Just a reminder

[JayB]

The fical crisis has exacerbated some existing fiscal unsustainable issues with state and local governments. Shit - if your pension plans were not funded properly in flush times they ain't going to be during this cycle. Sorry, but the basic concept of not spending more than you have, and actually planning for it is preferable, and more sustainable for all services than burying your head in the sand and making believe it will go away if we only complain more about the plurocrats, oligarcy, or the Masons.

 

Given that the voters have turned down and repealed recent tax proposals - what are you suggesting?

 

Exactly.

 

 

[prole]

plurocrats, oligarcy, or the Masons.

 

The Left equivalent of overpaid bus drivers, welfare queens, and anchor babies?

 

Given that the voters have turned down and repealed recent tax proposals - what are you suggesting?

 

You already offered an excellent suggestion: universal healthcare. None of these problems is going to get solved at the local level and certainly not by making more people miserable. Time to start thinking bigger again.

[Jim]

plurocrats, oligarcy, or the Masons.

 

The Left equivalent of overpaid bus drivers, welfare queens, and anchor babies?

 

Given that the voters have turned down and repealed recent tax proposals - what are you suggesting?

 

You already offered an excellent suggestion: universal healthcare. None of these problems is going to get solved at the local level and certainly not by making more people miserable. Time to start thinking bigger again.

 

Great. In the meantime what are you suggesting the local jusrisdictions and states do? Any alternative to getting their fiscal house in order is cutting services.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Time to start thinking bigger again.

 

Yeah, right, keep "thinking big" while the Titanic sinks.

[prole]

The "structural changes" you're advocating for are not going to save programs for the underpriviledged. The people with whom you're jumping into bed with on the "revenues to outlays calculus" have been trying to bust unions, privatize pension plans and SS, AND cut programs like the ones I cited above for years. In good times and bad times, rain or shine. Facilitating a race to the bottom by making everyone's health plans shitty, bringing wages down, weakening the ability to bargain collectively is not the way we're going to get out of this mess. Pretending this is a local issue while fiscal crises of the state metastasize daily at the global level is not going to get us out of this mess. Ignoring how the crises originated in favor of a state or municipal level shake-and-bake plan that exacerbates our already mounting health and welfare crisis is not going to get us out of this mess.

 

There are two things that are going to get us out of this mess.

 

The first is bringing debts down to a level that we can actually repay. This will happen with a combination of structural reforms and bondholder/creditor haircuts.

 

The second is liquidating the cumulative malinvestment in real-estate and other sectors and letting employment shift to sectors that are producing things that people still want to buy.

 

Demand for luxury condos, CDOs, and Escalades is never going to come back. Reality has changed, the composition of demand has changed along with it, and patterns of production and exchange have to change in response to reality. Pumping a gajillion dollars into busted sectors will prevent the expansion of those sectors of the economy where the unemployed might be able to find new jobs. The sooner we accept this fact - the better.

 

Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? Yeah, creditors and bondholders need to take haircuts, the question in this and other countries is whether or not finance has captured enough state power to determine whether they'll have to take the losses or whether they'll be able to squeeze enough out of citizens through structural adjustments (their haircut or our amputation).

 

As to the second part: Hmmmm, things people still want to buy, which are labor intensive enough to put a significant number of people to work, that Americans are skilled enough to make or at wages low enough to make them competitive with African slum-dwellers, that the resources are inexpensive enough to source, that people can buy without relying on credit, that...

Yeah, let us know when you got some specifics.

[prole]

Yeah, right, keep "thinking big" while the Titanic sinks.

 

If this analogy holds, then cutting bus driver salaries is akin to using a teacup to bail water. I am glad you recognize the scope of the situation though.

