Is it just me?

[Mythsaje]

Now that we've thrown billions of dollars at the very people who've helped get us into this economic mess, without once turning our attention to the cause of many of our economic woes, how is that some people see a "recovery" ahead? How do you recover when your infrastructure is crumbling, your manufacturing base has been shipped overseas, and all but your best educated people are lucky to land a job that puts them even on the fringe of what we used to know as the Middle Class?

Now maybe we should call it the "Muddle Class," because the best they can do is muddle through.

How has this money created anywhere near the number of decent paying jobs we need to revive the economy, or at least begin the process? It may bail out some people, here and there, but that's not going to do it. We need not just a couple of shots of fiscal adrenaline to get Uncle Sam's heart pumping again, we need to outfit the old man with a pacemaker. We need to figure out a way to get people out there buying things, and that's not going to happen by giving away money to people more likely to horde it than spend it.

That is, after all, how the rich get richer. They horde. Those on the bottom of the rung, well, they spend. They have no choice, because they haven't been able to take care of their needs with a phone call or two. The money really needs to go to people who will spend it, who will get the country's juices flowing again.

Of course, we still have the problem of most of that money heading overseas, since that's where all the manufacturing is nowadays. It's a "global economy" don't you know? But it seems that most of those touting this new economy aren't the ones suffering from its abuse. We're not helping the people by purchasing cheap shit from overseas. We're helping the bigwigs. And we sure as hell aren't helping ourselves.

So where's this recovery going to come from? What does our investor class have to invest in now? Real Estate? Risky, especially now. Computer technology? Please--that's SO '90s. Maybe they should all buy apartment buildings and convert them into flop houses to give the poor someplace to sleep.

No, it seems that unless someone drives the process to invest in green energy or something similar, the only place for the investor class to go is...overseas. That is, after all, where everything is being made.

We've got an economic hole large enough to sink a battleship into, and nothing to use as a ladder. We can't even rely on one another to create a human ladder because the ground beneath our feet is shifting too rapidly.

I don't think we're being told anything resembling the truth regarding our economic prospects, and that scares the living shit out of me. There are millions of Americans out there who don't have the faintest idea how bad it could get, and how badly they're being screwed by the folks with the golden parachutes and multi-billion dollar government loans.

What's really bad about all of this is that I'm generally an optimist. But I look at all of this and I can't see a single thing to be optimistic about. Even assuming the health care crisis is solved (and I'm thinking that the end result is going to look like the Frankenstein Monster and be just about as friendly) we'd better be thinking about a massive drive to upgrade our infrastructure and energy generation capabilities. It might well be that those will be the only jobs that'll pay well enough to allow us to retain the middle class.

And while some people might think the middle class isn't worth saving, one has to consider--if there's no middle class, who's going to offer a hand up to those on the very bottom. They won't have anywhere at all to go.

I'd love some answers to some of these questions, but I have yet to hear any. Anyone else?

[zeemike]

1. Well I hear that retired CEOs are hiring upstairs maids

And cabin boys for their yachts. That's got to help.
But your are right there is little interest in discussing this and we do that at our peril.

But the investor class is investing in real estate, and getting it at a bargain price. It is what you do in a down economy buy up the real wealth of the country...the land itself.

I'll give you an example of that with this true story...During the depression a rich man used his money to buy up 50,000 acres in the Ozarks...he got if for practically noting like $.50 an acre because the people there were desperate for cash and he had it.
Later he cut down the timber from the land and made a killing...then he just let it sit there and his daughter inherited it and probably still owns it, and is once again full of marketable timber.

The wealth of a nation is in it's land and resources and we have sold it to the rich and famous just to survive.
People are poor because they have no land.

[KharmaTrain]

2. A Phony Recovery Vs. A Long Term One

I wish I could turn on the teevee tomorrow and hear that there was a gain in jobs not a loss. Not a week goes by where I don't hear of more people laid off...including family and friends. This economy is stagnant...especially the consumer sector as a depresion on the middle and lower classes bite deep. It's the end-result of nearly 30 years of "deregulation" and letting the foxes run the henhouse. This system didn't just crash, it self imploded...we still are just learning how bad things were and how deep this bite is gonna be.

I've always been critical and cynical of politicans talking politics cause they will always spin it to be better or worse than it is...hyperbole gets votes but doesn't always speak to the reality. McCain paid for it dearly when he was so blindsided by the collapse and even President Obama, IMO, underestimated how deep the credit mess is in this country. But at the time, the markets had to be stabilized or any future capital for investment would have totally vanished.

