Just a reminder

[JayB]

Nice try. What should actually be under consideration is your particular brand of capitalism, the most recent iteration of which can be dated from the late-1970s to the present and can't even be deemed successful in its own terms.

 

Metric-- Golden Age / Washington Consensus

Average global growth 4.8% / 3.2%

Average global inflation 3.9% / 3.2%

Unemployment (US) 4.8% / 6.1%

Unemployment (France) 1.2% / 9.5%

Unemployment (Germany) 3.1% / 7.5%

 

-from here.

 

I think that the lesson here is that you can achieve robust economic growth despite all of growth-impairing distortions introduced by bad policies when you have no significant industrial competitors outside of the West, you've got a very high ratio of workers relative to dependents, etc, etc.

 

It does not follow that international protectionism and the cartelization/nationalization of the domestic economy is something that you can get away when you've got an unprecedented dependency ratio, exponentially greater competitiveness around the globe, etc, etc, etc.

 

But hey - good to know that you're a fan of economic growth and any form of the market economy.

[j_b]

The world is far healthier, wealthier, and longer lived now than it was in the mid-70's.

 

Increase in longevity and wealth have more to do with the end of the colonial era and national revolutions after WW2 in developing nations than with neoliberalism. If anything the developing nations that saw a lot of growth and are still growing have been more protectionist than anything else.

[prole]

Prole is dreaming about the glorious 50's - the Golden Age of American Capitalism!

 

Um, no. But you know who is? American firms! Yeah, that's why they're investing in China instead of here. 'Cause let's face it, this just don't look like a very good place to make a buck these days or in the medium term...

 

Unemployed, and Likely to Stay That Way

NYT 12/2/10

 

The longer people stay out of work, the more trouble they have finding new work.

 

That is a fact of life that much of Europe, with its underclass of permanently idle workers, knows all too well. But it is a lesson that the United States seems to be just learning.

 

This country has some of the highest levels of long-term unemployment — out of work longer than six months — it has ever recorded. Meanwhile, job growth has been, and looks to remain, disappointingly slow, indicating that those out of work for a while are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Even if the government report on Friday shows the expected improvement in hiring by business, it will not be enough to make a real dent in those totals.

 

So the legions of long-term unemployed will probably be idle for significantly longer than their counterparts in past recessions, reducing their chances of eventually finding a job even when the economy becomes more robust.

 

“I am so worried somebody will look at me and say, ‘Oh, he’s probably lost his edge,’ ” said Tim Smyth, 51, a New York television producer who has been unable to find work since 2008, despite having two decades of experience at places like Nickelodeon and the Food Network. “I mean, I know it’s not true, but I’m afraid I might say the same thing if I were interviewing someone I didn’t know very well who’s been out of work this long.”

 

Mr. Smyth’s anxieties are not unfounded. New data from the Labor Department, provided to The New York Times, shows that people out of work fewer than five weeks are more than three times as likely to find a job in the coming month than people who have been out of work for over a year, with a re-employment rate of 30.7 percent versus 8.7 percent, respectively.

 

Likewise, previous economic studies, many based on Europe’s job market struggles, have shown that people who become disconnected from the work force have more trouble getting hired, probably because of some combination of stigma, discouragement and deterioration of their skills.

 

This is one of the biggest challenges facing policy makers in the United States as they seek to address unemployment. Its underlying tenet — that time exacerbates the problem — means that the longer Congress squabbles about how to increase job growth, the more intractable the situation becomes. This, in turn, means Washington would need to pursue more aggressive (and, perversely, more politically difficult) job-creating policies in order to succeed. Even reaching an agreement over whether to extend benefits yet again has proved contentious.

 

Several factors lead to this downward spiral of the unemployed.

 

In some cases, the long-term unemployed were poor performers in their previous positions and among the first to be terminated when the recession began. These people are weak job candidates with less impressive résumés and references.

 

In other instances, those who lost jobs may have been good workers but were laid off from occupations or industries that are in permanent decline, like manufacturing.

 

But economists have tried to control for these selection issues, and studies comparing the fates of similar workers have also shown that the experience of unemployment itself damages job prospects.

