Tag Archives: economy

Mah Bow Tan: Singapore Ministry of National Development

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said on Monday that the slew of measures announced to cool the #39;buoyant#39; private property market was necessary to prevent a bubble from forming. Home prices in Singapore surged by 11 per cent in the first half of the year. If the current momentum continues, a property bubble will form, said Mr Mah at a press conference. #39;And when – not if – the bubble bursts, there will be severe implications for individuals and the economy as a whole#39;, he

See the original post here:
Mah Bow Tan: Singapore Ministry of National Development

Mah Bow Tan profile

Profile for Mah Bow Tan Assumed office 3 June 1999 Preceded by Lim Hng Kiang Constituency Tampines Group Representation Constituency Minister for Communications In office September 1991 – 3 June 1999 Minister for the Environment In office July 1993 – April 1995 Born September 12, 1948 (1948-09-12) (age 61) Singapore Political party People#39;s Action Party Spouse(s) Dr Sheryn Kaye Von Senden Mah Bow Tan (simplified Chinese: 马宝山; traditional Chinese: 馬寶山; pinyin: Mǎ Bǎoshān, born Septembe

Go here to see the original:
Mah Bow Tan profile

Olbermann Distorts Conservative Adage as a ‘Screw the Poor’ Attack

On Friday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann either showed his ignorance of conservative ideology, or he made his latest deliberate distortion to attack conservatives as he suggested that a Republican candidate for Oklahoma governor expressed a negative attitude toward the poor, referred to by Olbermann as “screw the poor,” when, in reality, she was making the case that the wealthy are important to the economy because they are the wage payers for many people. As she spoke out against raising taxes, Rep. Mary Fallin alluded to the conservative argument that a tax increase on the wealthy would be bad for their employees. Olbermann quoted her version of the common conservative saying that conveys this point. Fallin: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” The MSNBC host, apparently not getting the point, concluded that her words were meant as an attack on the poor as being useless to her, and tagged her with the top dishonor of “Worst Person in the World.” Olbermann: At a recent tub thumping for the conservative cause, she insisted government spending needs to be cut and tax breaks be given to the wealthy. And then she added this: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” She did not add, “So screw’em.” That was merely implied. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, August 27, Countdown show on MSNBC: KEITH OLBERMANN: But our winner, Representative Mary Fallon, who is inexplicably running for governor of Oklahoma. At a recent tub thumping for the conservative cause, she insisted government spending needs to be cut and tax breaks be given to the wealthy. And then she added this: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” She did not add, “So screw’em.” That was merely implied. But, of course, Miss Fallon is factually mistaken. She’s been elected to public office six times since 1990, and if some poor people didn’t vote for her and offer her her job, then the party she belongs to must necessarily be the rich people’s party. Mary “Screw the Poor” Fallon, Republican candidate for governor of Oklahoma, today’s “Worst Person in the World”!

Read the rest here:
Olbermann Distorts Conservative Adage as a ‘Screw the Poor’ Attack

Glenn Beck Pushing God and Gold Once Again

Glenn Beck loves to trick as many people as possible into buying worthless gold from Goldline. Today he used an interesting strategy to pimp out the sponsor to his listeners. Beck basically said that if you put your faith in God then you definitely should entertain the idea of investing in Goldline. After all, you never know the direction the economy will go and it's always a good idea to have a useless “investment” sitting around. http://dauntingideas.com/content/glenn-beck-pushing-god-and-gold-once-again added by: Spiricle23

