Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83

Fri Nov 6, 2009 8:41 AM EST
business, politics, us, economy
Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 7 photos
<p>In this Nov. 4, 2009 photo, Sonja Jackson, of Detroit, holds a Employment Guide  standing in line while attending a job fair in Livonia, Mich. The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)</p>

In this Nov. 4, 2009 photo, Sonja Jackson, of Detroit, holds a Employment Guide standing in line while attending a job fair in Livonia, Mich. The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The unemployment rate has hit double digits for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher. The 10.2 percent jobless rate for October shows how weak the economy remains even though it is growing. The rising jobless rate could threaten the recovery if it saps consumers' confidence and makes them more cautious about spending as the holiday season approaches.

The October unemployment rate — reflecting nearly 16 million jobless people — jumped from 9.8 percent in September, the Labor Department said Friday. The job losses occurred across most industries, from manufacturing and construction to retail and financial.

Economists say the unemployment rate could surpass 10.5 percent next year because employers are reluctant to hire.

President Barack Obama called the new jobs report another illustration of why much more work is needed to spur business creation and consumer spending. Noting legislation he's signing to provide additional unemployment benefits for laid-off workers, Obama said, "I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work."

The government's monthly unemployment report is based on two surveys, one of households, one of companies' payrolls. The household survey showed that about 558,000 more people were unemployed last month than in September, raising the total to 15.7 million. The company survey, however, showed only a third as many job losses — 190,000.

The disparity can be explained by the fact that the company survey doesn't count people who are self-employed and undercounts employees of small businesses. That's why some analysts, like Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, say last month's household survey could be an ominous sign for the economy.

One struggling small business, Miller and Smith Inc., a home builder in McLean, Va., has trimmed its work force to about 97 from 350 at the height of the housing market in 2005. The company has been hurt by a slowdown in building and surging health care costs.

Miller and Smith faced a 44 percent increase in the cost of health insurance over the past year that it managed to reduce to 23 percent.

"You can have ... one person get in a traffic accident on the weekend, and it completely blows your claim experience out of the water," Human Resources Director Selina Burke said.

Troubles for small businesses could have a disproportionate effect on the economy, because they account for about 60 percent of the nation's jobs. They tend to rely on credit cards and home equity lines to maintain their cash flow. Banks have tightened credit in many of these areas.

The 10.2 percent unemployment rate does not include people without jobs who have stopped looking for work or those who have settled for part-time jobs. If you counted those people, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

"It's not a good report," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co. "What we're seeing is a validation of the idea that a jobless recovery is perfectly on track."

That's hurting people like Jose Betancourt, 57, who goes to a Miami-area career center twice a week to take computer education classes. Betancourt has been out of work since July, when he was laid off from his supermarket maintenance job. He lives on about $600 a month in unemployment benefits, barely enough for the rent for his efficiency apartment, food and utilities.

Betancourt has trouble believing the recession is over. In his neighborhood, he sees other jobless people and empty stores.

"It's as if they just gave the economy a nice coat of varnish to make everyone feel better," he said. "I'm in a state of anxiety, and I see it all around Miami."

Last week, the government said the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the strongest signal yet that the worst recession since the Great Depression is over. But that growth isn't fast enough to turn the job market around.

"You need explosive growth to take the unemployment rate down," Greenhaus said in an interview Thursday.

The economy soared by nearly 8 percent in 1983 after a steep recession, lowering the jobless rate by 2.5 percentage points that year. But the economy is unlikely to improve that fast this time, as consumers remain cautious and tight credit hinders businesses. In fact, many analysts expect economic growth to moderate early next year, as the impact of government stimulus programs to boost home and car buying fades.

Despite the rise in joblessness, the stock markets were little changed Friday afternoon. The bleak jobs report reassured investors that the Federal Reserve won't raise record-low interest rates any time soon. The prospect of continued low rates tends to lead investors to shift money into stocks.

High unemployment is likely to become a political liability for Obama and Democrats in Congress. Most economists expect the jobless rate will remain above 9 percent through next November, when congressional elections are held. When unemployment topped 10 percent in the fall of 1982, President Ronald Reagan's Republican Party lost 26 seats in the House.

Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill traded blame over the unemployment figures.

Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, said the economy would have been much worse had congressional Democrats not approved Obama's $787 billion stimulus package in February.

Republicans countered that Obama's focus on increased spending was making things worse.

"More debt, more spending ... clearly has not worked — particularly in a time of double-digit unemployment," said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

One sign of how hard it still is to find a job: The number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer rose from 5.4 million to 5.6 million, a record. They account for 35.6 percent of the unemployed population, matching a record set last month.

Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season.

October was the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years.

The report showed job losses remain widespread across many industries. Manufacturers eliminated a net total of 61,000 jobs. Construction shed 62,000 jobs. The economy has lost a net total of 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.

The average work week was unchanged at 33 hours, a disappointment because employers are expected to add more hours for current workers before they begin hiring new ones.

There were some bright spots in the report.

Education and health care added 45,000 jobs. Professional and business services companies added 18,000 jobs. The beleaguered auto industry added 4,600 jobs, its first gain since July. And temporary employment grew by 33,700 jobs, its third straight month of gains after steep losses earlier this year. That's a positive sign because employers are likely to add temporary workers before hiring permanent ones.

While the unemployment rate hasn't yet topped the post-World War II high of 10.8 percent set in December 1982, many experts say this recession is worse.

"This may be the toughest employment situation we've seen in the postwar era," Mark Gertler, an economics professor at New York University, said.

___

Associated Press Writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Anne Flaherty in Washington, and AP Business Writers Emily Fredrix in Milwaukee, Christopher Leonard in St. Louis, Adrian Sainz in Miami, Andrew Vanacore in New York and Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Christopher S. Rugaber's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (353)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Jason4188

That stimulus sure did work out as promised.

  • 23 votes
#1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 8:49 AM EST
rick-673281

That light at the end of the tunnel sure is getting brighter isnt it. What a disgrace this admin has been with the stimulus. A trillion dollars and nothing to show for it except more debt which we dont need.

  • 22 votes
#1.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 8:56 AM EST
The Observer

The light at the end of the tunnel is a train heading towards us...

  • 27 votes
#1.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 8:59 AM EST
vol fan in chatt, tn

Memo to Americans - thing are "getting better", the "recession is over", the Messiah has "pulled us back from the brink" - yeah , just keep chanting those phrases. Obama and his cronies have lied to us (which some of us already knew that) and spent trillions of dollars for NOTHING! Now they want to ram another trillion dollar healthcare program down our throats? No thank you. Call your Congresspeople.

These people running the show are clueless! The inmates are running the asylum.

  • 23 votes
#1.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:08 AM EST
Nicey-1026620

That's a little surprising.

9.8 to 10.2 but only 190,000 Net Jobs were lost...? Usually that would translate with earlier losses (such as back in October - March) when the economy was shedding 500-600k jobs a month and you had spikes of 0.5% unemployment increase...

They don't mention why in this article, there has to be a specific reason for that.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

It appears the # of unemployed reported by U3 jumped from 15.142 to 15.700 million, an increase of 558,000 which is in line with increasing the unemployment 0.4% as the total labor force was little changed.