 

If jobless workers had been in sales, for instance, their customers might have moved on. Or perhaps the list of contacts they could turn to for leads is obsolete. Mr. Smyth, for example, says that so many of his former co-workers have been displaced that he is no longer sure whom to call on about openings.

 

In particularly dynamic industries, like software engineering, unemployed workers might also miss out on new developments and fail to develop the skills required.

 

Still, this explanation probably applies to only a small slice of the country’s 6.2 million long-term unemployed.

 

“I can’t imagine very many occupations and industries are of the type that if you’re out for nine months, the world passes you by,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization. “I think this erosion-of-skills idea is way overplayed. It’s probably much more about marketability.”

 

Many unemployed workers fret about how to explain the yawning gaps on their résumés. Some are calling themselves independent “consultants” or “entrepreneurs.”

 

Mr. Smyth has been working on his own documentary film and trying to develop ideas for new TV shows with a friend. But with financing for such projects scarce, he says he is still looking for a full-time job.

 

Employers are reluctant to acknowledge any bias against the jobless, and many say they try to take broader economic circumstances into consideration.

 

“Generally speaking, when the economy’s good and someone’s been out of work for a year, you might look at them funny,” said Jay Goltz, who owns five small businesses in Chicago. “These days I don’t know if you can hold it against somebody.”

 

Even so, old habits die hard, especially because unemployment has been unusually concentrated among a smaller group of workers in this recent recession than in previous ones, meaning that fewer workers bear the scarlet “U” of unemployment.

 

“From what I’ve seen, employers do tend to get suspicious when there’s a long-term gap in people’s résumés,” said James Whelly, deputy director of work force development at the San Francisco Human Services Agency. “Even though everyone on an intellectual level knows that this is a unique time in the economy, those old habits are hard to break with hiring managers and H.R. departments who are doing the screening.”

 

It does not help when job seekers are repeatedly rejected — or worse, ignored. Constant rejection not only discourages workers from job-hunting as intensively, but also makes people less confident when they do land interviews. A Pew Social Trends report found that the long-term unemployed were significantly more likely to say they had lost some of their self-respect than their counterparts with shorter spells of joblessness.

 

“People don’t have money to keep up appearances important for job hunting,” said Katherine S. Newman, a sociology professor at Princeton. “They can’t go to the dentist. They can’t get new clothes. They gain weight and look out of shape, since unemployment is such a stressful experience. All that is held against them when there is such an enormous range of workers to choose from.”

 

Though economists generally agree that getting the long-term unemployed back to work quickly is necessary to keep people from becoming unemployable, the mechanism to do so is unclear.

 

Most forms of stimulus try to create business conditions that foster the nation’s output growth, which encourages companies to hire. Output has been growing slowly, however, and has not stoked much job creation. There have also been other indirect incentives, like a small tax break for hiring unemployed workers, but as yet their effectiveness is unknown.

 

Direct employment programs — like the public works projects of the New Deal and World War II — may be the fastest way to put people back to work, economists say. But those raise concerns of crowding out businesses and displacing other workers. Also the approach, which smacks of socialism to some, seems politically untenable at the moment.

 

One possible compromise might be broader-scale retraining and apprenticeship programs, suggests Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard.

 

“That’s better than having more people just go on disability as a last resort, and then basically never return to work in their life, which many will do,” he said. The Obama administration has recently thrown its support behind an effort to overhaul community college retraining programs.

 

“One of the reasons to focus on training for workers, even if you’re not training workers for new jobs, is that when you have workers who have not been in a job for a long time, you need to do all you can to get them to look and feel job-ready when the openings do eventually come back,” said Betsey Stevenson, the Labor Department’s chief economist.

 

The real threat, economists say, is that America, like some of its Old World peers, may simply become accustomed to a large class of idled workers.

 

“After a while, a lot of European countries just got used to having 8 or 9 percent unemployment, where they just said, ‘Hey, that’s about good enough,’ ” said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “If the unemployment rates here stay high but remain relatively stable, people may not worry so much that that’ll be their fate this month or next year. And all these unemployed people will fall from the front of their mind, and that’s it for them.”