TARP and the bank bail-outs, while its portrayed as money going into bankers pockets, but that's disengenuous. Much of the money went into depleted portfolios of investors...including many elderly and retired, endowments and other parts of the economy that are vital in helping turn things around. It kept banks solvent...but it was a stop-gap...as the damage is so deep and so systemic, waving a wand and expecting rapid change is asking for too much too soon.

The credit crunch still holds tight...and this must be addressed. Hopefully the clamping of the interest rates (and yes, that should have been immediate) is the first step in taming this wild tiger. Next needs to address the large number of defaults and bankruptcies...providing government loans and tax incentives to create businesses and get both credit and commerce flowing. It has to be bottom-up...main street over the big boxes. The days of the too big to fail are over.

Honestly, I can't give specific, nor do I trust anyone else who does. This situation continues to be fluid. Stimulus money went to plug gaps in budget defecits and to maintain programs...thus it went more to maintain existing jobs rather than creating new one. A second package will be needed that must help encourage new jobs. Again, easy to say, hard to specify, thus I'll be curious to see what proponents of a second stimulus, such as Paul Krugman promote.

President Obama is no fool...neither are the people around him. An upward movement in the economy next year will make many forget about the problems of the past...but still will remember who made the mess. The GOOP has no real alternative...just obstruction. They may think they've washed their hands of the mess they made...but those of us who have suffered aren't so easy to forget.

Cheers...

[babylonsister]

3. You're an optimist? How is this rant any different

than countless other ones you've written, regardless of who's in charge? Admit it. You like to rant. ;)

[Mythsaje]

21. I am an optimist compared to a lot of folks

who are just waiting for the great disaster to wipe us all off the face of the planet (as misguided and misanthropic as any super-fundie). I just can't figure out why even here no one really understands the magnitude of what we're up against. There's no way to even correct a situation like this if no one is aware of it because our media and politicians won't tell us the truth. The money men are robbing us blind and no one is stopping them.

And, yeah, sometimes I like to rant.

[PretzelWarrior]

81. exactly. hoping to whip up some book sales, I'd venture.

Nothing wrong with people writing books, but I love how many on here are just using it to pimp their professional writing career which often means not much is going on with said writing career.

[LWolf]

4. It's not just you. nt

[HughMoran]

5. I think all we can do is bide time until something comes along to drive another economic cycle

Here is my question - what alternative do we have than to try to seed the economy and hope that the economic engine stirs back to life?

Sure, there are alternative economic systems, but I believe that all of those require an even bigger government bureaucracy and the ceding of even more of our personal freedoms to the government. I don't think we know where the next economic boom will come from. The government can try to push, say, alternative energy production - but in the end, if it is not profitable, if will fail. The desire to be famous and/or wealthy is what drives a lot of innovation in this country. "The next big thing" often comes from the individual inventor/creator who sees a time like this as an opportunity.

As far as telling millions of Americans "how bad it could get", what would that accomplish? I suppose if one were looking to change the United States as we know it, talk of economic Armageddon could be a useful tool, but what other benefit would there be to driving a nation into despair? Most people are not equipped to deal with this potential reality and would simply hoard and look for ways to be "one up" on the people around them - even if this required not-so-ethical means. I think the one thing we have going for us is American optimism, I see no good in offering Castor Oil for our ills. It would likely lead to even more pain.

The Middle Class is just a construct of our imaginations and has been known to include many people who feel they are part of it simply because they want to think of themselves that way. We may indeed have to lower our standards of living based on this latest upheaval, but let's hope it's simply some of the luxuries that many in other countries wish was commonplace. If indeed things get to the point of mass upheaval and panic/riots in the streets, saying "I saw this coming" will be small comfort. Hold on to your optimism, I know I'm trying my best to, even after training my Asian counterparts to do my job 3 times in my career and counting...

[Raster]

6. According to the special inspector general of TARP, $23.7 trillion may be needed...

...to ultimately sort out the financial mess.

$23.7 trillion!

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-07-20-TARP-spending_N.htm

American taxpayers could end up spending as much as $23.7 trillion in bailing out the financial system, but the U.S. government isn't disclosing with enough transparency how the money is being spent nor how the investment is performing.

