups to discuss proposed Dodd-Frank rules.

The Sunlight Foundation reviewed three years worth of meetings that banks, industry lobbyists, corporations, and financial reform advocacy groups had with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, and found that these regulators had met 2,118 times with financial institutions, and only 153 time with pro-reform groups. Here's what that looks like, via the Sunlight Foundation:

Whither Dodd-Frank?

Wonkblog @ WaPo:

Sunday is the third anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act. To get a sense of how

implementation has been going, I asked 16 people at the forefront of the debate to answer two questions: What has gone better than you had expected? And what has gone worse? – Mike Konczal

Sheila C. Bair served as the 19th chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for a five-year term, from June 2006 through June 2011.

“Things that went better than expected: just about all of the rules where an agency could act alone, e.g., the FDIC’s rules on resolution authority and deposit insurance premiums; the CFPB’s rules on mortgage lending standards; the CFTC’s rules on moving standardized domestic swaps to centralized clearing.

“Things that were bigger problems than expected: just about all of the rules where inter-agency coordination and agreement were required: e.g. tougher bank capital standards, the Volcker Rule, risk retention for securitizers. Between agency squabbling and industry lobbying, Sisyphus could move faster than the agencies in moving these rules.”

Michael S. Barr is a  professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School and former assistant secretary of the treasury for financial institutions, where he was a key architect of the Dodd-Frank Act.

“The opponents of financial reform are losing. There’s a strong, new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, looking out for American households, and Senate Republicans finally relented and confirmed, by a lopsided vote, Rich Cordray as director of the bureau.

Capital requirements are going up, derivatives are coming out of the shadows and major financial firms will be subject to strict supervision and wind-down authority regardless of corporate form. But much remains to be done, from LIBOR reform to the Volcker Rule, and the financial industry will continue to try to lobby, litigate and legislate their way out of the tough new rules. Now is not the time to lose hope, stop fighting or give in, but to renew the commitment to making the financial system fairer and safer.”

"Income, Race and Voting

Professor Krugman ventures into Poli Sci, @ NYTs:

Still thinking about the new GOP idea — hey, let’s go for white voters! Why didn’t we think of that before? ... I’m venturing into political science territory here,and would be happy to have real experts weigh in; but I’m pretty sure I have the basics right here.

So, let’s look at some exit poll data, and cross-tab it with Census income data. In the figure below, the red lines show the income-voting relationship from the Times summary of exit polls, which also supplies the broad ethnic group data. For incomes, I use Census data on median household income for 2011, which is also available for regions. For voting I use Alabama to represent the South, Ohio to represent the Midwest.

So here’s my picture:

Contrary to what some people keep saying, people with higher incomes, other things equal, tend to vote Republican. Cut through the noise and fog, and it is true that Democrats broadly want to redistribute income down, and Republicans want to redistribute income up — and on average, voters get that (which is why “libertarian populism” is hot air). But race and ethnicity also matter, a lot. What you can see right away is that there are three groups that are fairly anomalous.

Taxes and income inequality

Kevin Drum @ Mother Jones:

Here's a remarkable chart from EPI. Actually, no: Strike that. It's true that in a normal world it would be remarkable, but in the world we live in it's actually totally unsurprising. It illustrates the rise in income inequality over the past three decades (top dark blue line),  and as you can see, it's been rising steadily. Totally unsurprising.

But then author Andrew Fieldhouse did another calculation. The middle blue line shows rising inequality after you account for taxes and transfers. But what if we had the same tax system we did in 1979? Well, inequality still would have gone up, but it would have gone up significantly less (bottom light blue line). In other words, during an era in which the rich were getting richer anyway, we deliberately set out to reduce their tax burdens so that they could become even richer...

Instead of trying to ameliorate the effects of a broad economic trend, we've done everything we possibly can to accelerate it. That includes tax policy, financial deregulation, trade policy, anti-labor policy, and much more. And since there's approximately zero evidence that any of this has actually increased economic growth, it means that U.S. policy for the past 30 years has been aggressively dedicated to shifting income share away from the poor and middle class and into the pockets of the already rich...

Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail

This is several months old, but a "must read" by Matt Taibbi @ Rolling Stone:

The deal was announced quietly, just before the holidays, almost like the government was hoping people were too busy hanging stockings by the fireplace to notice.

Flooring politicians, lawyers and investigators all over the world, the U.S. Justice Department granted a total walk to executives of the British-based bank HSBC for the largest drug-and-terrorism money-laundering case ever. Yes, they issued a fine – $1.9 billion, or about five weeks' profit – but they didn't extract so much as one dollar or one day in jail from any individual, despite a decade of stupefying abuses.

People may have outrage fatigue about Wall Street, and more stories about billionaire greedheads getting away with more stealing often cease to amaze. But the HSBC case went miles beyond the usual paper-pushing, keypad-punching­ sort-of crime, committed by geeks in ties, normally associated­ with Wall Street. In this case, the bank literally got away with murder – well, aiding and abetting it, anyway.

 Read the rest HERE.

Why Washington saved the economy, then permanently destroyed the labor market

Derek Thompson @ The Atlantic:

On April 24, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar scheduled a hearing. Fun story,

right? A hearing in Washington is like a fern in the rainforest. But this hearing was notable for both its subject and its attendance. It was a meeting about the most important economic crisis facing America today: long-term unemployment.

At 10:30am, the hearing began. She was the only attendant.

***

I have two stories for you about Washington and the economy. Both true. But very different.

The first story is called: How Washington Saved the Economy. You might begin in 2008, when the Federal Reserve went on an unprecedented spree of asset-buying to un-gunk the banks, push down interest rates, and spur investing in mortally weakened economy. This was followed, in 2009, with an equally historic stimulus package aimed at filling holes in state budgets and sending cash back to families and businesses. The government ran steep $1+ trillion deficits to keep as much money in the weak private sector as possible.

There is little question that monetary and fiscal stimulus blunted the recession -- and saved the economy.

The second story is called: How Washington Permanently Scarred the Labor

Market. You might begin this story in 2011, when Congress (led by Republican obstructionism) embarked on a historic quest to crush deficit spending by any means necessary. Hold the economy hostage over the debt ceiling? Check. Kill the American Jobs Act while scheduling a too-awful-to-be-a-real-law sequester? Check. Allow the too-awful-to-be-a-real-law sequester to become a real law? Checkmate.

The deficit fell fast. As unemployment ebbed, the ranks of long-term jobless calcified, creating two separate job markets. One broken market for people out of work for more than six months. And another slowly healing market for everybody else. But the combination of a thermostatic recovery and a deep aversion to stimulus crushed any hope that the long-term unemployed would get the help they needed. Long-term unemployment isn't special just because it's longer; it's special because it's self-perpetuating. Skills atrophy, networks dry up, and employers discriminate, creating a vicious cycle of joblessness that can't be cured by normal economic growth.

There is little question that, in the last two years, Washington has essentially left the long-term unemployed to fend for themselves -- and permanently scarred the labor market.

***

This isn't so much a tale of two cities, but a tale of one city that responded differently to two crises: (1) the collapse of the financial system and (2) the scarring of the labor market. These are both emergencies. So why did we respond to the first emergency like an ambulance siren and the second like a harmless murmur of white noise?

Patriot Games

Think Progress:

Even as American corporations are raking in record profits, the largest among them are shifting larger amounts of money away from the United States and into offshore tax havens that allow them to pad their bottom lines even more, according to multiple analyses of legal filings made since the beginning of 2013.

The Wall Street Journal found that the 60 largest companies moved $166 billion offshore in 2012, shielding 40 percent of their earnings from American taxes and costing the U.S. billions in lost revenue:

The amount of money at stake is significant, particularly when the U.S. budget deficit is high on the political agenda. Just 19 of the 60 companies in the Journal’s survey disclose the tax hit they could face if they brought the money back to their U.S. parent. Those companies say they might have to pay $98 billion in additional tax—more than the $85 billion in automatic-spending cuts triggered this month after the White House and Congress couldn’t agree on an alternative.