Page 3 also states the BLS will be making some changes effective early next year to add unemployment information of Veterans, those with disabilities, and foreign born workers.

Page 23 shows where some new jobs came from, Adminstrative and Waste, Administrative and Support, Employment Services, Temp Services. Education and Health.

There weren't any real mass layoffs, I'm having trouble concluding what caused such an add to the unemployment for September? Is this summer jobs ending? But if so, how come the net jobs lost was only 190k but net new unemployed was 558k?

I combed thru the data but couldn't find a smoking gun. People leaving (quiting) didn't increase much, or firings, or layoffs?

  • 8 votes
#1.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:15 AM EST
Dylan923

A trillion dollars and nothing to show for it except more debt which we dont need.

Let's not forget that OTHER trillion dollars that was sent overseas and simply disappeared and, when questioned about the money and where it went, Bernanke simply said:

"I don't know where it went"......................

The charman of the FED doesn't KNOW where almost a trillion dollars went.........................

leadership at it's finest..................now excuse me whilst I go wipe the sarcasm off my chin...........................

  • 18 votes
#1.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:23 AM EST
dfizDeleted
Eric AlbertDeleted
Scotty-1083859

Memo to Eric Albert;

The Democrats have controlled the Congress since 2006.

Obama has been president for a nearly a year now.

The Democrats promised solutions but only gave us disasters.

This is not superficial. It's real. It's actually happened and we're making them accountable.

Okay, Eric...you can go back to your ivory tower now.

  • 12 votes
#1.8 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:59 AM EST
dfizDeleted
flyfishva

This is a bipartisan issue-to hold one party accountable is just walking around with blinders on. They all are accountable on both sides of the aisle!

  • 7 votes
#1.10 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:04 AM EST
Eric AlbertDeleted
boneclinkz

Memo to Eric Albert;

The Democrats have controlled the Congress since 2006.

Obama has been president for a nearly a year now.

The Democrats promised solutions but only gave us disasters.

This is not superficial. It's real. It's actually happened and we're making them accountable.

Okay, Eric...you can go back to your ivory tower now.

Scotty if you ever actually read anything by Eric Albert you would know that he's neither democrat nor republican. You are demonstrating exactly the type of brainless finger pointing and loyalty to insipid class ideologies that he always takes a stand against. He even mentions it in the post to which you're responding.

Christ.

No reason to respond to Eric... He is in Nancy Pelosi world and walking out of the Oval Office everyday with a smile on his face...

Holy @!$%# can any of you people read?

  • 6 votes
#1.12 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:09 AM EST
Eric AlbertDeleted
zanilth

Eric Albert

I'll admit, I didn't even bother reading beyond the first sentence or two of 1.7, but I can definitely agree with/understand

I said it cannot be solved by your superifical finger pointing of one class party over the other

That is (IMO) the biggest issue we have right now. Too many people are pointing fingers, assigning blame, and wanting to ensure their 'nose' looks clean of fault. At this point, does it really matter who is at fault? Shouldn't we be working on a solution that stretches across the political and social class lines to help the American People in this time of need?

  • 4 votes
#1.14 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:26 AM EST
Julian in Dallas

You Obama haters are so immature and ignorant it's unreal. Grown ass men and women on here whining like little spoiled children who can't understand why things just don't happen overnight to suit their juvenile logic and reasoning capabilities.

I don't recall Obama putting any kind of deadline on economic and jobs recovery. It's as if you people think the President has a magic "jobs" button behind his desk to push and make high paying jobs fall into your laps out of nowhere. I will maintain that your master Bush is to blame for getting us into this recession and doing absolutely nothing to help us out of it except clearing brush at his ranch, and a useless "troop surge." The Democrats had been in control of congress for two years, and Obama has been in office for 10 months. It's going to take a lot more than two years and 10 months to undo 8 years of republican ignorance and damage to our economy.

If you're so unhappy with it, come up with your own solutions or get the hell out.

  • 7 votes
#1.15 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:33 AM EST
vol fan in chatt, tn

This is a bipartisan issue-to hold one party accountable is just walking around with blinders on. They all are accountable on both sides of the aisle!

how do you figure? Obama is the one who said we needed to rush the porkulous through and that unemployment would not go over 8.5 % and the Dems, he's the one who said we had to bail out the auto industry, he's the one who has a junior high school lookalike running the treasury dept, who said we are on the right course...nope, the Dems pretty much own this debacle. Deficit spending has tripled under Obama, consumer confidence is down, unemployment up...doesn't look good for the American people left holding the bill.

On a personal note, I do love to flyfish, though, and would love to come back to my native VA one of these days and ff along the Appy mountains - what a dream...that may be all it is at this point...just a dream.

  • 5 votes
#1.16 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:33 AM EST
MotorcycleEmptiness

Too much of the recession is spun far too easily; the party in power look weak as they are in power during the job losses and bad markets. This happened to McCain and the Republicans last year.

The simple harsh truth is that slowing the progress of job losses is the most realistic evidence you'll see of the downturn beginning to end. You cannot expect jobs to start rising any time soon. I know it's repeated often enough, but this recession was a ball hair away from a depression. This is no ordinary recession.

I think that in order to be realistic we have to expect unemployment to continue to rise (but not as sharply) until at least mid 2010. In terms of the western economies returning to normality I think we're talking 2011. It's going to be hard, but we're all going to need to realise that this is going to take a while.

    #1.17 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:38 AM EST
    Scotty-1083859

    Well gosh, Eric.

    I guess that we're just all screwed then, huh?

    Go read the platform of the Republican Party. It has very specific language in there about limited government and fiscal responsibility.

    Then open a newspaper and read about how the Republican Party and Sarah Palin chased a Republican In Name Only out of the race last week in NY-23.

    Gee....you don't suppose that the Republican Party offers an opportunity to get our country back on track do you? According to you, we need to blame the Republicans every bit as much, even though this crushing national debt we have is entirely due to the Democrats.

    So, just to make sure you understand; We are pointing fingers at the Democratic Party, at Pelosi, at Reid, at Obama, at Barney Frank and at Scozzofava.

    Or, if you want, we can drum up some kind of a third party that will not gain enough votes to succeed with a majority, the Democrats will cruise to more victories and America, Land of the Free will be nothing more than a fading memory.

    • 3 votes
    #1.18 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:40 AM EST
    MotorcycleEmptiness

    According to you, we need to blame the Republicans every bit as much, even though this crushing national debt we have is entirely due to the Democrats.

    We do. Sorry, but both parties either knew about the growing problem and did nothing or knew nothing about it at all. The stimulus is a result of 20 years of errant irresponsibility which is disgustingly bipartisan.

    Deregulation caused this recession and the stimulus, make no mistake about it.

    • 4 votes
    #1.19 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:51 AM EST
    dfizDeleted
    A chicken in every pot!

    How's that 'hope and change" working for you unemployed obama-backers? mmm-mmm-mmm!

    • 6 votes
    #1.21 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:56 AM EST
    Dylan923

    You Obama haters are so immature and ignorant it's unreal. Grown ass men and women on here whining like little spoiled children who can't understand why things just don't happen overnight to suit their juvenile logic and reasoning capabilities.

    You mean just like all you blinded by the Obama light of deception Obamaniacs accuse anyone opposed to Obama a racist when that is completely unfounded, refusing to believe anyone would have the balls to stand up in opposition to Obama and his globalist agenda?

