The State of the Economy

[NewJazz4Mike]

And to the idea that it was all corporate greed that brought us to the brink of economic disaster - I agree that those corporations should NOT have received all the tax funded bailouts. But you are ignoring the fact that it wasn't a free market that failed - it was strictly government intervention and influence on a free market. The collapse was a long time building, banks and insurance companies were forced through political extortion - to support what politicians knew for a long time was an unsustainable ponzi scheme. It suited liberal politicians to provide affordable housing for everyone, and they systemically made sure that banks would make unsecured mortgage loans to people who had no chance of ever paying them. Banks sold off those bad debts and allowed Fannie and Freddie to continue for years and years. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and others ensured this, Barney Frank himself testified that those federally backed lending institutions were in sound economic shape... when everyone knew they were just running up debt. The guilt isn't on the greedy corporations, but on the politicians who allowed and even ensured that those corporations played the game and followed financially irresponsible policies. HUD is another dismal government failure of trying to reward a sector of society out of proportion to their production. Socialist policy in nature, with the predictably dismal failure. A free market without government complicity and influence would never have allowed it.

[cdog]

point of reference........

when i began this thread Nov 2007 the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at

13,595.10

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by engelbach

Defunding NPR is part of the Right's plan to demonize culture and dumb down the masses. For an artist to applaud this is unconscionable. Especially at a time when this very Website is struggling to afford to stay afloat.

True, Jer, but let's not forget that NPR regularly gets grants that AAJ isn't eligible for because (roll eyes, here), we're a "for profit" organization.

Sure, we're for profit. Too bad we ain't seein' any....struggling, as you say, to stay afloat, in fact.

Not that I think NPR losing some of its funding is a good thing, by any means; only that I suspect (without knowing the full details, mind you; I am up here in Canada) they'll have a shakedown but will ultimately survive; I can't see them being allowed to fail. But, of course, I could be wrong.

[jkelman]

With respect to the recession, the interesting thing is Canada was largely insulated - we felt what was going on around us, but internally, we weathered the storm very well, for the first time in my memory. Why? Because our government had legislation that prevented our banks from doing what banks in the States, Iceland, Ireland, and most of those other countries did: invest in subprime mortgages.

I remember a time when folks were up in arms here about that legislation; they haven't been bitching much the last couple years, not when relatives in Ireland have had their retirement pension slashed by 20%, when they're already living on a reduced income. Of course, that ain't the worst of it, just a personal example, as that's exactly what happened to my mother-in-law, a retired teacher.

[Nav Singh]

Originally Posted by jkelman

True, Jer, but let's not forget that NPR regularly gets grants that AAJ isn't eligible for because (roll eyes, here), we're a "for profit" organization.

Sure, we're for profit. Too bad we ain't seein' any....struggling, as you say, to stay afloat, in fact.

Not that I think NPR losing some of its funding is a good thing, by any means; only that I suspect (without knowing the full details, mind you; I am up here in Canada) they'll have a shakedown but will ultimately survive; I can't see them being allowed to fail. But, of course, I could be wrong.

I used to donate to the local NPR station here---until they got rid of ALL their jazz programing (jazz music used to be played all night) and fired all the jazz DJs and staffers, including (file under "unforgivable") the late Dick Buckley, who was a local treasure.

After that, I decided they would NEVER get another cent from me and can basically rot in hell.

[Nav Singh]

Vs. Various government programs at risk--

The math--

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...War-Looks-Like)

[Nav Singh]

Originally Posted by NewJazz4Mike

And to the idea that it was all corporate greed that brought us to the brink of economic disaster - I agree that those corporations should NOT have received all the tax funded bailouts. But you are ignoring the fact that it wasn't a free market that failed - it was strictly government intervention and influence on a free market. The collapse was a long time building, banks and insurance companies were forced through political extortion - to support what politicians knew for a long time was an unsustainable ponzi scheme. It suited liberal politicians to provide affordable housing for everyone, and they systemically made sure that banks would make unsecured mortgage loans to people who had no chance of ever paying them. Banks sold off those bad debts and allowed Fannie and Freddie to continue for years and years. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and others ensured this, Barney Frank himself testified that those federally backed lending institutions were in sound economic shape... when everyone knew they were just running up debt. The guilt isn't on the greedy corporations, but on the politicians who allowed and even ensured that those corporations played the game and followed financially irresponsible policies. HUD is another dismal government failure of trying to reward a sector of society out of proportion to their production. Socialist policy in nature, with the predictably dismal failure. A free market without government complicity and influence would never have allowed it.

during the Great Depression, the govt had to step in and basically SAVE the banking system. In part, the following law was enacted in 1933--and then reappeared by Clinton in 1999--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act

in general, but for government intervention (John Keynes) that became the standard operating procedure), capitalism was in very dire straights in its most successful and advanced countries.

The affect of the reappeal of that Act was to generally leave the market unchecked and unfettered. Resulting in the debacle of 2008.