That is the conclusion drawn by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), who is set to testify Tuesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

You want to know why we won't get universal heathcare in this country?
You want to know why a decent education is out of reach for most kids in this country?
You want to know why we won't have the financial capability to fix our aging infrastructure?

[taught_me_patience]

15. This is a bullshit number

explained well at The Big Picture

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/overstating-bailout-costs/#comments


Key factors to getting to 23 trillion:

• It includes estimates of the maximum cost of programs that have already been canceled or that never got under way.

• It assumes that every home mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac goes into default, and all the homes turn out to be worthless.

• It assumes that every bank in America fails, with not a single asset worth even a penny.

• And it assumes that all of the assets held by money market mutual funds, including Treasury bills, turn out to be worthless.

• It would also require the Treasury itself to default on securities purchased by the Federal Reserve system.

• Every dollar invested by the government in banks would have to become worthless

• The banks would have to default on securities guaranteed by the F.D.I.C.

• All the collateral posted by the banks to get loans from the Fed would also have to become worthless.

Bottom line: In reality, we are unlikely to get anywhere near that number . . .

[Kid Dynamite]

16. We're already 20-25% of the way there

and things are just getting started

[Raster]

76. I guess the TARP Inspector General is full of shit, then, eh?

And even one-tenth of that amount is too much!

[ThomCat]

7. You're absolutely right.

You can't solve a problem with the same thinking that was used to create the problem to begin with.

In fact, you probably can't solve a problem with the same People who created the problem to begin with.

But we're throwing billions of dollars at this problem, supporting the same system, the same thinking, the same people, in the same companies that created the crash and somehow we're supposed to get a recovery out of this.

Goldman Sachs is having record profits this quarter and awarding record bonuses. That is where the recovery is. All of our money went to them, they're keeping it, and they're using it to get even more money.

Goldman Sachs has no vested interest in seeing any of that money help rebuild the middle class. None of the Goldman Sachs alumni currently running the Treasury Department have a vested interest in rebuilding the middle class as long as their first priority is making sure they have a job again after they leave this administration. So who is actually representing the middle class?

And if we can't find anyone clearly representing the middle class you know that nobody is in there working tirelessly to help the poor.

As for your point about our crumbling infrastructure, well, Goldman Sachs is still pushing schemes to privatize toll roads so that investment banks can profit every time we drive on them, and according to all reports part of the contract for every one of these privatization deals is that the amount of the tolls will no longer be linked cost of road maintenance. They can raise the tolls to ensure a profit.

Can you see the next bubble coming? One set of direct multi-lane roads for people with money, and torn up back roads for the poor. Direct commutes if you can afford it, and long indirect commutes if you can't afford it.

Corzine in NJ is still backing privatization of roads. I haven't seen anything about whether or not it is still on the table in Illinois after blagojevich got tossed out. It's supposedly being discussed in Maine, Texas and Louisiana too. :(

That's just their effort to get control of roads. They had their hands in efforts to privatize utilities with Enron and we saw how that turned out. They're still working to privatize water utilities.

Any public resource that can be privatized is fair game to Goldman Sachs. This is the company that is getting the lion's share of our recovery stimulus money. :(

[bvar22]

8. My child, take deep comfort in the knowlege....

...that no Wall Street Bankers or Health Insurance Executives are going to be clogging up the Bread Lines.

[gorfle]

9. On getting richer.

That is, after all, how the rich get richer. They horde.

I'm as pissed as anyone that we are spending trillions on wars and bankers without addressing things like Social Security and single-payer health care, but this needs correcting.

You don't get richer by hording your money. If you horde it be sticking it in a mattress all it is going to do is loose value due to inflation.

The way you get richer is by investing your money so that it makes more money at a rate faster than the inflation rate.

[SoCalDem]

10. not necessarily. our $30K in CDs gained in interest (without losing principle), BUT

our "101-k" LOST 37.69% in a 2 month span.. Of course if my husband had not been so lazy, and had made that phone call when I asked him to, we would have not lost that additional ONE MONTH drop of $24K.. He feels so bad about it, I never mention it:(

[gorfle]

13. No doubt.

No doubt investments are risks, and you can lose money on them. Nonetheless, the way you get richer is by investing, not hording. The reason it pays is because it IS a risk - you are getting paid for risking your money in the investment.