    You mean just like you Obamaniacs choose to allow Obama to stand on his own merits, which are slim to none right about now, instead derailing the fact that Obama hasn't really done @!$%# for THIS COUNTRY except run his mouth for almost an entire year by attemtpting to shift the blame onto Bush for everything?

    You mean like you Obamaniacs continually and repeatedly ridicule, attack, collapse posts by and otherwise TROLL anyone who has a dissenting opinion?

    Can you spell:

    HYPOCRITE

    • 11 votes
    #1.22 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:56 AM EST
    Paul Lucero

    The white house brought out the the Blue pig romer to tell America that the numbers are High but we all need to fell better about all the great things that the Goberment is doing to make sure that you pay your taxes.

    Epic Fail Romer!!!

    • 4 votes
    #1.23 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:05 AM EST
    Greg Johnson-900798

    Julian - Pay attention and I'll go through this one more time:

    In 1999 Bill Clinton signed a bill that repealed the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933. G-S was a law that kept certain investments by banks and other financial institutions separated so that banks could not particiapte in particular activities. This was done in part to protect bank customers and partly to prevent banks from competing with other institutions. When it was repealed the banks went crazy with all kinds of investing in markets where they had traditionally not been. To exacerbate this, certain members of the House (namely Barney Frank and Maxine Waters) seized the opportunity to use the Community Reinvestment Act to blackmail banks into making loans to minorities under very lax criteria. (Of course, loans have to made equally so in time was not just minorities getting crappy loans, it was all of us.) So now we had banks investing in crap such as derivitives while at the same time their income from mortgage interest was precarious at best. To make things worse, banks and other institutions started to merge thus combing bad debt with bad debt. I believe this would not been allowed under Glass-Steagal but i could be wrong on that. The market got too far leveraged and crashed.

    To his credit, GWB saw this coming because the Treasury Dept sent him a report in 2004 which said the crash was coming. He sent several bills to the House to put controls back on. But the Dems were in charge and they liked running around the country telling minorities that they were helping them get mortgages and that the GOP didn't care about them. So the bills went nowhere (under the rules of the HofR the majority party decides what bills go to committee and which bills go to the round file). To the discredit of GWB, he didn't push these bills very hard (for whatever reason, i.e. the war).

    The rest is history.

    • 13 votes
    #1.24 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:13 AM EST
    black spider

    What happened to that "no more than 8% unemployment spinning wheel chatter"?

    Obama's remarks about the 8% are evidence enough that the man has had ZERO managerial or business experience.

    We hired a telephone pole sign staple guy to run the largest economy in the world. Hope you all that voted for this socialist mentality are enjoying your time at home with no electricity, no food, no health care and no future. Thanks Obama! Thanks Pelosi!

    • 4 votes
    #1.25 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:21 AM EST
    black spider

    Greg is right on the mark. Bill Clinton set up America for 9-11, the housing boom and bust, the no document home loans and the failure to protect the standard of living of the American worker. Bill Clinton also sold sensitive military technology to the Chinese Communists for a few thousand dollars. What a pathetic treasonous person, only to be outdone by Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton also sold the Chinese a large factory, equipment and tools, all of it for something like $3 billion. The employees of the company offered to buy the same for $12 billion, but hey, China's more important, especially when you need those campaign contributions, eh?

    quote:

    Julian - Pay attention and I'll go through this one more time:

    In 1999 Bill Clinton signed a bill that repealed the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933. G-S was a law that kept certain investments by banks and other financial institutions separated so that banks could not particiapte in particular activities.

    • 2 votes
    #1.26 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:27 AM EST
    economics101

    Greg.

    First of all, any understanding of how our monetary system works, and particularly how a fractional reserve banking system (especially with no actual reserves) "protects" assets would tell you that the entire foundation of our economy is built on sand. Blame Clinton if you like, or Obama. The bottom line is that the Banking secotr is a massive Ponzi scheme where money is created for free by banks and lent out subjectively based on criteria that has more to do with victorian discrimination that actual risk managment.

    Were there lots of reports in 2004 about Mortgage Fraud by the banks, brokers and Insurers? Sure. the FBI called it an epidemic of fraud. Have any of those repsonsible for the largest crime in Human history - no!! So what's your point. The gredy criminal behavior of bankers was OK because the Dems didn't stop them? That our justice system nhas two tiers, one for rich people/bankers and another for the rest of us?

    This reminds me of a quote from Woody Guthrie in the 30s. He said it's funny how a rich man or banker can rob a regular guy and no one minds. But when a regular guy robs a rich amn or a banker they have a car load of cops shoting at them. He concluded that robbery was defined by etiquitte not the actual act of stealing....

    Funny how little has changed in 80 years No?

    Both parties and 99% of the house are OWNED by the banks and corporate interests. The democratic will of the people was to let Tarp fail. If they understood how banks, stock brokers, Wall St, or insureres actually worked, the democratic will would be to abolish them all, including the "FEDeral" Reserve and Treasury whihc are little more than a looby operation for the banks anyway .... but we don't live in a democracy, we live in a feudal state run by a financial aristocracy.

    PS: The main reason for every war since 1700 was not freedom, justice, or any of that other nonsense - it is to create debt which we pay back through income taxes. This last sst of wars were just not particularly well spun, so it was obvious that was the real cause. So claiming W. (whose family fortunes are tied directly to financing wars) didn't fic the mortgage mess cause of the war is nonsense - the war, the stock market, the mortgage mess are all the same "disease" .... they are just differnet symptoms!

    • 5 votes
    #1.27 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:29 AM EST
    Greg Johnson-900798

    econ - You're blaming everything on the existence of credit so you're heading int he wrong direction from the git-go. Credit, like almost everything, is best used with responsibility and moderation. Credit has allowed our society to advance much faster than it otherwise would have. Without it people would not be able to afford to buy a home until they were 90 years old, businesses would not be able to expand and hire more workers. Your point that credit has led to some evils is well taken, but it's the abuse of credit that is the problem and the government since the mid 90's has been a partner in the abuse of credit. However, the goal of the abuse was the social aims of liberals.

    And the goal of war is not to create debt. The goal of war is the preservation of one's way of life or perhaps the perceived need to take something that someone else has. And while debt is one result of war, it is not a goal.

    • 2 votes
    #1.28 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:34 PM EST
    Michael Crowley

    Unemployment figures.. nobody cares about unemployment figures unless you're looking to rally against a political figure.

    There are only TWO unemployment figures that matter to ANYONE... and those figures are:

    100% Unemployemnt (you don't have a job) or
    0% (you have a job)

    What the percentage points are for the country.. don't mean diddly to anyone! So stop acting like they do! If the leadership was the opposite political party, those on either side of the argument would simply switch sides.

    I heard yesterday that the productivity quotient when way up last month.. Republicans should be estatic about it! what does that figure mean? It means businesses are able to more (make more stuff) with a smaller workforce.. the quotient went up by nearly 10%.. that means.. businesses can do the same amount of work, with nearly 10% fewer employees.

    Odd.. it butts right up with the unemployment rates.