How Convenient: CBS Asks Pro-Stimulus Economist to Rate the Stimulus

As the Obama administration’s “Recovery Summer” crumbles, CBS’s Early Show on Thursday noted how the poor economic data has made many Americans deeply pessimistic about the future, with 37% saying that the economy “is in permanent decline.” So does that mean Obama’s $862 billion stimulus is a failure? Not according to economist Mark Zandi, who was interviewed by co-host Erica Hill. Zandi asserted that “the recession ended about a year ago, in large part because of the stimulus efforts,” and the current sluggishness was because “the stimulus is now fading,” and thus “the benefit to growth is winding down.” Of course, Zandi has been a consistent enthusiast for the stimulus, as far back as early 2009, a fact which was not disclosed today. “We need stimulus,” Zandi championed on the January 28, 2009 Early Show. “It’s about preserving jobs.” After President Obama signed the behemoth spending bill, Zandi was back on the February 18, 2009 Early Show: “It`s a reasonably good plan….The fact that policymakers are working really hard here, I think, is a reason for some optimism.” Viewers might have benefitted if CBS had paired Zandi with an economist who sees the data differently (for example, the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl put out a good report last week on why rampant federal spending risks destroying the economy). On the flip side, Zandi did argue against the Obama administration’s scheme to raise taxes in January, saying that while it would be “reasonable” to do so in later years, the economic recovery is now too “fragile” to withstand such an action. Here’s more of how the August 26 Early Show covered the economy: # Report from correspondent Rebecca Jarvis, headline: “Economic Woes” REBECCA JARVIS: From housing to jobs to the health of the U.S. consumer, the latest economic data has slowed significantly, and it’s having an impact on how Americans feel about the recovery. According to the most recent CBS News poll, over one-third of Americans, or 37%, think the decline is here to stay. # Interview with Mark Zandi ERICA HILL: There’s so much focus on the Obama administration, on what was done on the stimulus package. How much of what we’re seeing in the economy right now is a direct result of the administration’s policies and of the stimulus? MARK ZANDI: Well, it is related. I think it’s fair to say the recession ended about a year ago, in large part because of the stimulus efforts. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the recession ended as the stimulus provided its maximum benefit to the economy. But, the stimulus is now fading — the housing tax credits being part of that stimulus, as an example — and so the impetus to growth, the benefit to growth is winding down, and that’s one of the reasons why the economy is slowing. HILL: So, would that be a case then, as you see the economy slowing, to extend those Bush tax cuts which we’re hearing so much about, and which has really become important as we move forward to the elections in November? ZANDI: Yeah, good point. I mean, I don’t think it would be wise to raise taxes for anyone in 2011 when the economic recovery is so fragile. Now, the President has proposed raising tax rates back to where they were [in the Clinton years] for people who make over $250,000 a year on a joint basis — that’s a very wealthy group, about three percent of the population. I think that’s reasonable, but only in 2012, 13, 14 — when the economy’s off and running. I wouldn’t do it in 2011 when the recovery is so weak.

Read the original here:
How Convenient: CBS Asks Pro-Stimulus Economist to Rate the Stimulus

July New Home Sales: Wire Reports Dour, But Still Understated; Reuters-Quoted Economist Blames Govt.