[tvashtarkatena]

I thought this might be helpful in this discussion:

 

Washington State Budget

[JayB]

The "structural changes" you're advocating for are not going to save programs for the underpriviledged. The people with whom you're jumping into bed with on the "revenues to outlays calculus" have been trying to bust unions, privatize pension plans and SS, AND cut programs like the ones I cited above for years. In good times and bad times, rain or shine. Facilitating a race to the bottom by making everyone's health plans shitty, bringing wages down, weakening the ability to bargain collectively is not the way we're going to get out of this mess. Pretending this is a local issue while fiscal crises of the state metastasize daily at the global level is not going to get us out of this mess. Ignoring how the crises originated in favor of a state or municipal level shake-and-bake plan that exacerbates our already mounting health and welfare crisis is not going to get us out of this mess.

 

There are two things that are going to get us out of this mess.

 

The first is bringing debts down to a level that we can actually repay. This will happen with a combination of structural reforms and bondholder/creditor haircuts.

 

The second is liquidating the cumulative malinvestment in real-estate and other sectors and letting employment shift to sectors that are producing things that people still want to buy.

 

Demand for luxury condos, CDOs, and Escalades is never going to come back. Reality has changed, the composition of demand has changed along with it, and patterns of production and exchange have to change in response to reality. Pumping a gajillion dollars into busted sectors will prevent the expansion of those sectors of the economy where the unemployed might be able to find new jobs. The sooner we accept this fact - the better.

 

Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? Yeah, creditors and bondholders need to take haircuts, the question in this and other countries is whether or not finance has captured enough state power to determine whether they'll have to take the losses or whether they'll be able to squeeze enough out of citizens through structural adjustments (their haircut or our amputation).

 

As to the second part: Hmmmm, things people still want to buy, which are labor intensive enough to put a significant number of people to work, that Americans are skilled enough to make or at wages low enough to make them competitive with African slum-dwellers, that the resources are inexpensive enough to source, that people can buy without relying on credit, that...

Yeah, let us know when you got some specifics.

 

The funny thing about the Euro crisis is that the self-styled foes of the market are the ones that are digging in their heels the most when it comes to transferring the pain to creditors and bondholders, instead of forcing it all onto the public.

 

There isn't enough economic output in Europe to cover all of their debts. A restructuring is inevitable, part of that will be haircuts for bondholders - and the longer the folks who are attempting to show the market who's boss deny this the worse things will be for all concerned.

 

As far as your list of requirements is concerned - you are making the argument from personal incredulity. Pretty much the entire private workforce is engaged in employment that satisfies your criteria at this moment in time, even if neither you nor any other single intelligence can correctly identify or predict all of the factors that make the transmission-fluid plant more viable in Texas than Nigeria at this particular point in time.

 

As the composition of demand changes, so will the composition of employment. More people will stay employed if we allow the distribution of employment to respond to reality, than if we stick our fingers in our ears and deny it, or engage in futile attempts to predict it in the form of a "5 Year Plan."

 

 

[j_b]

The fical crisis has exacerbated some existing fiscal unsustainable issues with state and local governments. Shit - if your pension plans were not funded properly in flush times they ain't going to be during this cycle. Sorry, but the basic concept of not spending more than you have, and actually planning for it is preferable, and more sustainable for all services than burying your head in the sand and making believe it will go away if we only complain more about the plurocrats, oligarcy, or the Masons.

 

Given that the voters have turned down and repealed recent tax proposals - what are you suggesting?

 

Not to give any credibility to the storyline that austerity is the way out of this economic mayhem. You have a choice: stand with a) JayB and Obama and his catfood commission or with b) Robert Reich (for example)

 

Robert Reich

Fmr. Secretary of Labor; Professor at Berkeley; Author, Aftershock: 'The Next Economy and America's Future'

The Big Economic Story, and Why Obama Isn't Telling It

 

Quiz: What's responsible for the lousy economy most Americans continue to wallow in?

 

A. Big government, bureaucrats, and the cultural and intellectual elites who back them.

 

B. Big business, Wall Street, and the powerful and privileged who represent them.

 

These are the two competing stories Americans are telling one another.