[dixiegrrrrl]

34. Except GSachs has figured a way to make US pay if they lose their bets.

THAT is what the bailout was about. Taxpayer paying the downside of the risk.
And, as long as the Fed keeps savings rates close to zero, the banks get richer borrowing and we get
lousy interest for saving.
The old rules do not hold for the average investor anymore.

[Lance_Boyle]

27. Um, a CD is an investment.

A conservative one, no doubt, but it is an investment, as opposed to hoarding.

[Kid Dynamite]

18. Easy to conflate

sure they deploy money ("normally", but not so much at present or anytime soon), but they sure do horde capital used for production..and, really, its a matter of perspective regarding money..its hard to say they're not "hoarding" money when no one but them has any

[gorfle]

23. Especially when...

Especially when a large portion of investments may be multi-national - i.e. they are not investing HERE.

[Mythsaje]

20. Just another kind of hoarding...

It's not really circulating, now is it?

Oh, sure, ideally, but part of my point is that they really don't have anything local to invest in. So they're either hoarding or investing overseas.

[gorfle]

24. You answered your own question.

It's not really circulating, now is it?

Oh, sure, ideally, but part of my point is that they really don't have anything local to invest in. So they're either hoarding or investing overseas.

You answered your own question. Yes, the money is circulating, it just may not be invested in the United States.

Nonetheless, my point is the rich don't get richer by hording, they get rich by investing.

Now if you consider any investment that you don't benefit from to be hoarding, well that's another subject all together.

[Mythsaje]

25. I consider any investment that only the investor gets benefit from

to be hoarding.

[gorfle]

28. Then...

I consider any investment that only the investor gets benefit from to be hoarding.

Then no investment can ever be hoarding, because all investments lend money to other people, to their benefit.

[Mythsaje]

30. Other "people" or other "institutions?" n/t

[timeforpeace]

11. Go to Mars, back to the moon, and the asteroids for raw materials, and all will be well. At least

someone posted that yesterday.

[Mythsaje]

17. Not "all will be well..."

But that WOULD be a good future investment, and a damn fine start.

[johnaries]

12. The funds have been authorized, but the projects are just beginning.

The "signs of recovery" that some people are talking about are in the financial sector. You are correct about the infrastructure and green energy, and the funds for them have been authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. However, those projects themselves have not yet begun.

Wait until the projects are underway.

edit to add: for more info please go to: http://www.recovery.gov/

[Kid Dynamite]

14. Thing is

a "stimulus" is supposed to stimulate..yet this is instead crafted so as NOT to that..until later..maybe

There is an especial problem of hypocrisy and double-dealing: trillions for bankers YESTERDAY, a pittance of that for everyone else..eventually

[johnaries]

26. There is a general misunderstanding about the bank loans purpose.

Teh whole problem was business to business short-term loans. Many businesses (including small businesses) rely on short-term loans in order to meet payrolls as well as other debts. Banks basically froze short-term loans. If this had continued, our entire economy would have collapsed completely.

As far as the American Recovery and Reinvetment Act, it takes time to distribute those funds. It's not so much a matter of how it was crafted but of realistic dispersal and enactment. It is a process, and unfortunately it takes time. But it is happening. My own hometown of Nashville just announced a project using the Recovery Act funds that helps build infrastructure and provides jobs. But even though that project has begun, it will take time before the benefits are seen.

[Kid Dynamite]

32. If this had continued, our entire economy would have collapsed completely.

Ummm..it HAS continued

[johnaries]

33. No, it loosened considerably. Just not as much as the Fed hoped.

From Bernanke's Op-Ed in today's WSJ:

The depth and breadth of the global recession has required a highly accommodative monetary policy. Since the onset of the financial crisis nearly two years ago, the Federal Reserve has reduced the interest-rate target for overnight lending between banks (the federal-funds rate) nearly to zero. We have also greatly expanded the size of the Fed’s balance sheet through purchases of longer-term securities and through targeted lending programs aimed at restarting the flow of credit.

These actions have softened the economic impact of the financial crisis. They have also improved the functioning of key credit markets, including the markets for interbank lending, commercial paper, consumer and small-business credit, and residential mortgages.

Those "commercial paper" etc are exactly the loans I was talking about.

[Kid Dynamite]

35. So your answer is that it is slightly mitigated

and only by measures that do not involve the use of Bailout funds proper and so thus the entire economy has not collapsed..yet. Whats the sound of the other shoe dropping?

Hardly seems cause to strike an optimistic note..