    • 3 votes
    #1.29 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:54 PM EST
    economics101

    Ah Greg .... what came first the chicken or the egg? Why does it cost 20 - 40 times your annual gross income to buy a house? Certainly not economics, supply or demand, etc .... its the fact that credit is used to buy a house. what got people in trouble with credit? the emphasis by the credit industry on "affordability" of the credit, not the item. If you can make the payments ... its all good.

    Secondly, you clearly have zero understanding of how credit actually works (or maybe a good understanding and you are misinforming people). Credit is important in any central bank "debt" based currency system cause - surprise! all monsy in our system is based on debt. Without debt there is NO MOney. So the rule is we need an ever expanding pool of debt to expand our money supply to expand our economy. Therefore, you, me, everyone is supposed to borrow more every year for the system to work!! So for our "economy" to work we need an ever increasing debt load on businesses, consumers, gov't to expand the economy. We can't help but get in more and more debt, since the entire design of the system is to continually create more debt. The reason why the depression and the 70's were such a hard time was that people did not borrow more cause a. the banks didn't land and b. cause rates were too high. So please get off your Personal responsibility soap box for a minute, cause 250+ Million Americas are not all morons. But thats not the best part of this story!!

    Now beyond the fact that the gov't gave away the right to produce money to private, for profit banks so they could borrow unlimited amounts of money to wage useless wars about nothing, Banks are able to produce virtually unlimted amounts of money for free and lend it out to us at interest. This is how 95 - 97%of the US Money supply is created. Now why the gov't doesn't just produce its own money without any debt is a historical question, but the main answer is that our monetary system is a mechanism by whihc wealth is transferred from the working populaiton to the sedentary one - the wealthy.

    Now once this is understood, the purpose for wars, bailouts, etc is clear ... more money = more debt = more interest. The rich generally do nothing to get all thin interest, since our gov't allows the banks to produce money for free .... they just require that the bank keep some of other people's money on deposit as a "reserve". So basically, they get paid (very well) to do nothing.

    Thats why they are so interested in going to war all the time ... and yes it is to preserve "their" way of life. Not mine, or 99% of Americans who pay for it, die for it, sacrifice for it.

    • 3 votes
    #1.30 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:16 PM EST
    lvh-865640

    Julian in Dallas

    Anyone who doesn't acknowledge the halo over O's head is shut down.

    "get the hell out.?" After you.

    Stop and take a history lesson class first. Start with Carter.....

    • 2 votes
    #1.31 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:16 PM EST
    rickg-808074

    Greg, I just had to respond to your earlier post. First of all, who sponsored the bill that repealed GS? Three republican lawmakers sponsored the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" in 1999. Now I guess Clinton should have vetoed this legislation, but let's be real, had he vetoed the legislation it would have just been brought up again under Bush. Phil Gramm had enormous influence with Bush and the bill would have been signed into law.

    Then you lie about Bush's attempt at reform. Bush never even attempted to introduce any type of economic reform to congress. Republicans had control of every branch of government in 2004 and held that control until Jan 2007. If they wanted to put the brakes on this economic meltdown that treasury saw coming, they had every opportunity to do so. By the time democrats took control of the congress, it was too late. I challenge you to show me any attempt by Bush to reign in the banking industry or AIG during his time in office. I'm not talking about statements he might of made about FM & FM. I am talking about legislation or executive orders.

    Then like all good republicans you try to blame the housing crisis on Barney Frank and Maxine Waters forcing banks to give mortgages to poor people through the CRA. The total dollar amount for those loans to "poor people" is less than 250 billion dollars and if you do the research CRA loans were paid at about the same percentage as any other mortgage loans. The truth is most of the mortgage crisis came from middle income Americans squeezing every dollar of equity out of their existing homes and speculation in the real estate bubble. Then you had companies like Countrywide selling these ARM mortgages instead of traditional fixed rate mortgages. Why did they sell these ARMs, because they made a lot more money selling them, end of story. Plus you had Greenspan testifying in front of congress on what a wonderful financial instrument these ARMs were and that the people would be wise to use this available credit.

    So please let's deal in real facts and real actions. Not on what we thought happened.

    • 3 votes
    #1.32 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:33 PM EST
    economics101

    Good Rebuttal Rick.

    The simple truth is that under both Clinton and Bush (and Obama) the Fed, Treasury, etc are little more than the lobbying arm of Goldman Sachs (who was the largest single contributor to the Obama campaign). Add in the old favs who created the Fed in 1913 - Chase, Citi, BofA, MorganStanley, ..... and we have a pretty good idea that the people running the country are those in boardrooms on Wall st., not on Capitol Hill!

    • 3 votes
    #1.33 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:51 PM EST
    Nicey-1026620

    PS: The main reason for every war since 1700 was not freedom,

    One could say up until 1886 with the Santa Fe v. Southern Pacific Rail Road case there was a legitimate struggle about who would really control this country. States. Federal. Common Citizens. The Wealthy. The Intellectual.

    The Revolution was about a form of real freedom. Freedom from debt. Which is what was being pushed onto the colonists and paid for by the colonists. Even though their government was doing little if anything at all for them.

    • 2 votes
    #1.34 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:19 PM EST
    economics101

    Nicey. I wouldn't call a revolution a war. The colonies were not a proper gov't, etc .... secondly, it is the aggressor who causes war, not the people who are being attacked. The formation of the Bank of England in 1690 (caused by the financing of the Monarchist side in the English Civil war) meant that the Brits spent the next 140 years pretty much continuously at "war" with someone or another. Before central banks, war was waged in waves as taxes were levied to fiannce the war. With the advent of a debt based currency, backed by the banks, war could be a full time business, since the "people" only had to make "payments" on the debt, not finance the whole thing - does this sound familiar?

    How about the 20th century where our NYC banks were financing the Soviet Russians, the Nazis, the Fascisits and the communists - even when we were at war with them??? The introduction of the FED, the other central banks, most monetary policy changes were made because of a war, and were all tied to financing war. So the direct relationship between war and banking is pretty linear.

    • 3 votes
    #1.35 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:49 PM EST
    jmonarchy

    Wow, I guess this sucks for the right wingers. Obama is doing better than Reagan. It took 3 years for unemployment to hit 10.2 under Ron. Of course a hard cor pubican will say that he inherited that from Carter, but will never agree that this fast rising unemployment 9 months into this administration has anything to do with Bush and the Republican tactics used for the 1st 8 years of this millenium.

    • 2 votes
    #1.36 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:56 PM EST
    jmonarchy

    If the right would stop taking 9 months to wipe their fannies and get to work in congress to address the economic and employment issues, in lieu of pissing, moaning and stonewalling, maybe they could all work together to get us out of this mess. The likes of Boehner, Kermit the Frog Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are just ugly guys that want to be movie stars. They care nothing about their districts, the nation or anything else except having the ability to stall, stop and hinder any new ideas of helping America. Vote all of their asses out in the next election cycles and get some new blood.

    • 3 votes
    #1.37 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:00 PM EST
    Nicey-1026620

    So the direct relationship between war and banking is pretty linear.

    I'd agree with a lot of that. It certainly exploded the ability to conduct war nearly continuously.

    But there are also extremities, like Germany in WWII. I'm pretty sure he would have gone to war bank or no bank, but then you also look back to the financing stipulations placed on Germany after WWI (to essentially repay the winners) and I guess you can tie it in.