 

Yes, I know: It's more complicated than this. In reality, the lousy economy is due to insufficient demand -- the result of the nation's almost unprecedented concentration of income at the top. The very rich don't spend as much of their income as the middle. And since the housing bubble burst, the middle class hasn't had the buying power to keep the economy going. That concentration of income, in turn, is due to globalization and technological change -- along with unprecedented campaign contributions and lobbying designed to make the rich even richer and do nothing to help average Americans, insider trading, and political bribery.

 

So B is closer to the truth.

 

But A is the story Republicans and right-wingers tell. It's a dangerous story because it deflects attention from the real problem and makes it harder for America to focus on the real solution -- which is more widely shared prosperity. (I get into how we might do this in my new book, Aftershock.)

 

A is also the story President Obama is telling, indirectly, through his deficit commission, his freeze on federal pay, his freeze on discretionary spending, and his wavering on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

 

Most other Washington Democrats are falling into the same trap.

 

If Obama and the Democrats were serious about story A they'd at least mention it. They'd tell the nation that income and wealth haven't been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash. They'd be indignant about the secret money funneled into midterm campaigns. They'd demand Congress pass the Disclose Act so the public would know where the money comes from.

 

They'd introduce legislation to curb Wall Street bonuses -- exactly what European leaders are doing with their financial firms. They'd demand that the big banks, now profitable after taxpayer bailouts, reorganize the mortgage debt of distressed homeowners. They'd call for a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work, and pay for it with a tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

 

They'd insist on extended unemployment benefits for log-term jobless who are now exhausting their benefits. And they'd hang tough on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- daring Republicans to vote against extending the cuts for everyone else.

 

But Obama is doing none of this. Instead, he's telling story A.

 

Making a big deal out of the deficit -- appointing a deficit commission and letting them grandstand with a plan to cut $4 trillion out of the projected deficit over the next ten years -- $3 of government spending for every $1 of tax increase -- is telling story A.

 

What the public hears is that our economic problems stem from too much government and that if we reduce government spending we'll be fine.

 

Announcing a two-year freeze on federal salaries - explaining that "I did not reach this decision easily... these are people's lives" -- is also telling story A.

 

What the public hears is government bureaucrats are being paid too much, and that if we get the federal payroll under control we'll all be better off.

 

Proposing a freeze on discretionary (non-defense) spending is telling story A. So is signaling a willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts to the top. So is appointing his top economic advisor from Wall Street (as apparently he's about to do).

 

In fact, the unwillingness of the President and Washington Democrats to tell story B itself promotes story A, because in the absence of an alternative narrative the Republican story is the only one the public hears.

 

Obama's advisors explain that the president's moves are designed to "preempt" the resurgent Republicans -- just like Bill Clinton preempted the Gingrich crowd by announcing "the era of big government is over" and then tacking right.

 

They're wrong. By telling story A and burying story B, the president legitimizes everything the right has been saying. He doesn't preempt them; he fuels them. He gives them more grounds for voting against raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. He strengthens their argument against additional spending for extended unemployment benefits. He legitimizes their argument against additional stimulus spending.

 

Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn't legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn't have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why.

 

Unless the President and Democrats explain why the economy still stinks for most Americans and offer a plan to fix it, the Republican explanation and solution -- it's big government's fault, and all we need do is shrink it -- will prevail.

 

That will mean more hardship for tens of millions of Americans. It will make it harder to remedy the bad economy. And it will set Republicans up for bigger wins in the future.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/post_1362_b_790614.html

[JayB]

They've been singing from that very sheet of music in Euroland for decades and it doesn't end happily.

 

The day of reckoning is here:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/business/global/01bonds.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

 

 

[prole]

As far as your list of requirements is concerned - you are making the argument from personal incredulity. Pretty much the entire private workforce is engaged in employment that satisfies your criteria at this moment in time, even if neither you nor any other single intelligence can correctly identify or predict all of the factors that make the transmission-fluid plant more viable in Texas than Nigeria at this particular point in time.

 

As the composition of demand changes, so will the composition of employment. More people will stay employed if we allow the distribution of employment to respond to reality, than if we stick our fingers in our ears and deny it, or engage in futile attempts to predict it in the form of a "5 Year Plan."