[johnaries]

36. No, that is not at all what I said and not at all what Bernanke said.

Although some of the bail-out funds were improperly used, they did keep the economy from collapsing. Period. The financial sector is on the road to recovery, albeit slowly.

The Recovery stimulus funds are just beginning to be applied. Personally, I think we should have had a larger stimulus package. The stimulus package will have an effect, although it's too early to judge how much of an effect it will have or how quickly the effect will be seen.

We WILL come out of this ercession. The question is how soon and how fast.

[Mythsaje]

37. Based upon what? The creation of another financial "bubble?"

Because there's nothing happening in terms of solid, long-term growth and reinvestment. Not HERE, anyway.

[Kid Dynamite]

38. Which in turn begs a large number of questions like

What do we do about? Is talking about legislative "action" even worthwhile at this point? HOW can things even theoretically be "fixed"?

No answers..

[Mythsaje]

41. Sure, but it'll take a serious re-evaluation of long-term goals

and expectations. You can't dump the industries that provided the backbone of the middle class and expect the economy to go forward without serious adjustments. If the manufacturing jobs (decent pay, decent benefits, unionized) are being shipped out of the country, all that's left for the most part is low paying, service sector jobs providing mediocre (at best) benefits to their employees.

As long as our economic engine is being driven by artificial money (i.e. credit) rather than actual money, (i.e. solid, long term technological investments), there's no way we can dig ourselves out of this hole no matter how much cash we throw into it. It's not really about cash today, but cash tomorrow.

[Kid Dynamite]

43. You should add a dose of this to the three or so threads on socialism

Why socialism? The question more and more answers itself..

[Mythsaje]

44. I don't mind some socialism

but I have yet to see a truly socialist economy/government that hasn't become top heavy. The problem I see with it is that socialism, as part of a democratic process, requires even more investment in time and energy by the average person than just democracy by itself. And we can't even get THAT much here in the U.S. Which leaves all the power in the hands of a few, just like with capitalism.

[Kid Dynamite]

46. Mythsaje, when 30-40 million people are destitute

do you really think that any reservations of yours or mine are indicative of anything? Because I don't.

[Mythsaje]

48. Indicative of the fact that we don't need to live an American version of the Soviet Union

where people can still be poor as fuck and get jailed for complaining about it.

Show me a working socialist model larger than a tribe not dominated by a dictator and/or preferential political party and you might have a point.

People in America would, given the evidence, flee toward fascism before they flee toward socialism. Too many people WANT others telling them what to do.

edited to fix a typo

[Kid Dynamite]

49. Did you take a Gallup poll: Socialism or Fascism?

Once again, you have "ideas", I have "ideas" but umm, 30 million+ people are *hungry*. Empty stomaches produce some real funny ideas.

[Mythsaje]

53. Just look at trends...

Hungry (read frightened) people look for leadership. Americans, despite a myth of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, tend to be scared little bunnies under stress. Look at the aftermath of 9/11, a terrorist attack that took years to set up and millions to finance. People were running scared and looking to Bushco to "save" them.

One doesn't need a Gallup poll to read the mood of people with regards to this, especially when another such poll suggests that over 50% of Americans support torture. That, in effect, is saying that "we'll accept anything, but keep us safe."

[johnaries]

47. Based upon HIstory.

And there's lots happening. go to www.recovery.gov

[Mythsaje]

50. Throwing money at a problem that's even bigger than that

isn't going to solve the problem. What it's going to do is DISGUISE the problem a little longer. Build hospitals, clear brush, improve roads. Great. THEN what? As long as no one faces the fact that we have no long-term investment prospects UNLESS we get serious about alternative energy (more serious than we are right now) none of this is going to have any long-term effects. It might, at best, get us through the next few years and possibly the next election. Which, with any luck, might be the point. But, on the other hand, there seem to be a host of "Democrats" who are all cool with the status quo, even if the status quo is dangerous as hell.

What part of WE HAVE NO MANUFACTURING BASE WITH WHICH TO MAINTAIN A MIDDLE CLASS isn't getting through to you? All those jobs that have been shipped overseas AREN'T COMING BACK. So what do we replace them with? Service sector jobs that pay 25% to 50% less?

Unless we get to the root cause of this "downturn" and address it, none of these things are going to be any good to us in the long term. They're just killing time.

[johnaries]

57. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.