    • 2 votes
    #1.38 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:09 PM EST
    jmonarchy

    Hitler got a big hand prior to 1939 from Prescott Bush, Father of George herbert Walker Bush, and President of US Bank. Bush funded much of the NAZI War Machine and tried to keep an open line of credit for Hitler after 1941. Once FDR stopped his ability to lend to the Germans, Bush met with some of his military friends and offerred to pay them to overthrow FDR. The Generals went to the President and the US Authorities and told them about the Bush plan and FDR siezed and froze all assets of Bush and US Bank. It wasn't until after the war that the assets were released. Now, look at the well funded Bank ads on TV. US Bank. Didn't hear about them with the BOA's and Wachovia's and massive banks of the last 50 years, but now, here they are.

    • 3 votes
    #1.39 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:20 PM EST
    economics101

    Nicey,

    WW1 and WW2 are perfect examples. Bankers financed both sides against each other. We have evidence that the bankers where financing the Soviets and the Nazis politically and financially. the set the stage for an ideological war by placing Stalin, Hitler, mousilinni, etc. in power against Chamberlain, and the others. The best part is the role of US banks and large corporate interests behind the scenes - people like Thyssen, Union Bank, etc.... This was not a war over ideology, but precipitated by corporate control of gov't to create a military indsutrial complex after the war.

    A number of WW2 era military leaders acknowledged the real reason for the war was the creation of a permanent defense industry in Europe and America. Look at whos the center of German weapons manufacturing - Thyssen. Recently caught bribing Canadian Prime Ministers' to buy tanks ..... The same guys who were the financial backbone of the Nazi war effort and the party. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    • 4 votes
    #1.40 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:28 PM EST
    The Observer

    Comparison of unemployment rates-First year in office.

    Reagan-Feb 1981

    7.4%

    Reagan-Oct 1981

    7.9% up .5%

    ------------------------------------

    Obama-Feb 2009

    8.1%

    Obama-Oct 2009

    10.2% up 2.1%

    • 2 votes
    #1.41 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:30 PM EST
    economics101

    J

    you forgot to mention that it was odd that P Bush didn't get charged with treason, only got a censure from Congress .... In those days treason was a serious crime. Again, the more things change the more they stay the same .... Apparently bankers are unable to form criminal intent while they steal, lie, cheat and commit treason eh?

    • 4 votes
    #1.42 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:31 PM EST
    economics101

    Observer, and how did Reagan do in 1982/83? Not so hot I believe ..... Obama (and I am not a supporter) fell into this mess. The stimulus was not designed to fix unemployment, regardless of what they said.

    U.S. unemployment is now at its highest level since the rate hit 10.2 per cent in April 1983. The all-time high since the government began keeping records was six months earlier in November 1982.

    • 4 votes
    #1.43 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:35 PM EST
    Karen in Los Angeles

    This is NOT change I wanted in the first place. While I will say that I recouped about 5% of what I lost in my IRA and 401K, BIG FREAKING DEAL because I lost 50% in both.

    HOW SOON CAN WE VOTE THIS IDIOT OUT OF OFFICE AND CHANGE THE VOTING AGE TO 21?

    • 3 votes
    #1.44 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:39 PM EST
    economics101

    Well I would suggest talking to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc .... they seem to have alot of control over who gets elected!

    • 4 votes
    #1.45 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:42 PM EST
    rickg-808074

    Econ & Nicey, good facts on historic war economies. I would like to add that when a country devotes so much of their industry to war, then they have to stay at war to justify the expenditures. There always has to be an enemy like communism and terrorism which in turn just creates more enemies. Spending such a large portion of the national budget on the military which does not provide any long term benefit to the nation is foolish and I contend will be the number one reason if this country fails.

    I have yet to see where terrorism can be defeated using the military. Just look at Israel, they have been killing terrorists for forty years and their terrorist problem is just as bad today as it was 40 years ago. I don't care if we put a million troops in Afghanistan, we will not defeat the Taliban. The Taliban can pick their battles, then after the battle they can just slip back into the population to fight again when they choose. This is their country and they have no other place to go. The Russians were there with a much larger force for approximately 9 years and in the end they could not defeat the insurgency. I would say more than any one thing, that the war in Afghanistan was the main reason for the fall of the USSR. How long will the people of the US continue to support this war before they realize that it can never be won. Check the history of this country and its ability to end imperialistic dreams.

    • 1 vote
    #1.46 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:50 PM EST
    The Observer

    Eco101:

    The stimulus was not designed to fix unemployment, regardless of what they said.

    Please explain...

    • 3 votes
    #1.47 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:57 PM EST
    economics101

    How does a stimulus "fix" unemployment, especially in the near term?

    Our economic system is completely reliant on two key group stimulating employment growth:

    The financial sector & the industrial/services sector

    So the "stimulus plan had a few tricks to try to entice these guys to create jobs. The biggests was the TARP/Fed Bailout whihc should've been tied to increasing CREDIT to consumers and businesses. It wasn't tied to anything, and we saw many businesses forced to cut employment cause they didn't have credit.

    The other problem was that programs like the bailout for the auto sector, cash for clunkers, all the green energy intiatives were in industries who already have massive over capitcity to begin with. These guys needed to get rid of people no matter what, so throwing Billions at them to produce more, when that didn't add to employment to begin with was a aste of time.

    Lastly we have infrastructure spending. This is what I would call legacy spending. It is what FDR did in the West during the 30s. The reason for that program was to get the millions of "dust bowl refugees who descended on CA, OR, Wa, etc to do something. The police, the locals were very concerned about refugee camps, crime, poverty in their back yards ... so we tell them to build a dam, a lodge, a road.

    The key difference between 2009 and 1936 is that infrastructure today is built by lots of machines, and a very few specialized people. So you cant take 50k unemployed and build a road ... you need to hire engineers, contractors, sepcialized labor - so you get very little bang for your buck.

    The bottom line the money would have been better spent on making actual loans to the people/businesses through a federal financing company whihc would work to stabilize peoples' finaces, not shareholder profits and bonuses.

    Secondly, money that went into education, training, etc. would have gone alot farther than bailouts. Finally, investments in small businesses, restrictions on forclosures, rent, utility and gas and food price hikes would have helped alot of businesses and consumers who got hit with this just as the recession hit.

    • 3 votes
    #1.48 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 6:05 PM EST
    XDemonessXDeleted
    Robert Bartholomew

    It's amazing how thrilled many of you are at a 10% unemployment rate.... even though real people are suffering as a result. Who cares, as long as Obama "fails", right?

    But what are you going to say when it drops more and more over the next few months?

    • 5 votes
    #1.50 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 3:46 AM EST
    NevadaDem-1274369

    1983?? That would have been Reagan's third year in office. Why can't you give Obama at least that much time? Guess it's just easier to hate him.

    • 4 votes
    #1.51 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 6:46 AM EST
    Dylan923

    Why can't you give Obama at least that much time? Guess it's just easier to hate him.

    Nah, it's just so much easier to read Obama and his agenda when he makes it so crystal clear for those who are willing to see this guy for who and what he REALLY is, and that is NOT a good president, far far from it actually.