July’s bad news in new home sales is even worse than it first appears. The seasonally adjusted annual rate of 276,000 units is bad enough. That is an all-time low since records have been kept and 12% lower than June’s annual rate. It’s also lower than what analysts predicted by about the same percentage. The lazy business press is running with those figures. But, as has been the case so many other times, it takes a trip to the raw (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) data, this time at the Census Bureau ( large PDF ), to fully comprehend the extent of the new-home market’s collapse during this big, fat failed “Recovery Summer.” The raw data shows that 25,000 new homes were sold in the U.S. in July. That’s not a typo, and it really is the figure for the entire country. Worse, that figure, the lowest July since records have been kept, is down by over one-third from July of last year, when the economy supposedly bottomed out, and by 42% from July 2008. I don’t think you’ll see those facts reported today. Here is a graphic cap of a 10:07 a.m. report at Reuters carried at CNBC.com . It contains a jaw-dropper of a quote from an economist (red box is obviously mine): You have to wonder how widely reported Mr. Porcelli’s in-your-face to the government will be, or if it will even survive future Reuters revisions. As would be expected, no similar quote is present at the Associated Press, which used its time-honored business-reporting strategy of downplaying the awful news inside of two larger stories, one about the stock market’s reaction and the other about the not as bad news about durable goods orders, instead of giving it the separate treatment it deserves. Here are a few paragraphs from the two reports. To their credit, the authors of the first cited the lowest-on-record nature of the past three months’ results, but without indicating the degree of the cratering: (Daniel Wagner and Alan Zibel, “Recovery in danger as firms, homebuyers cut back,” as of 12:09 p.m. ) The economic recovery appears to be stalling as companies cut back last month on their investments in equipment and machines and Americans bought new homes at the weakest pace in decades. … Separately, Commerce said new home sales fell 12.4 percent in July from a month earlier to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 276,600. That was the slowest pace on records dating back to 1963. Collectively, the past three months have been the worst on record for new home sales. … The two reports are likely to stoke fears that the economy is on the verge of slipping back into a recession. They follow Tuesday’s report that showed sales of previously owned homes fell last month to the lowest level in decades. Unemployment remains near double digits and job growth in the private sector is slowing. … Housing has never fully recovered from the recession. Builders have been forced to compete with foreclosed properties offered at significantly lower prices. (Stephen Bernard, “More bad news on home sales sends stocks lower,” as of 12:04 p.m. ) The Dow Jones industrial average fell about 16 points in midday trading Wednesday following news that sales of new homes fell last month to the lowest level on record. It was the latest indication that home sales are stagnating after the expiration of a homebuyer tax credit this spring. … New home sales fell 12.4 percent in July to an annual rate of 276,600, the Commerce Department reported. That was the slowest pace on records dating back to 1963 and worse than the pace forecast by economists polled by Thomson Reuters. A day earlier, the National Association of Realtors said sales of existing homes, a far greater proportion of the housing market, fell to a 15-year low in July. … Despite the ultra-low borrowing rates, home sales have been weak since a home buyer tax credit expired at the end of April. High unemployment has kept people from buying homes, and banks still reeling from the crisis in the mortgage-backed securities market have been cautious in making new loans. Note how the last excerpted sentence dodges Porcelli’s contention at Reuters that “There is also little demand for lending.” Banks are being cautious, but there’s plenty of mortgage money out there for people who want to borrow (listen to the constant barrage of lender radio ads if you don’t believe it). There’s just little interest in doing so. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post here:
July New Home Sales: Wire Reports Dour, But Still Understated; Reuters-Quoted Economist Blames Govt.

Ron Paul on Ground Zero Mosque Demagogy

A very good debate happened on MSNBC last night regarding the utter non-issue of the Ground Zero mosque controversy. Like him or not, Ron Paul exposes the neoconservative motives behind the vitriol against this mosque. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ6Hzf0x1vk&feature=player_embedded# ! “Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?” “It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”” The statement continues here: http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-… added by: ScottyT

Amidst Obama’s Falling Poll Numbers, MSNBC Tries to Suggest He Could Rebound Like Reagan