Energy is a very large part of the plan, including upgrading the transmission infrastructure which logically has to happen first. In fact, $43 billion is going to energy (you really should look at the link I gave you).

And the GM bail-out was in order to save manufacturing jobs.

Personally, I believe that we should do away with or at least re-negotiate NAFTA, but the time to do it is NOT during a Global Economic Crisis.

[Kid Dynamite]

40. Bernanke is some authority

Question: is the Fed Balance Sheet part of the bailout? If not, are you SURE it was the Bailout that "thawed" credit? Do you have any actual numbers to suggest how "thawed" it really is? I will give you first crack on that.

[Mythsaje]

42. Easy credit's part of the PROBLEM, not a part of a solution.

We need to get back onto solid ground and off these damned flotation devices (bubbles) that have been created to make us forget we're treading water.

[Kid Dynamite]

45. We WERE treading water

and even then "we" was not all inclusive because many were "left behind" euphemistically speaking.

Regardless, its more of a freefall at the moment however not only is there no parachute in sight, the ground is not yet in sight either. It adds up to an even more grim variation on the "dead cat bounce"

[johnaries]

54. What is your evidence? nt

[johnaries]

52. You're confusing Consumer Credit with Commercial Paper. nt

[Mythsaje]

56. I'm not confusing shit.

Lasting economic stimulus requires at least one industry in which to invest that promises returns to make said investments worthwhile. Given that manufacturing is a dud in this country and computer innovation has become standardized in small leaps that have no real chance of changing the world at this point, I don't see where that is going to come from.

So basically we have no disposable income for the people whose purchases actually drive the economy (if people can't afford to buy a new car, washer and dryer, or anything of the sort because they don't have jobs or don't have jobs that pay enough) no matter how much credit you float to the investment class, it's not going to fix the problem. It's just going to hide the problem because the investor class will shuffle the money around for a while so everything looks hunky-dory. But people STILL won't be buying those consumer goods that keep the money flowing.

edited for clarity.

[johnaries]

60. Yes, you are. I agree with you that we have a consumer-based economy.

But the credit issue that Kid Dynamite and I were discussing Commercial Paper, not Consumer Credit. Not the "investment class".

Commercial Paper, among other things, funds payrolls for businesses INCLUDING manufacturers. Therefore, if businesses cannot meet payroll, the workers don't get paid.

The Consumer Credit issue you were talking about is not so much that credit for consumers was too "easy", but that creditors were ripping-off the consumers. That has been solved in part by the CARD Act for credit-card holders. Other measures have been taken for mortgage holders.

[johnaries]

51. Bernanke is the MAIN authority.

They use the Fed Balance Sheet to keep track of the funds, as well as many other things.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_fedsbalancesheet.htm

As far as the Crisis Response:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_crisisresponse.htm

[Mythsaje]

55. He's a supply-side idiot...

Drawing his suppositions from the very same economic ideology that put us here. That's not an authority, that's a fucking co-conspirator.

[johnaries]

58. You're thinking of Greenspan, who's already admitted he was wrong.

Bernanke is taking a Keynesian approach.

[Kid Dynamite]

61. Hes taking the "longrun" Keynesian approach

[johnaries]

64. Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts.

But, yes, he is taking into account the "long-run" if you read the Op-Ed.

[Kid Dynamite]

68. I sincerely hope you caught the joke

[johnaries]

72. To be honest, I wasn't sure if you were joking or not!

it's hard to tell on a board sometimes.
:toast:

[waiting for hope]

19. I don't think that those who put us into

this mess in the first place do not want to hear of a solution. Krugman, Stiglitz and others who have given guidance are not being listened too - it only proves that TPTB want to keep the status quo. Until there is widespread discourse against the system, I fear nothing will change.

K&R

[Mythsaje]

22. Oh, something will change, all right.

It'll continue to get worse.

[dugaresa]

29. I thought we were electing the FDR of our generation and

so far haven't seen much to prove that.

We need money to be pumped into our economy. We need job creation here, but the way the global economy works, the R&D and the assembly for anything new will be done overseas but funded with money that originated with the businesses here.

The only light I see so far is that the carbon taxes and costs associated with transporting goods may cause a shift in where things are manufactured but not for some time.

It takes a powerful political party to shake up the system and it has to have leaders who are not afraid of making enemies and playing rough. Reid in the Senate and Pelosi in the House do nothing to inspire me. Obama, he is still too new to office and seems to be going with the flow and his appointments to treasury have not impressed me.