    • 1 vote
    #1.52 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 6:55 AM EST
    Greg-281912

    For those of us who are concerned about the 10% unemployed, are we also similarly concerned about Americans who don't have health care?

    I'd assume so, and since 99% of us agree that 10% unemployment is very bad, then likewise we are also concerned about a lack of health care for millions of Americans, and we look forward to the passage of the health care reform bill today.

      #1.53 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 8:39 AM EST
      VIVA-796465

      I more concerned about selling our souls to CHINA and our children being in debt up to their eyeballs with the wasteful spending of the govt..........and no jobs. Yeah, what about the other half of the taxpayers in this country paying into the system that essentially serves them.......Obama give them a job, please and quit printing money, you big Harvard DUMMY.

        #1.54 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 8:47 AM EST
        XDemonessXDeleted
        DonkeyRidder

        The sex industry is generally resistant to economic downturns and does best in times of liberal Democrat leadership.

          #1.56 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 11:39 AM EST
          XDemonessXDeleted
          DonkeyRidder

          I don't know which is worse, syphillis or E. coli O157H7 food borne hemorrhagic diarrhea with hemolytic uremic syndrome.

            #1.58 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 12:22 PM EST
            economics101

            Given the constraints of the 2 party system, the corrupt & criminal Banking and Defense sectors who run this country from their boardrooms, how exactly is the impotent POTUS supposed to fix the economy? I mean our economic system gives him and congress about as much power over that as a 3 legged dog. You have to remember that the same goldman, Chase, GE, Haliburton, etc. guys who were running things for the last 30+ years are still there now ... the faces may have changed, but the masters haven't.

            We sold this country to multinationals and banks long ago, if you have a problem with unemployment, crime, health care I suggest you take a page from the Republic Windows storry in Chicago and go after BofA, or Citi - they got alot further with them than they did with the gov't - and everything BofA, the employers did was illegal! Too bad there is justice only for the rich.....

            Remember the old saying from the 1930s:

            If a banker robs a man, its business. If a man robs a bank its a capital crime.

            • 1 vote
            #1.59 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 11:55 PM EST
            Mark-702026

            I would expect the new POTUS to live up to his promises and not get into bed with the corrupt system. However, he seems to be bought just like the rest.

            • 3 votes
            #1.60 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 2:47 AM EST
            Mark-702026

            economics101 --- I have to disagree whole heartedly with the statement that the stimulus bill was not designed to fix the economy.

            It was as if Keynes rose from the dead and wrote the bill himself. If has been a failure on three fronts 1. Keynesian economics do not work 2. it was poorly planned and even more poorly implemented 3. It was poorly designed, too many earmarks to re pay favors.

            • 2 votes
            #1.61 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 2:53 AM EST
            economics101

            Please explain #1. The implementation of Keynesian theory led to the golden age of the American economy (with a little help from the war). I would say the same for the entire Capitalist economic system which has never really worked either, and certainly the desire to go back to "laissez faire" economics has been a dismal failure. So what do you mean you disagree? is the Stimulus not working cause it was Keynesian or was it designed to work, but unable to do so? Secondly, I don't see that the bill was entirely keynesian t begin with - just because it is large scale gov't spending doesn't mean it was purely keynesian ..... clearly 2 and 3 preclude it from being Keynesian, and thus invalidate your argument?

            The problem with most economists is they presume that there will be no corruption. The truth is that gov't, and capitalist systems in particular, are pone to corruption. There will allways be corruption in a capitalist system because of its design and implementation. So why assume that there wont be? In fact once could effectively argue that in our system 50% of all activity is leeched out by some form or antoher of fraud, corruption, theft .....

            So if we presume that the system is fatally prone to corruption what do we do?

            1. change the system

            2. plan for corruption to minimize it

            3. ignore it and act like everything is OK

            So far the main choice of gov't (who of course are beneficiaries of the corruption) is 3.

            • 1 vote
            #1.62 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 10:29 AM EST
            The Observer

            When was the golden age of the American economy?

            • 1 vote
            #1.63 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 11:10 AM EST
            economics101

            1950 - 1970.

            Low unemployment, low inflation, high incomes, high GDP growth. Golden Age.

            • 1 vote
            #1.64 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:09 PM EST
            VIVA-796465

            Damn and neither party can do better in the here and now???????

              #1.65 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:14 PM EST
              The Observer

              During the 50s, Europe was still recovering from WWII, and we were the unscathed economic powerhouse to sell to them. Not a good example.

              • 1 vote
              #1.66 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 1:22 PM EST
              economics101

              thats why I said that we got a little help. What would you define as the golden age? the 1830's - worst depressions on record. 1870s depression. 1890s? depression. 1900s, depression, 1918 - 22 depression, 1929 - 1950 depression, war, depression. 1970s, 1980s 1990s Depression, staglfation recession recession, bubble ..... So unless you feel the 1920s or the 2001 - 2008 were the golden age (amazing how similar the two eriods were ....) that leaves us with the 1950s and 1960s. There were a few expansions along the way in the 19th century but for a 2 decade long run of good times this is the "best" Camerican Capitalism has done .... and it was fully influenced by Keynesian theory, not laissez faire capitalism. That got us the Fed and 16th Amendment in 1913, the 1920s, and the 1997 - 2000 bubbles, 2001-2008 period ..... so not very effective.

              The real problem is that the 1950s and 1960s were the golden age because we saw the ascendency of the middle class in the USA which defined the modern era Globally. Since then we have seen the aristocracy take away virtually everything that made the USA great .....

              • 1 vote
              #1.67 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 1:36 PM EST
              economics101

              thats why I said that we got a little help. What would you define as the golden age? the 1830's - worst depressions on record. 1870s depression. 1890s? depression. 1900s, depression, 1918 - 22 depression, 1929 - 1950 depression, war, depression. 1970s, 1980s 1990s Depression, staglfation recession recession, bubble ..... So unless you feel the 1920s or the 2001 - 2008 were the golden age (amazing how similar the two eriods were ....) that leaves us with the 1950s and 1960s. There were a few expansions along the way in the 19th century but for a 2 decade long run of good times this is the "best" Camerican Capitalism has done .... and it was fully influenced by Keynesian theory, not laissez faire capitalism. That got us the Fed and 16th Amendment in 1913, the 1920s, and the 1997 - 2000 bubbles, 2001-2008 period ..... so not very effective.

              The real problem is that the 1950s and 1960s were the golden age because we saw the ascendency of the middle class in the USA which defined the modern era Globally. Since then we have seen the aristocracy take away virtually everything that made the USA great .....

              • 1 vote
              #1.68 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 1:37 PM EST
              economics101

              PS for the record, I don't think Keynesian policies work either. i believe that Capitalism as we know it is a temporary state between socialism and feudalism .... Keynes is only a temporary truce between them.

              • 1 vote
              #1.69 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 1:40 PM EST
              Nicey-1026620

              This was not a war over ideology, but precipitated by corporate control of gov't to create a military indsutrial complex after the war.

              That's a good point. As the MIC was permenantly increased after the war.

              I just find it hard to believe that banks could be so effective as to completely march something in one direction. Knowing how people can't even agree on the simplest things, I don't think there is one consipiracy to do so...but perhaps there is simply a mutual objective that will benefit all if they all pursue it.

