We typically honor the convention to refrain from to speak ill of the recently departed. But Margaret Thatcher probably would not object to an epitaph focusing on how her political legacy was to achieve her professed aim of “irreversibly” dismantling Britain’s public sector. Attacking central planning by government, she shifted it into much more centralized financial hands – the City of London, unopposed by any economic back bench of financial regulation and “free” of meaningful anti-monopoly price regulation.

On March 18, 2013, Lawrence O’Donnell stated that John Boehner’s admission that the U.S. faces no current debt crisis vindicated Paul Krugman, who O’Donnell described as “a lonely voice opposing austerity.” It is true that Krugman has been a strong opponent of austerity and has been proven correct. It is also true that MSNBC has frequently portrayed Krugman as an isolated, virtually sole opponent of austerity.

With so many federal workers living in and around our nation's capitol, those federal spending cuts will eventually translate to job cuts and unpaid mortgages.

The dreaded sequestration deadline has arrived, and with it $85 billion in automatic spending cuts that could plunge the nation's strengthening economy back into the depths of recession.

(For some light reading on the topic, check out the 394-page Office of Management and Budget report.)

[ALSO: Hail Marys to Prevent Sequester Fail ]

Readers, one reason that William Black is so creditable for me, beyond his substantial direct experience and his very clear analysis and prose, is that I have seen the same dynamics up close and personal through "cooperatives." I am using quotation marks around "cooperatives" because the majority of the cooperatives I have directly experienced has involved numerous individuals who promoted fraudulent practices and standards.

Readers, I've also posted my comment as posted on Emerson's blog Haquelebac. See the link at the end of Emerson's essay. Funny thing about positivism, you don't really want to show up in the middle of a muddle of positivists with an anti-positivist critique in hand. I know I did it, entirely naively in a positivist domain where spouting about the philosophy of social sciences is considered well defended. It so has a thorough cult like nature of the formalisms. for now, Tadit Anderson

this article begins with these quotes:

Friends and readers, this is a fairly weak article in some ways, and it puts a fairly large amount of information into a small space. AND, I said "AND," it is still a thin coverage. I am going edit this down and supplement the content into a trifold. It has a lot basic information unmasking the economic fraud being perpetrated on multiple fronts, and which rely upon low levels of economic literacy.

This is a decent article for the most part, though it doesn't deal enough imo with alternative economic models or the deep economic principles mutating the capacities. He has a strongly sarcastic tone, which is actually good imo, though people need to hear that in his text and not take every thing he states in a literal fashion. for now, Tadit Anderson

Readers in this article William Black shows less his white collar criminologist, and much more his post Keynesian aspect. His writing here is also his usual clear self. Tadit Anderson

Gary O’Callaghan, a former IMF economist has written about his distress over what he views as the European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) destructive policies toward the periphery.

Readers, This is one of Michael Hudson's best recent commentary on the general economic globaL devolution. In a strong sense what he is describing is the natural limits to an economics based upon class based avarice and usury, which has hollowed out the real economy to serve profoundly anti-economic interests, In effect what is going on is at the level of even deeper plundering of public assets and the real economy. Remember for the faith based economists and particularly the refuse peddlers dominating the academic context, you have to also follow the money.

Readers, while Dean Baker is fairly reasonable in his expectations, as has happened before Baker does not seem to understand economics very well. This has been particularly evident in his acceptance of the austerity agenda, though he objects to the political use of that agenda. He is essentially a neo-classical economist though somewhat liberal