Eventually the voters in both parties will start to look for someone strong to lead them away from the status quo. That could be good or terribly bad. We could see a good thing in the form of a more socialist leaning party that fights for folks, or we could see it go the more fascist route which historically bodes poorly for us. I see it leaning more towards the latter unfortunately as the economy goes further into the toilet. A charismatic leader who can funnel people's fear into hatred and distrust could really screw up our country.

[earth mom]

31. Good questions. It's obvious all the promises don't add up. CONNECT THE DOTS PEOPLE.

People need to understand that there is NO recovery, no solving of global warming, NOTHING NADA.

The Class War is ON and it's an epic battle that we are losing.

The powers that be are doing everything they can to take this country back 100 + years so they can control us all for pennies on the dollar, if that.

Understand that they don't give a flying fuck about any of us and then there might be some change.

But until everyone gets this obvious fact-the masses will continue to spin their wheels over fake hope and change while worshipping puppet politicians who could give a shit about them.

Google the Obama deception to learn more.

[johnaries]

39. Why do you keep hawking the RW Obama Deception?

It is a piece of trash by Right Wing Radio Wacko Alex Jones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American paleoconservative<1> talk radio host and filmmaker. His syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States and on the Internet.<2> Mainstream news sources have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist.

The Obama Deception (2009) (Video)
The film claims Obama's real agenda is the opposite of what he promised during the campaign. The film claims Wall Street engineered the financial collapse in order to "repo the country" and that Obama is a front-man used by "the elite" to serve their agenda. It claims Obama has broken his campaign promises by sending more troops to Afghanistan, appointed numerous "finance oligarchs" and lobbyists to high government positions, reauthorized the Patriot Act first enacted by the Bush administration, and wants to create a "civilian national security force" to further militarize the country. The film makes a controversial comparison between Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler's ascent to power.

No thinking person could possibly take this trash seriously.


edit: kan't spel

[LanternWaste]

59. After ten months, my office is hiring again and allowing raises.

After ten months, my office is hiring again and re-allowing raises (of which, I was received a merit increase two weeks ago :) ). Granted, that's my own myopic picture of it, and as I'm not an economist, I can only grab onto the clear bits of a rather diffused picture-- as do we all without the benefit of full and complete understanding of the intricacies of an esoteric discipline.

[Mythsaje]

62. We live in a society, unfortunately, where most of the movers and shakers

are reluctant to look beyond either the next quarter's profits, or the next election cycle, to actually make long-range plans to deal with possibly changing circumstances. Then, when those circumstances arise, they're not in any position to deal with them UNLESS the warning signs were there and potent enough the very last cycle.

[LanternWaste]

66. I'm sure many are

"...are reluctant to look beyond either the next quarter's profits..."


I'm sure many are. I'm also sure many others are not...

[johnaries]

74. Mythsaj's statement is very true of most Corporate Heads

most of them are reluctant to look beyond the next quarter. That's part of the reason why the Supply-side and the Libertarian laissez-faire and Austrian School economics were doomed to fail.

Now that Keynesian's are back in charge hopefully new policies will take a longer view. Hopefully.

Unfortunately Corporations will always lobby and spend to fight legislation. Such as they are doing now with the Health Care issue. So, even though the Keynesian's are back in charge it still won't be an easy battle.

[johnaries]

67. Fortunately, the Supply-siders and those who espoused

"less regulation" have been discredited where most of them now freely admit they were wrong. We now have Keynesians back in charge who understand the necessity of strong regulations and oversight.

[Kid Dynamite]

63. Yeah, good thing those followers of that esoteric discipline

saw crisis coming and managed to forestall it and avert the worst of it.

[LanternWaste]

65. I hope they did...

I hope they did. I also have faith they did, otherwise my raise might not have come, and our three new hires would still be collecting unemployment.

[Kid Dynamite]

69. Last September is calling..it begs to differ

[LanternWaste]

71. Very clever. Very erudite. Very witty.

Very clever. Very erudite. Very witty. Yet, like Jell-O when a full meal is required, it comes away wanting, and lacking relevant value.

(Six of one, half a dozen of the other, you see...)