              • 1 vote
              #1.70 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 9:15 AM EST
              Nicey-1026620

              During the 50s, Europe was still recovering from WWII, and we were the unscathed economic powerhouse to sell to them. Not a good example.

              While it is very true that we were in a unique position being the only SuperPower that wasn't very damaged by the war, there are other points.

              • We were in ridiculously deep debt, deeper than now in terms of the size of the economy.
              • We were more altruistic than now, the Marshal Plan, and we gave a lot more in proportion to the size of our economy to the rest of the world
              • We had invested in becoming a manufacturing power
              • Corporations portion of contribution to taxes was much higher than now
              • Personal income contribution to taxes was much lower than now
              • The government spending on the GI bill gave millions of Americans education and the tools to be successful middle class citizens

              Starting in the 1970s there is a visible shift in the treatment of Corporations and the Wealthy Elite; it intensified in the 1980s. This also marks when the portion of income switched over.

              http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-27-08tax2.pdf

              The difference of the management of the depression in 1929 to the meltdown of 2008 is striking. As one might note the Fed employed 2 opposing methods. They appear to have gotten it correct (for them) this time. The wealthiest portions of income and assets were largely unscathed and at expense of our (citizenry) future debt payments via taxes.

              • 1 vote
              #1.71 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 9:23 AM EST
              economics101

              Nicey:

              1. War. The purpose of war has always been financial. Whether it was taking someone else's property, or financing those who were doing it. The role of banks in these wars is public record. The formation of the various Central banks, and more importantly the implementation of income taxes to fund them, has always been tied to war debt. The creation of the MIC is only the latest in the escalation of this process. What is even a greater concern is how banks have started wars like the War of 1812 over failure to "go along" with their agenda ..... The use of the "fighting for freedom" and other propaganda to justify war is a new twist.

              2. The 1950's and 1960's were the golden Age of the USA for a variety of reasons. We had all the ingrediants to make the USA great which had come together following the war:

              • educated and productive workforce
              • Strong corporate responsibility
              • Wartime R&D (including what they took from the enemies)
              • commitment to growth of the middle class in the wake of the depression
              • Large scale transportation and communication improvements
              • Educational growth in the middle class by several std deviations
              • Progressive taxation

              During this period education, home ownership, the income and net worth gap, technology, trade, productivty all improved dramatically. In fact, to a large extent the continued economic importance of the USA continues to stem from this period as we retracked back to "classical" economic theories. This was the period where America came to dominate Media, consumer products, computers and electronics, banking and finance, automotive and defense.This was the one and only Golden Age of the USA.

              The Fed in 1930 had very different objectives than in 2008. Remeber in 1929 the Fed had only existed for 16 years. IN that time most educated people had concluded that that Central bank was unnecessary, and by 1929, that the Fed and its Wall St owners had caused the depression. Edison and Ford had pushed for the abolishment of the FED in the early 1920s ....

              The world in 1929 was much different than today. Credit was a new thing for most Americans. Family homesteads had been finan ced to buy new things like cars, equipment, luxuries. There were thousands of small lenders who jumped on the bank bandwagon. The Money center banks in NYC needed to consolidate control over them or run the risk of becoming irrelevent as regional consumer banking became the banking business.

              So when the crach came and lenders started contracting the money supply, people stopped buying. Unlike today, the gov't feared deficits, and debt to "bailout" private enterprise. The people would demand that the money be spent on them, not on bankers. So there was no ability to re seed the banks with capital. In the absence of either Gov't or Fed Reserve money the money supply contracted. The large money center banks, who had not been involved in consumer lending much were able to buy up all the small time regional lenders at pennies on the dollar.

              The problem was how to reinflate the economy by the end of the first recession in 1932. After widespread forclosures and homelessness, the credit collapse had destroyed the new "middle class" so the Chase, Morgan and other could consolidate their holdings in retail banking - when they were ready to reinflate there were no customers left ....

              In fact, the major difference between 1929 and 2009 beyond our blind acceptance of "corporate welfare" for bankers, is that the money distribution system remained mainly intact through the first 18 months. This meant that once the purging of the system was complete, the inflation of the Money supply was able to proceed in an orderly fashion. We didn't suffer widespread deflation as we did in the 1930s, in fact we are likely suffering widespread inflation in 2009 (regardless of the CPI numbers) as the money supply is drastically inflated.

              What is interesting is that the behavior of lenders was virtually the same in 1929 and 2009. The only major difference was the public acceptance of bailouts for the rich. Now all this is very nice except for the fact that the credit cycle requires ups and downs to be healthy. The Great Depression was the main cause for the Golden Age in the 50s and 60s .... so are we out of the woods? Should the gov't have allowed a recession? Can we foresee what will happen ahead? Who knows ....

              • 2 votes
              #1.72 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 11:06 AM EST
              Nicey-1026620

              Excellent post Econ.

              I think that most simply could not accept what must happen to bring the system back to order. And that's widespread failure. It's quite scary (and rightfully so) to people.

              Especially given things that go on today. With drugs, guns, ease of communication, transportation, etc in an event such as a depression, safety would be a major concern. Not that it wasn't a concern for people living in tent villages in the 1930s, but I would think the level and degree of violent crime would be amazingly worse in such a meltdown today.

              It is amazing that despite everyone really knowing that the Banks are the cause of this meltdown, the public gave in to bailing them out.

              • 1 vote
              #1.73 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 12:07 PM EST
              economics101

              Actually I think if it was implemented in an orderly fashion it would be fine .... If we let it fail then we will have chaos ..... and it will fail, it is already.

              The key is most people know there is something wrong with the systme. They hear all this crap about hard work and anyone can get to the top and then see that its a bunch of BC .... they feel they aren't important enough to "fix" it so what can they do ..... they don't really bother to figure out what is going on cause there is nothing you or me can do about it - they depend on us being divided and clueless ... I gues you can fool everybody all the time!

              • 3 votes
              #1.74 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 10:15 PM EST
              Reply
              The Observer

              9.9% unemployment was expected...

              • 6 votes
              Reply#2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:00 AM EST
              dfizDeleted
              The Observer

              More future tax dollars to steal

              ...from programs passed by the politicians...

              • 6 votes
              #2.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:04 AM EST
              dfizDeleted
              vol fan in chatt, tn

              most of our leaders are corrupt politicians. PERIOD!

              • 3 votes
              #2.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:35 AM EST
              black spider

              I was thinking...... for every 1000 jobs lost Wall Street goes up one point.

              Is that about right? since the low, the dow has increased about 3000 points, that's about 3 million jobs.

              just a rough estimate, but also see today the report that productivity is up 9.5% WOW!!!!

              so the companies are getting almost 10% more work out of each employee.

              At this rate dont expect any new hiring anytime soon.

              • 2 votes
              #2.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:30 AM EST
              economics101

              You forgot that the Wall St guys basically do nothing, add nothing to the economy what so ever - so maybe we need to do something about them!

              • 4 votes
              #2.6 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:00 PM EST
              tjwhalen

              I think it's time to put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried out of a job! John Boehner can go too!

              Term Limits are achieveable NOW! No incumbents in 2010! Send TRUE CHANGE TO WASHINGTON!

              • 1 vote
              #2.7 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:54 PM EST
              Greg-281912

              TRUE CHANGE isn't about replacing demos with repubs or repubs with demos.