 

20% of the American workforce is currently un or underemployed (just to get that out of the way). But what I'm personally incredulous about is that allowing the "distribution of employment to respond to reality" (aka the further commodification of labor through union busting, flexibilization, and corporate globalization, etc.) is going to result in better life-outcomes and democratic freedoms for the human beings that actually inhabit the theoretical marshmallow-world you concoct than one that incorporates features like coherent industrial policies, strong social welfare programs in health and education. Where is your track record of success, Jay? Point to the successes. We've been going down the neoliberal path for nearly thirty years. By almost any measure, we are practically ruined. Do you really expect us to believe that if we just push down your same path harder, we're going to reach the light? It's astonishing really, the power of your faith.

[j_b]

They've been singing from that very sheet of music in Euroland for decades and it doesn't end happily.

 

Are you forgetting that your sheet of music is what got us where we are? Give it up dude, your cred has been in the shitter for a very long time already.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

20% of the American workforce is currently un or underemployed (just to get that out of the way). But what I'm personally incredulous about is that allowing the "distribution of employment to respond to reality" (aka the further commodification of labor through union busting, flexibilization, and corporate globalization, etc.) is going to result in better life-outcomes and democratic freedoms for the human beings that actually inhabit the theoretical marshmallow-world you concoct than one that incorporates features like coherent industrial policies, strong social welfare programs in health and education.

 

"coherent industrial policies, strong social welfare programs", etc don't create jobs. Tell us exactly, concretely what YOU advocate to reemploy or fully employ the un and underemployed, Prole.

 

Where is your track record of success, Jay? Point to the successes.

 

Where is YOUR track record of success, Prole? Tell us how your specific, concrete plans to reemploy the un and underemployed have been proven by history to actually work.

[j_b]

The funny thing about the Euro crisis is that the self-styled foes of the market are the ones that are digging in their heels the most when it comes to transferring the pain to creditors and bondholders, instead of forcing it all onto the public.

 

Bullshit! People are simply weary of the finance vultures restructuring the debt further to their advantage.

[prole]

Where is YOUR track record of success, Prole?

 

Well, as far as the Keynesian approaches favored by most progressives, Kojak, that would be pretty simple:

 

The Golden Age of Capitalism

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Where is YOUR track record of success, Prole?

 

Well, as far as the Keynesian approaches favored by most progressives, Kojak, that would be pretty simple:

 

The Golden Age of Capitalism

 

 

Back to the Future: the 50's baby. Who is the REGRESSIVE now.

[prole]

"Track record" implies past, correct? God, you're a pathetic cretin.

[prole]

The track record that neoliberals would be able to point to on the other hand can be found in the extensive descriptions by Charles Dickens. "Hard Times" is a good one...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"Track record" implies past, correct? God, you're a pathetic cretin.

 

Or currently-implemented policies through the present, dipshit.

 

Your "example" has no details, and is laughable for many reasons, not the least of which is the tie-in to the 50's. Isn't that the fatal bullet that killed off Dole (Clinton's build a bridge to the 21st century, rather than looking back at the 50's)

 

 

 

 

[prole]

Are you mildly Down's or what?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are you mildly Down's or what?

 

Well, I'm not retarded enough to pursue an education I can't afford to pay off with gainful employment later on.

[prole]

Are you mildly Down's or what?

 

Well, I'm not retarded enough to pursue an education I can't afford to pay off with gainful employment later on.

 

The little wavy Down's Syndrome emoticon guy is a nice touch.

[j_b]

"Track record" implies past, correct? God, you're a pathetic cretin.

 

what? didn't you know that in 2011 there will be progress relative to today because 2011 is greater than 2010?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are you mildly Down's or what?

 

Well, I'm not retarded enough to pursue an education I can't afford to pay off with gainful employment later on.

 

The little wavy Down's Syndrome emoticon guy is a nice touch.

 

"Let me be the bridge to an America that only the unknowing call myth. Let me be the bridge to a time of tranquillity, faith, and confidence in action" - Prole

[prole]

"Og like meat" -Kojak