"The pirates behind the campaign to fix the debt"

The wonderfully ascerbic Mr. Charles Pierce @ Esquire:

There are many more important topics out there than The Deficit, the scary, hairy monster that haunts the dreams of David Gregory and only the blood of the poor and elderly can appease its wrath. Climate change comes immediately to mind, as do income inequality, the vast inequities of our tax code, the ongoing upward translation of the nation's wealth, why more bankers aren't in federal prison, and whatever did I do to the baby Jeebus that he allowed Notre Dame to play for a national championship. But the biggest reason why we should shut the national piehole on the topic is not that we have more serious problems, or even that any discussion violates the blog's first rule of economics — Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money.

The real reason we should stop talking about it for a while is that the people who are insisting that it will eat us and our posterity on toast are lying swine who would sell your white-haired granny to the Somali pirates for another three points on the Dow. Until we all acknowledge the fact that organized wealth in this country has become downright sociopathic in the heedless damage it does, any discussion of The Deficit can and will be hijacked by that quarter in order to gain absolution for its grievous sins and the right to go on committing them against the rest of us, over and over again.

Listening to these people talk about the national economy is like listening to a burglar tell you that you should really polish the silver more often.

Seeing through the "Simpson-Bowles consensus"

The much vaunted Bowles-Simpson anti-deficit commission came to no agreement on a plan - but that hasn't stopped the chairmen, corporate Democrat Erskine Bowles and testy former-congressman Alan "Grandpa" Simpson, from using their names to promote a package under the "Simpson-Bowles Commission" brand. It's not a good plan, primarily because it attempts to cap government revenues arbitrarily, cuts Social Security and raises the retirement age.  

While it's not nearly as crackpot or cruel as the "Ryan Plan" pushed by the boyish Ayn Rand acolyte who is a hero of the Tea Party Right, "Simpson-Bowles" is just the kind of "deficit reduction" one would expect from a Democrat from the investment banker wing of the party, allied with a mean-spirited, financially-cushioned-by-a-government-pension old coot who considers the AARP a threat to America and  wants to raise the retirement age for folks who actually have to work hard for a living to 70.

In polite circles where Paul Ryan's Tea Party patent medicine is viewed as a bit too toxic, "Simpson-Bowles" has  become shorthand for some imaginary cross-partisan "consensus" (even though it's rejected emphatically among GOP pols captured by dogmatic anti-tax ideology spread by a spectrum of interests from the Chamber of Commerce to far-right cranks like the "No Tax Increase" Pledge-Master Grover Norquist.)  Typically "deep-thinker" mediocrities like Tom Friedman and David Brooks will both refer to "Simpson Bowles" as the Gold Standard for fiscal strategies moving forward. Even Democratic Minority leader Nancy Pelosi has suggested she "could live with Simpson-Bowles."  This mainstreaming of "Simpson-Bowles" cutting Social Security and arbitrarily limiting government spending in a period when the economy calls for more and our infrastructure is in shambles is a trend that needs to be pushed back.  The proposal being pushed by these two commission appointees is not acceptable.


Ethan Pollack at Economic Policy Institute, who served as a Bowles-Simpson Commission staffer, explains the flaws of the anti-deficit strategy being pushed by the chairmen and embraced by many in the pundit class:

Yesterday, a selection of past members of the Bowles-Simpson commission, anti-deficit groups like the Peterson Foundation and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and a handful of retired politicians launched the Fix the Debt Campaign in order to push a deficit reduction package in line with the original Bowles-Simpson framework (full disclosure: I served on the Bowles-Simpson commission staff in fall 2010). The event was characterized by high-minded rhetoric about coming together and solving problems and little in the way of specific policies, a reflection of the fact that in the year-and-a-half since its initial release, the Bowles-Simpson proposal has become more a symbol of seriousness and bipartisanship than an actual set of discrete recommendations that can be analyzed.

This is unfortunate because the proposal itself is pretty detailed, and although it has some good components, it also has some major flaws that—without serious revision—should render it an inappropriate template for deficit reduction.