During the 3 p.m. MSNBC news hour Monday, anchor Chris Jansing asked the question and hosted an expert who supplied the seemingly desired answer. The question: Could President Obama make a mid-term comeback similar to President Reagan in 1982? The answer: Absolutely. The two discussed the similarities of the situations faced by the presidents, and seemed to conclude that if the economy turns around, President Obama would almost certainly be re-elected. It is a big if, but the short segment seemed quite focused on what would happen after the economy turns around. The two didn’t bother to discuss what would happen if the economy continues to be stagnant, or takes a turn for the worse. “Well you have a President facing a deep recession, high unemployment, dropping poll numbers, and a potentially game-changing midterm election. That was Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office. Then, two years later, he won re-election in a landslide,” stated MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing. “Could President Obama make the same comeback?” Guest Allan Lichtman, presidential historian at American University, answered in the affirmative.  “Absolutely,” he responded. “They are kind of mirror images of each other.” After Lichtman explained how the two Presidents’ situations are quite similar, Jansing asked her follow-up question. “If the economy starts to turn around in the next year to 18 months…is it likely to follow that Barack Obama will have a much easier time with re-election?” “It will follow like night to day,” Lichtman predictably answered. “And of course this all presumes the Democrats don’t commit internal suicide by challenging [Obama] in the primaries.” A full transcript of the segment, which aired on August 23 at 3:40 p.m. EDT, is as follows: KRIS JANSING: Well you have a President facing a deep recession, high unemployment, dropping poll numbers, and a potentially game-changing midterm election. That was Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office. Then, two years later, he won re-election in a landslide. Could President Obama make the same comeback? And with 30 years between them, is it realistic to compare the fate of these two very different presidents? Allan Lichtman is a political analyst and Presidential historian at American University. And we didn’t just come up with this. There are plenty of people who have made this comparison, and especially in recent months, when the poll numbers for President Obama have been dropping so precipitously. Are there fair comparisons to be made with Ronald Reagan? ALLAN LICHTMAN: Absolutely. They are kind of mirror images of each other. Each president won a pretty handy victory coming in against the grain of his times. Ronald Reagan was a conservative elected at the end of a liberal-to-moderate era. Barack Obama was a liberal, elected at the end of a conservative-to-moderate era. Both presidents passed major initiatives. Ronald Reagan with his big tax cuts. Barack Obama with his stimulus plan and his health care plan. Neither one got very much credit for that during their first two years. They both faced biting recessions, they both saw their poll numbers plummet into the low forties, remarkably identical poll numbers. And in both cases, the ideological wings of their parties were very unhappy. Conservatives were really unhappy with Ronald Reagan because he wasn’t cutting the budget, and he wasn’t pushing social issues like abortion, and we know the liberals are very unhappy with Barack Obama because of his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and his failure to adopt a more liberal type of health care, and to push harder on global warming. So let me count the ways they are similar, as the poet would say. JANSING: If the economy starts to turn around in the next year to 18 months, if people start to get jobs again, if people start to feel more confident in their jobs, start buying houses and spending money again, is it likely to follow that Barack Obama will have a much easier time with re-election? LICHTMAN: It will follow almost like night to day that Barack Obama will win re-election if the economy picks up. Ronald Reagan faced a tough midterm, he lost a couple of dozen house seats, but the economy began to pick up in 1983, boomed in 1984, and he won one of the biggest landslide re-elections in the history of the United States. The same thing could happen to Barack Obama, although it’s unlikely the economy will boom the same way it did for Ronald Reagan. So he may not be looking towards a landslide, but if the economy significantly improves, especially as we head into the election year, then I think Barack Obama’s re-election is almost certain, particularly given the confusion within the opposition, and the lack of a clear, strong, Republican opponent. And of course this all presumes the Democrats don’t commit internal suicide by challenging him in the primaries. JANSING: Ah, well there’s always that. LICHTMAN: Always that. The Democrats can always snatch defeat from victory.

Originally posted here:
Amidst Obama’s Falling Poll Numbers, MSNBC Tries to Suggest He Could Rebound Like Reagan