Edited December 3, 2010 by prole

[j_b]

The upshot of the 30+ years neoliberal experiment:

 

"What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.

 

We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon.

 

Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks -- Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse -- which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed's purchase of mortgage-backed securities.

 

Deutsche Bank, a German lender, sold the Fed more than $290 billion worth of mortgage securities. Credit Suisse, a Swiss bank, sold the Fed more than $287 billion in mortgage bonds."

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont

A Real Jaw Dropper at the Federal Reserve

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/a-real-jaw-dropper-at-the_b_791091.html?ir=Yahoo

[j_b]

and that's without mentioning all the other companies and countries that needed to be bailed out since the Chicago boys started spreading the holly gospel. Abject failure is the first thing that comes to mind.

[Jim]

Not to beat a dead horse, or a dying one - but there was a very illustrative article on this topic in the NYT on Sunday:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/us/politics/05states.html?_r=2&hp

 

It clearly shows that, fiscal crisis or not, changes were needed in the state and local ponzi scheme of pension funding. It's just not sustainable. It's not a blame game - just common sense.

 

Joshua D. Rauh, an associate professor of finance at Northwestern University, and Robert Novy-Marx, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Rochester, calculated that the true unfunded liability for state and local pension plans is roughly $3.5 trillion.

 

[prole]

That we're headed for a conflagration is not in doubt. It's how we're going to deal with it. A modest proposal that would ease things a bit...

 

Deficit Crisis: Let's Really Be In It Together

 

A one-off tax of the rich has strong public support and would solve the UK's economic crisis at a stroke

How can the sixth richest nation in the world be contemplating cuts in school meals services and regressive forms of taxation? In the political and media commentaries on the national crisis and the need for cuts, there has been very little discussion on how much wealth there is and why "we" as a nation are apparently so poor. Actually the economy keeps growing, and we are becoming richer than we were before the financial crisis.

 

The total personal wealth in the UK is £9,000bn, a sum that dwarfs the national debt. It is mostly concentrated at the top, so the richest 10% own £4,000bn, with an average per household of £4m. The bottom half of our society own just 9%. The wealthiest hold the bulk of their money in property or pensions, and some in financial assets and objects such antiques and paintings.

 

A one-off tax of just 20% on the wealth of this group would pay the national debt and dramatically reduce the deficit, since interest payments on the debt are a large part of government spending. So that is what should be done. This tax of 20%, graduated so the very richest paid the most, would raise £800bn. A major positive for this scheme is that the tax would not have to be immediately paid. The richest 10% have only to assume liability for their small part of the debt. They can pay a low rate of interest on it and if they wish make it a charge on their property when they die. It would be akin to a student loan for the rich.

 

The tax would be extremely popular. We commissioned a YouGov poll of over 2,000 people to test attitudes. There was very strong support, with 74% of the population approving (44% strongly approving). Only 10% did not approve, and agreement was spread right through social groups, with those of the highest income being slightly more supportive than the lower. The strongest support came from those over the age of 55, with 77% in favour (47% strongly). This is an extraordinary result given that there has been no public discussion of this proposal and that the very negative consequences of the alternatives are only just beginning to emerge.

 

There are strong economic arguments for this tax. A key problem for the British economy is that much of the nation's resources have been directed into inflated property values, which is where many of the bonuses ended up. This is in effect dead money but the tax would have the effect of re-circulating it as government spending, which could stimulate growth. The deficit would thus be further reduced as the unemployment resulting from the proposed cuts would be avoided – thus no increase in unemployment pay and no loss in tax revenue from the unemployed. This proposal offers a real alternative, to move debt off the government's books, using money that is largely trapped in the housing market, from people who will not miss it.

 

There will be arguments against it. It will be asked whether such a tax can be collected, but it is easier in some ways than income tax. The rich tend to minimise their declared income, but wealth is more publicly displayed, whether it is multiple properties or million-pound rings from Graff. Will they take their money somewhere else? It seems unlikely that the top 6 million people will up sticks to live in Belize. The current rhetoric of crisis, national interest and "everyone must share the pain" will contribute to demands for strict enforcement. If people have substantial assets, want to live here and to be British, then they will have to pay their bit. The public will have little time for non-doms, exiles or what will be seen as unacceptable attempts at avoidance. It is economic war, as Vince Cable says, but this is a move away from using the poor as cannon fodder.