1) It would weaken the economy by cutting way too fast

The "Job Creator"

 Washington Post:

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"It's Even Worse Than It Looks"

Michael DeLong (corrected) on "It's Even Worse Than It Looks" - the book by two centrist political analysts who have not been invited to a single major Sunday talk show to discuss their new work, presumably because they depart from the "wisdom of centrism" and state the plain fact that the GOP has become little more than a party of obstruction and right-wing ideology:

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein’s It's Even Worse Than It Looks convinced me that having a political system where corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money for or against politicians is a recipe for favoritism and corruption. We need to reduce the influence of money in politics.

But there's much more to the book than that. Here are some of my thoughts:
Both Mann and Orntein have written about Congress for many years. Both are well-respected centrist scholars. They know what they are talking about. And both Mann and Ornstein agree that politics today is far worse than usual: that our political process right now is unusually broken...

Both Democrats and Republicans now view each other as adversaries. Republicans, however, are far more unified and obstructionist--and also have become more conservative in part because of primary challenges.

Obstruction has been taken to ridiculous levels, with Republicans now using holds and filibusters to block nominees and legislation. Obama nominated economist Peter Diamond to the Federal Reserve. Senator Richard Shelby placed a hold on his nomination, claiming he was too inexperienced for the job. While being delayed, Diamond was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. Shelby kept blocking his nomination. After a year of waiting, Diamond withdrew. Other nominees, such as Donald Berwick (to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and Richard Cordray (to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) were also blocked. Every one of Obama's bills has had to get 60 votes or more to pass, due to the threat of the filibuster.

Republican obstruction is not entirely new. In a 1993 memorandum, William Kristol urged Senator Bob Dole and other Republicans to oppose Bill Clinton's health care plan “sight unseen”, no matter what the substance of the policy he proposed. Passage of any health care reform at all, he argued, would harm the Republican Party.

It is good to see two respected centrist observers of Congress recognizing that Republican obstruction of Obama's proposals is largely driven by a desire to hurt him politically, no matter what its effect on the country.

So are there any solutions to our current state of affairs?

Two tax systems - one for the super-rich, one for wage-earners

David Cay Johnston:

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year's election campaign.

The data, posted on the IRS website last week, brings into sharp focus the debate over whether the rich need more tax cuts (Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans) or should pay higher rates (President Obama and most Democrats).

The annual report (link.reuters.com/vec68s), which the IRS typically releases with a two-year delay, covers the 400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009. These families reported an average income of $202.4 million, down for the second year as the Great Recession slashed their capital gains.

In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes. That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.

Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

Let's return for a moment to the single worker who made $61,500 in 2009 and paid 15 percent of his salary in federal income taxes. The top 400 made more every three hours than he did in a year, and yet many of them paid the same or a lower tax rate, according to the data in the report.

On top of his $9,225 federal income tax, he also paid $9,409 in payroll taxes, which include Social Security and Medicare taxes. Half of the payroll tax was deducted from his check. His employer paid the other half, which was really hidden wages taxed at a 100 percent tax rate.

His total federal tax burden was 30.3 percent, exactly 50 percent more than the 20.2 percent tax burden, measured the same way, on the 400 at the top.

TWO TAX SYSTEMS

A battle looms over "Simpson-Bowles" - among Democrats

Simpson: "Veterans...are not helping the country in this fiscal mess."

Richard Eskow of Campaign for America's Future files this harsh, utterly depressing report from the "Deficit Summit." Unfortunately, it rings true. The 2012 election is going to take most liberal folks' eyes off of this ball, but a major fight is looming - and within Democratic circles - over the Simpson-Bowles "bi-partisan" plan to gut government programs and shift wealth even more toward the 1% than it already has.

Establishment Democrats are embracing an approach to "deficit reduction" that privileges the 1% and ignores the centrality of unemployment as the nation's #1 problem.  And they ignore the fact that worrisome long-term deficit projections are - above all else - rooted in the need to reform our health care delivery system.  Medicare has nothing to do with that problem - other than providing the most cost-effective approach to health insurance that exists currently in the US.  Medicare doesn't drive the problem of health care costs as % of GDP - it lessens them. Address the larger issue and long-term federal deficits are easily managed.