Filmmaker James Cameron Backs Out of Global Warming Debate HE Organized

Multi-millionaire filmmaker James Cameron on Sunday backed out of a global warming debate that he asked for and organized. For those that haven’t been following the recent goings on concerning Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s favorite money-making myth, an environmental summit was held this weekend in Aspen, Colorado, called AREDAY , which is short for American Renewable Energy Day. Ahead of this conference, Cameron challenged three noted global warming skeptics to a public debate where he was going to personally “call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads.” One of the invited skeptics, Ann McElhinney of NotEvilJustWrong.com , wrote about Cameron’s surprise cancellation Sunday: His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur. Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet. They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage. “We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you’d like. The more the better,” one of James Cameron’s organizers said in an email. The AREDAY program listed the debate as taking place 5:30 PM Sunday (page 8): McElhinney continued: But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules. They wanted to change their team. We agreed. They wanted to change the format to less of a debate-to “a roundtable”. We agreed. Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed. Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds [sic] most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed [sic] Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he “wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out,” decided to ban the media from the shoot out. He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference. No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet.  No one would be allowed to record it in any way. We all agreed to that. And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.  Morano wrote Monday: Cameron backed out of the debate at the last minute after environmentalists “came out of the woodwork” to warn him not to engage in a debate with skeptics because it was not in his best interest. According to AREDAY organizers, activist Joseph Romm of Climate Progress urged Cameron not to go ahead with the debate as well. Romm making this suggestion is certainly no surprise, for last April he got trounced in a debate with Morano. Dismayed by his defeat, Romm barred any articles by Morano to be linked to at Climate Progress and attacked me for writing about the encounter.  Bad sportsmanship must be a common trait amongst climate alarmists, for after cancelling his AREDAY debate, Cameron still had harsh words for skeptics he refused to face: “I think they’re swine,” the renowned filmmaker told an audience member Sunday on the final day of the American Renewable Energy Day summit in Aspen. It was during a series of talks Sunday about the strong effect the right-wing punditry – Cameron named the regulars: Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who are known for their sharp attacks on environmentalists – has on Americans. With campaigns like the production of his blockbuster hit “Avatar,” Cameron said people are starting to realize the gravity of the problem. “I think we did move the needle a little bit,” he said. Moved the needle, Mr. Cameron? By organizing a debate and then chickening out? It’s a good thing the characters in his films have more guts than he does or they certainly wouldn’t be worth the price of admission. 

See the article here:
Filmmaker James Cameron Backs Out of Global Warming Debate HE Organized

ABC Hides Identity of Liberal Activists Advocating for More Government Intervention in Business