Moreover, the chaos was not simply a product of the housing collapse, but also involved unabated and unfettered rampant speculation in general, generally encapsulated in the sophistry that has become known as "financial derivatives".

The effects of such rampant speculation have been devastating--particularly in the field of currency speculation (after Nixon took the US off the gold standard in '71, currencies became free floating).

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by NewJazz4Mike

sorry, but it's "happening" in "rich places" like Spain, Ireland, Greece Poland... and lets also add states like California who desperately need bailouts to avoid collapse... because for a long time now they've been spending larger and larger percentages of their GNP, i.e their basic economy - on social programs. Instead of trusting in a market driven reward system, they have been spending money where there is no incentive system, no return on investment, no entrepreneurship, no innovation... just spending, a vicious cycle of reliance by the people on the government leading to more spending with no economic push. Those areas that you cited are further down the road than the U.S. is in socialist policies... and we see how it ALWAYS leads to disaster. So... you suggest we emulate and follow their lead, rather than the other way around. That makes no sense.

And you talk about education? From my perspective, our education system here in the U.S. is in the toilet, and the more money we throw at it, the worse it seems to get. Another PRIME example of union power abuse and misapplication. Teacher's unions are renowned for protecting the worst of their constituency rather than rewarding the best. Taxpayers in NYC are paying EXTRAORDINARY sums for entire schools full of incompetent teachers and teachers with other issues that would cause them to get fired in a private industry sector, and they are protected by tenure. They sit in what they call "rubber rooms" and they accrue their pension time while they do nothing, kill time or in some cases run their own businesses - all on the taxpayer's dime. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the norm for other school districts. You want a more effective education system, simply eliminate the union "protection" for unworthy teachers and make the rest of them earn their positions every year with performance reviews... the same reward system that produces results in any private industry. But now we're back to unions again, and how society can't afford them.

There is no incentive for strictly market driven systems to willingly invest in "social programs."

People don't "rely on government." When there are jobs, people work. Social Security is an insurance program for retirees and the disabled. The biggest reliers on government are the war machine and the unregulated and under-taxed business profiteers.

Bush's terms drove the current deficit — hardly an era of excessive regulation.

Job performance should be measurable in all industries. But teachers didn't create the education system, and were traditionally underpaid until their unions began to represent them in earnest.

The "rubber room" syndrome is a lame excuse to want to destroy unions. Society is made up of working people, and that society cannot afford to be without unions.

Scapegoating unions for the concentration of wealth in the United States is as silly as it gets.

Gven the past history of the free market, there's no reason to believe that it can lead to prosperity, or even a decent living, for the working class. There is every reason to believe that a planned economy can.

[Nav Singh]

Originally Posted by engelbach

The obstacle to a general strike is the chickenshit unon leadership.

They're afraid of losing their privileged offices. They're afraid of provoking the politicians they've sold out to. They're afraid of their own rank and file, of the power of the working class once it's unleashed.

The AFL-CIO Website says, "If you live in Wisconsicn, join the protest." How's that for national union solidarity?

The rank and file need to ask their leaders, "Which side are you on?"

I got yer (un)principled Bureaucrat Strategy right here.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...of-strikes.php

"Wainscott asked Abelson whether one particular activity could be undertaken by public unions: strikes.

"No. I mean, look, public sector workers in Wisconsin are committed and dedicated to the citizens we serve," said Abelson. "And there has been no talk of a general strike, there has been no talk of targeted strikes, or job actions or anything else. Our dispute is not with our employers. Our dispute is with the Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate, the Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly, and Governor Walker."

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Nav Singh

I got yer (un)principled Bureaucrat Strategy right here.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...of-strikes.php

"Wainscott asked Abelson whether one particular activity could be undertaken by public unions: strikes.

"No. I mean, look, public sector workers in Wisconsin are committed and dedicated to the citizens we serve," said Abelson. "And there has been no talk of a general strike, there has been no talk of targeted strikes, or job actions or anything else. Our dispute is not with our employers. Our dispute is with the Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate, the Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly, and Governor Walker."

[Groan] Even worse than I thought.

[Dazedcat]

Just one more reason to dump GE stock if you have any:

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...-sisters-in-us

"GE we bring good things to life".................

[Saundra Hummer]

Those in the know about legal matters say that prohibiting collective bargaining is illegal. I Posted an article about it.

[Dazedcat]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ilout-20110411


........and so it continues.......

[Homer]

Did anyone watch the President's talk that just ended a half hour ago?

Listen to this clip, it's LBJ explaining his fiscal policy:

http://whitehousetapes.net/clips/1964_0617_1858_reston/

[Homer]

Here comes the fiscal cliff. I think it's a good thing. Americans voted for this, and why not? It doesn't cost them anything....yet. Over the past four years payroll taxes dropped. It's time to learn that there is a cost to a larger and larger government. Let's explore current #s:

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

Own it.