Be prepared for the looming deficit battle - because these "rich white guys" clearly are. And be prepared to draw lines in the sand against a significant cohort of establishment  Democrats and administration insiders.

Eskrow:

Today a bunch of rich white guys held a "Fiscal Summit" and agreed that:

1. Despite the fact that unemployment is causing untold suffering for millions of people, it's not very important.

2. Despite the fact that wage stagnation is destroying the middle class, that's not important either.

3. Despite the fact that we need the social safety net more than ever after what they've done to the economy, it's expendable.

4. Despite the fact that our government can borrow money at record low rates and use it to put people to work, thereby ending the recession and jumpstarting the economy, that option's not even worth discussing.

5. Despite the fact that these men all possess great power, wealth, and/or influence, everything that's wrong with the economy is your fault.

6. Since it's all your fault, you better get ready to pay up.

Oh, and one other thing:

7. They're all very smart and very brave. It's too bad the rest of you people are such jerks.

The Real Deficit Story

It can't be repeated enough - Dave Johnson @ Campaign for America's Future:

Atrios says it: Eschaton: Planning For 10 Years From Now

"Listen, government has got plenty of money."

The last time the an administration did the supposedly responsible thing, the fiscal "hawks" suddenly decided that the worst possible thing was no longer a deficit, but a surplus, and that therefore it was necessary to have massive tax cuts for rich people.

And they will, of course, do it again.

Any time any DC elite complains about "the deficit" remind them that when Clinton left office we had a huge surplus, so big that at the rate it was being paid down the entire US debt was going to be paid off in 10 years. Bush demanded that we give back the people's money and Greenspan warned of the danger of paying off the debt. Etc. Etc. Etc. Then Bush doubled military spending -- and started two wars on top of that!

So we went from big surplus to huge, huge deficits. Bush said it was "incredibly positive news" when we went back into deficit spending. He said it was good news because it continued the plan to use debt to force the government to cut back. He said that. It was the plan. (Don't take my word for it, click the links.)

The Reagan people said it too, back when they started the massive deficit spending. It was the plan: force the country into massive debt, "starve the beast," and use that to force the government out of business, or at least to be "small enough to drown in a bathtub." They forced the tax cuts and Reagan said this was "cutting the government's allowance." The point was to use revenue cutbacks to force government to shrink, to get out of the way of the 1%.
 

Now that government is very much out of the way of the 1% we are seeing how things work out when the 1% dominate everything.

They called it "strategic deficits." They said it was the plan to force the country into debt, and then they would demand that we cut the things that government does for the 99%, in order to further enrich the 1%. They would scare everyone by saying that the debt will destroy us so we have to cut back. That was the plan. They said that was the plan. And now that the plan is being executed, we should understand that it was the plan and not fall for it!

They said it was the plan. So as the plan unfolds, don't be so surprised.

Stiglitz: "We're in the 5th year of crisis and we haven't solved it."

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on academic economists and the current economic crisis:

Joe Stiglitz at Occupy Wall Street

Academic economists played a big role in causing the crisis. Their models were overly simplified, distorted, and left out the most important aspects. Those faulty models then encouraged policy-makers to believe that the markets would solve all the problems. 

Before the crisis, if I had been a narrow-minded economist, I would have been very pleased to see that academics had a big impact on policy. But unfortunately that was bad for the world. After the crisis, you would have hoped that the academic profession had changed and that policy-making had changed with it and would become more skeptical and cautious. You would have expected that after all the wrong predictions of the past, politics would have demanded from academics a rethinking of their theories. I am broadly disappointed on all accounts...

Within academia, those who believed in free markets before the crisis still do so today. A few people have shifted, and I want to give credit to them for saying: “We were wrong. We underestimated this or that aspect of our models.” But for the most part, the response was different. Believers in the free market have not revised their beliefs...

If my forecast about the consequences of austerity is correct, you will see a new round of protest movements. We had a crisis in 2008. We are now in the fifth year of crisis, and we haven’t solved it. There’s not even a light at the end of the tunnel. When we come to that conclusion, the discourse will change...