Good Morning America’s Bianna Golodryga on Sunday featured a liberal activist arguing for more government intervention in the form of paid time off laws and “affordable” child care. The ABC host never identified Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner’s ideology or the fact that she’s a  Huffington Post contributor. Instead, Golodryga fretted about “bias” against women who have children. The Rowe-Finkbeiner interview and the preceding segment lamented the fact that women who have children often don’t end up making as much as men and also females who don’t have kids. Neither segment even hinted that there could be two sides to the story. Instead, Rowe-Finkbeiner was allowed to lobby, “We know that passing family-friendly policies and programs like paid family leave, like affordable child care, like access to paid sick days, like access to flexible work options, those things actually help lower the gap between women and men.” Rowe-Finkbeiner’s blogs on the Huffington Post have advocated for a number of left-wing causes, including attacking Arizona for its tough immigration law. The segment also featured a woman by the name of Kiki Peppard. Golodryga explained: “Kiki Peppard spent a decade as a successful bookkeeper before taking leave to spend more time with her kids. But, when she went to reenter the work force after a divorce, she found herself on the outside looking in.” An ABC graphic blandly identified that Kiki “had a hard time finding work.” However, according to MomsRising.org , where Rowe-Finkbeiner is the executive director, Peppard has ties to the organization dating back to 2006. Golodryga also skipped this fact. Instead, she wondered, ” So, we heard Kiki’s story. How common and widespread are stories like hers? ” Rowe-Finkbeiner played dumb: “You know, I hear from women like Kiki everyday. Kiki is definitely not alone.” ABC on Sunday went way beyond being one-sided. Not identifying either of these women, their agendas and their connections is incredibly misleading. A transcript of the August 22 segment, which aired at 8:40 am EDT, follows: BIANNA GOLODRYGA: In America’s Jobs this morning, we’re going to look at the pay gap. The disparity between what men and women make has been shrinking over the years. And while it’s still not exactly equal, it is getting better, except for one particular group of women. They’re some of the most accomplished women in the world. Supreme Court justices. A former secretary of state. Even the head of Homeland Security. But, despite their widely varying political differences, they all have one thing in common: These woman don’t have children. And experts say, that fact may contribute directly to their success. According to the University of Chicago, men and women right out of school had nearly identical incomes and hours worked. But, 15 Years later, the men made 75 percent more than the women in the group. The only exception to the room? A small group of women who never had children. Their pay equaled the men. KIKI PEPPARD: There is such a double standard. GOLODRYGA: Kiki Peppard spent a decade as a successful bookkeeper before taking leave to spend more time with her kids. But, when she went to reenter the work force after a divorce, she found herself on the outside looking in. PEPPARD: The very first question asked me was, “Are you married?” And the second question was, “Do you have any children? This went on for the first 18 job interviews. On my19th job interview, they did not ask me about my marital status. They did not ask if I had children and hired me. GOLODRYGA: It’s long been assumed women make less than men because they have more career disruptions. But the unequal pay disparity also pits moms against non-moms. Women with kids are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women without. And they’re paid $11,000 less. And in this economy, that bias can be devastating to many families just trying to get by. And joining me now from Seattle to talk more about this is Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, the co-founder and executive director of MomRising.org. Good morning. Thanks for joining us, Kristin. KRISTIN ROWE-FINKBEINER (executive director, Momsrising.org): Good morning. GOLODRYGA: So, we heard Kiki’s story. How common and widespread are stories like hers? ROWE-FINKBEINER: You know, I hear from women like Kiki everyday. Kiki is definitely not alone. One of the thing is that this problem is bigger than most people realized. In fact, the maternal wall standing in the way of the glass ceiling. And here’s what it looks like: Women without children make 90 cents to a man’s dollar. Women with children make only 73 cents to a man’s dollar. So, this is a big discrepancy. And we have a big issue with pay discrimination against mothers. GOLODRYGA: So, when we hear statistics like that, what can be done to level out the playing field in the workforce? ROWE-FINKBEINER: Well, we have a big issue to address. And that’s that we have a 1950s work policy structure but we have a modern labor force. We’re now more than 50 percent of the labor force are women for the first time in history. But, that doesn’t mean we’ve reached full equality as we just heard in the segment. Because, right now, women and mothers are struggling. Moms are working full time and can’t put food on the table. In fact, one in four children in our nation are experiencing food scarcity in their households because of economic limitations, according to the USDA. So, the solutions are there. We have solutions. We know that passing family-friendly policies and programs like paid family leave, like affordable child care, like access to paid sick days, like access to flexible work options , those things actually help lower the gap between women and men. And they raise all boats. Because, it’s not just moms who need the policies, but everybody needs those policies in order to excel in their life, in the workplace and with their families. GOLODRYGA: But, now of all times, with the economy being so bumpy, with jobs being even more difficult to find, what should moms who are planning on taking time off do to avoid falling behind? ROWE-FINKBEINER: Well, professional women who decide to take time out of the labor force need to do four things. One, and most importantly, they really need to keep up with their professional contacts. Maintain those contacts so they have smooth sailing when they move back into the labor force. Two, they need to make sure that their professional accreditations are up to date while their out of the labor force. Three, this is really important. They need to find a mentor. Somebody who has navigated this interesting seas before and can help them navigate through. And fourth, one thing that’s very important is to find volunteer positions that you can put on the resume while you’re out of the labor force to show that you were productive while you were staying home with kids. Not that staying home with kids isn’t an important job in and of itself. Because it is. One of the things, though that is critically important to understand is that because we have a 1950s work policy structure in our nation still, we haven’t updated our policies like most other countries have, that most women can’t stay out of the labor force. So, we have a huge problem where we, you know, don’t have paid family leave, like 177 other countries do. And because of that, we see the implications on kids with a quarter of families with young children living in poverty. So, it’s important to recognize that not that many people can stay out of the labor force. GOLODRYGA: That is true, indeed. Especially in these times.

More:
ABC Hides Identity of Liberal Activists Advocating for More Government Intervention in Business