 

At present David Cameron is arguing for policies that may radically reduce growth, put up unemployment and affect the bottom 6 million people hardest – those who literally have no wealth at all. He is doing this when the Conservatives received just 3% more votes in this year's election than they did in 2005. There is no popular mandate for what is being proposed, certainly not from those who voted Liberal Democrat. The consequence of what they are doing is likely to be serious social unrest. The British people are not passive and it is a myth that they will accept policies that they see as profoundly unfair. The new Tories might look back and remember what happened to the poll tax.

--from here.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2010 by prole

[tvashtarkatena]

Yup. Time to give it back.

[Jim]

Good concept, tried that in WA, crashed and burned. Next up, tilting at windmills I suppose?

[tvashtarkatena]

You know how these things work. It takes a certain amount of pain to wake the idiots up.

[j_b]

[video:youtube]H5OtB298fHY

[Jim]

I'm glad Obama is taking a strong stand on these issues. Can I change my vote to Hillary?

[Fairweather]

 

 

Yes, our elected representatives need to knock off this compromise shit and get back to ideological purity. Americans voted for gridlock last November, and that's what we expect.

 

Hell, at this point I'd even consider a vote for Ms. Rodham. (Although she is looking a bit tired these days.)

 

 

Edited December 7, 2010 by Fairweather

[tvashtarkatena]

Realistically, we'd probably be in the exact same spot with Hillary, given her history and background. She's not exactly an 'outsider'.

[Jim]

I'd happily embrace compromise - but this is just more cowtowing to successful class warfare - and the elites are winning, hands down. What Bernie doesn't mention in his speech is the tag-along of the significant raising of the threshold for the estate tax along with the continued tax break for the wealthy. A compromise would have been to continue tax cuts for the middle class, who would be more likely to spend it, rather than to those who are buying Congress. WTF?

[Jim]

Realistically, we'd probably be in the exact same spot with Hillary, given her history and background. She's not exactly an 'outsider'.

 

I think she has a spine, however.

[tvashtarkatena]

You gotta love the reverse class warfare mantra - it's a propagandists wet dream.

 

"War on the rich":

 

"Darling, we'll have to finance this year's new Bugatti."

"OH! Whatever shall we do? I just...don't feel that we should create as many jobs this year".

 

LOL

[tvashtarkatena]

This is what happens when Madison Avenue creates a society where materialism, over egalitarianism, education, compassion, service and stewardship has become our most fiercely defended and cherished value. It's every man for himself, and every man fancies himself a futah playuh.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Realistically, we'd probably be in the exact same spot with Hillary, given her history and background. She's not exactly an 'outsider'.

 

I think she has a spine, however.

 

I think Obama might have some cartilage in there somewhere. Really hard to tell. I'm thinking Jello mold in the shape of the presidential seal.

 

Then again, we have the Tea Baggers guarding their McMansions from the unwashed welfare moms to deal with now. It's a numbers game.

[prole]

The most recent "compromise": We can keep our tax cuts, you can stay unemployed.

[j_b]

Realistically, we'd probably be in the exact same spot with Hillary, given her history and background. She's not exactly an 'outsider'.

 

I think she has a spine, however.

 

Lying through ones teeth to the public while campaigning requires lots of spine. Acting along as the president of the people while doing the exact opposite requires lots of spine.

 

There is no indication H.Clinton would have done much differently.

[j_b]

I don't know about you but I am for ideological purity like the existence of a middle class. I'll let the reasonable stuff for the robber barons.

[j_b]

I think Obama might have some cartilage in there somewhere. Really hard to tell. I'm thinking Jello mold in the shape of the presidential seal.

 

why do people speak as if it were a matter of character? If Obama didn't want a part of the dash-pot presidency to keep business as usual, he wouldn't be the head of it.

[rob]

The most recent "compromise": We can keep our tax cuts, you can stay unemployed.

 

[j_b]

 

Media spin election as victory for austerity