[Kid Dynamite]

77. That was too harsh

I was only trying to say that your respect for economists is not only misplaced but grossly abused as well

On top of that, I think that the "green shoots" theory is insanely wishful thinking. Job losses last month were back UP again (467k)

[Mythsaje]

70. I thought those things were in response to the response

not a sign of foresight. Which, near as I can tell, was practically nil anywhere except in the left blogosphere.

[LanternWaste]

73. raises and new hiring can be translated to best validate

I imagine raises and new hiring may be translated to best validate one's own suppositions. I'm not going to pretend to know if it worked or not-- other people on DU are much better at that than I am.

I simply answered in brief your query with my own limited perspective.

[abumbyanyothername]

75. The very best card in our hand.

The United States is still the primary dumping ground for all that crap that everyone else manufactures. We have the infrastructure (well at least for now) to use it. Keep in mind that finding a paved road is not easy, or even possible, in large parts of the world.

At some point the US economy is going to completely collapse. This will likely coincide with a movement of world reserves out of the dollar, and especially out of dollar denominated currency. We are currently, still, even as bad as it is now for many of us, living by grabbing natural resources (translation = common wealth) away from the rest of the world. When the dollar stops being a reserve currency, we will have to learn to live on our own resources, since we will have no way to pay fair value for imported resources.

The good news is that we still have loads of resources. The bad news is that the resources we have can no longer support a society where hedge fund managers must earn starting with a "B" or fall off the "A" list. The good news is that we are capable of forming a sustainable economy in which everyone living on the North American continent from the North Pole to Panama, or even the equator (which would include parts of Northern South America) can enjoy more than they could possibly consume. The bad news is that the implementation of this economy requires overwhelming shifts in outlook, requiring among other things abandonment of the idea of the sanctity and holiness of private property.

What would such a society look like? Well the technocrats, who got rolling shortly after the first World War, and really picked up steam during the Great Depression, envision a society in which all products (and services) are "priced" (actually assigned a value) based on the amount of energy required to create and deliver it to the ultimate consumer. In their vision, you would sum up all of the energy inputs that went into the manufacture and distribution of, say a car, and then assign it an energy cost. Of course, no one would "buy" a car, but merely use it for as long as they needed it, returning it to a conveniently located garage. (Same for housing and other "physical equipment" kind of stuff we own.) Citizens would each receive a pro rata share of the total energy produced in the "technate", and would be free to choose how to expend their share of the energy in consuming the technate's bounty.

The technocrats suggest a two-year planning cycle. Thus, the engineers (primarily) would decide at the outset how much total energy could (or would) be used during the two year period, divide that by the number of citizens over 25 and distribute energy certificates to each citizen (man and woman, they felt compelled to add at the time) representing equal shares. Energy certificates are non-transferrable (can only be used by the original holder) and expire (cannot be saved).

Personally, I would suggest a few improvements. Issue "basic food certificates" on a daily basis. Issue "standard housing unit certificates" on a monthly basis. Health care is provided regardless of energy certificates, or the balance thereof available to the citizen.

The technocrats note that under their system, there is no need for any finance organizations, freeing up about 25% of the nation's capacity right there. They envision a much reduced legal system as no one needs to protect his or her property from less advantaged people. The main productive value in their system is not competitive advantage but efficiency and thus they anticipate great savings by avoiding economically advantageous obsolesence (the example they use is razor blades, which require a great deal of research to manufacture in such a way that they wear out and need to be re-purchased often).

They do not view their program as moralistic in nature. They do not even view human beings as moral agents. Or at least no more moral than other animals. Just as Pavlov's dogs could be trained, in the technocrats view, so also can human beings be trained. The only difference being that human beings can follow longer chains of association and retain associations for longer periods of time than dogs.

The technocrats argue that price is nonsense (tied to nothing intrinsic about the item priced) and that all pricing systems must eventually collapse because they are not based on any scientific fact. To the technocrats the "cost" of an item produced is the amount of energy consumed in its production. They feel that because the distributed energy certificates always equal the energy inputs into the productive process, they have solved the problem that is plaguing the world economy today -- an imbalance in the productive and consumptive capacities of the world.

They are well aware that violent upheaval will be a highly probable precursor to progress beyond a system based on private property in the United States.

[Kid Dynamite]

78. I have to ask

do these so-called technocrats exist? If so, where (in your head?)

[abumbyanyothername]

79. Do a google search for technocracy.

They are out there. I am not intelligent enough to make this stuff up.

[voc]

80. one answer

Bio-Technology for the future.