              TRUE CHANGE is about replacing them all.

              VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

              • 1 vote
              #2.8 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 8:40 AM EST
              VIVA-796465

              Yeah.........they are all cut from the same cloth.

                #2.9 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 8:48 AM EST
                Reply
                DonkeyRidder

                Another Obama/Reid/Pelosi success, driving more Americans to government dependence. Reckon they'll put their attention to improving the economy sometime in the next few months? Nah, they like Americans coming to them to beg for help.

                • 12 votes
                Reply#3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:02 AM EST
                vol fan in chatt, tn

                Another Obama/Reid/Pelosi success, driving more Americans to government dependence

                I am beginning to think that is their grand plan...forced socialism.

                • 8 votes
                #3.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:12 AM EST
                Dylan923

                I am beginning to think that is their grand plan...forced socialism.

                BINGO..................

                How the hell are you neighbor by the way?

                • 5 votes
                #3.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:25 AM EST
                vol fan in chatt, tn

                I am beginning to think that is their grand plan...forced socialism.

                I didn't want to believe that at first, but now, looking at everything, how else could you come up with any other answer?

                I am doing well. Are you getting a chance to play in the snow yet? Things are looking up on rocky top, aren't they? Now, if we could just have some real "change" in Washington....I tell you, Dylan, 2010 can't come fast enough.

                • 3 votes
                #3.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:34 AM EST
                Michael Crowley

                Yes, certainly! the government should hold your hand, and take you down to find you a job..

                If you don't have one.. get off your lazy ass and go get one.. if you don't have a job, that's not the government's fault.. it's your fault.. and to blame it on anyone else is absolutely rediculous.

                • 2 votes
                #3.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:58 PM EST
                DonkeyRidder

                Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have done everything lawful to stymie business growth and development, meaning there are no jobs being created. There are no jobs because business owners have been dealt repeated blows and they have been demonized by this Administration. Smart business owners aren't risking their life savings and their dreams while an inept class warfare instigating government that penalizes success is in power. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi can't be trusted. Business and jobs will grow in America when the Democrats are kicked out next year and some sense and reason returns to America. Right now, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are growing jobs at our competitors.

                • 1 vote
                #3.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:37 PM EST
                economics101

                So Michael, please explain this. In 2008, the job market was so tight we needed to import more people to work - there weren't enought people for all the jobs. The banks fail, at a highly suspect time and with plenty of warnings along the way to illustrate it was clearly a planned hiest of the Treasury, and the job market collapses. With me so far?

                Now the main impediiment to hiring right now according to a number of sources who follow this kind of thing is: lack of access to credit! So we blew the deficit to 13 or 14 Trillion, bailed out every Billionaire, Millionaire, realtor, trust fund degenerate across the country that they could find, so your grandkids will be paying their grandkids interest dor at least 100 years and you want to blame the unemployed???

                This was the greatest criminal act in history. the top .5% of the population stole Trillions of dollars from working Americans on their favorite ponzi scheme program - 1000 easy annual payments to the IRS, and the poor are the problem.

                Now please do me and everyone else here a favor and get you head out of your @#$. You need to start asking why the rich have it so good, and not why the poor don't have it so bad. Unless you have personally benefited from this scam, there is no reason you should be anything other than mad at the fact that more money has been stolen from Average Americans in the last 13 months by those who need it least than in our entire history as a nation time 1000 by every crook, mobster, conman and bank robber - and these guys has genuises like you telling us how ita not even a crime - its all our fault we didn't get back on the wheel fast enough?

                Do yourself a favor, stop watching Fox, do a little reading, thinking and asking why these weasels always end up on top and never seem to actually do anything to benefit the rest of us?

                • 6 votes
                #3.6 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:02 PM EST
                DonkeyRidder

                Yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The rich have all the money. No ship. If a poor person scams millions, they are no longer poor, and so the rich still have all the money. It does take at least some intelligence to scam people, and scamming works best on low thinking people, so expect there will remain a large segment of poor people.

                FoxNews has done a very good job at detailing the nonsense that goes on in our financial institutions and in our government. It is the government backed media that keeps the politicians and crooks off the hook. Frank and Dodd are still in charge of the banking and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac swindlers. Those two were co-conspirators in the economic collapse.

                • 1 vote
                #3.7 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:25 PM EST
                economics101

                Sorry donkey, the news media has done a very \good job of telling us why the banks deserve our money. they have not detailed any of the real scams at banks. To be fair, this is a media wide problem.

                As for the poor stealing to become rich, if the poor steals they end up in jail, if the rich steal they get the money they stole and a bonus.

                • 3 votes
                #3.8 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:51 PM EST
                DonkeyRidder

                As for the poor stealing to become rich, if the poor steals they end up in jail,

                I thought you were talking about legalized theft. We have it in the private sector and we have it with taxation.

                • 2 votes
                #3.9 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:39 PM EST
                economics101

                Yes it is legalized when rich people, especially bankers, do it. Taxation is actually the private sector stealing from you too .... they just use the gov't as a diversion to get more.

                • 3 votes
                #3.10 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:43 PM EST
                Reply
                hww

                Three years to go! If there is anything left that is.

                • 8 votes
                #4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:06 AM EST
                The Observer

                We will probably have a unemployment rate in this neighborhood during the mid-term elections which is going to be a disaster for the Democrats.

                • 14 votes
                #4.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:09 AM EST
                The Observer

                the unemployment rate when Obama took office (February 2009) was 8.1%.

                • 5 votes
                #4.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:10 AM EST
                reason_indeed_35Deleted
                Nicey-1026620

                the unemployment rate when Obama took office (February 2009) was 8.1%.

                Since we're laying the blame on POTUSs, wasn't it oh I don't know, 4.7% in November 2007 right before the recession started...

                So let's compare:

                8.1-4.7=3.4% increase

                10.2-8.1=2.1% increase

                Or I could just say shut your yapper because the POTUS doesn't have a switch in his office that magically creates employment or unemployment and you need to quit acting like a child. Or just grow old. Or just go away. Or whatever you want to do because you're not contributing anything of rational value.

                • 5 votes
                #4.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:20 AM EST
                Dylan923

                Or I could just say shut your yapper because the POTUS doesn't have a switch in his office that magically creates employment or unemployment and you need to quit acting like a child.

                Or you could just grow some balls and admit what everyone else already knows, that Obama isn't anything close to what he proclaims to be................then SHUT UP

                • 12 votes
                #4.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:27 AM EST
                The Observer

                I gave the 8.1% unemployment number as reference and perspective, Nicey (??!!??).

                BTW, when the recession started in December 2007, the unemployment rate was 5.0. Just for reference and perspective...

                • 4 votes
                #4.6 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:34 AM EST
                Brent-320354

                Didn't the Administration promise unemployment would remain below 8% if we approved the Stimulus Bill really really fast (bypassing the promissed 5 day Obama waiting period)?

                Nicey, telling us to "Shut up" is an old, failed strategy of Olbermann and Obama.

                • 8 votes
                #4.7 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:41 AM EST
                Andy-827327

                But Odumbo said just a few days ago and the boot licking MSM reported, that they have "saved or created" 650,000 jobs...change you can believe in!

                • 10 votes
                #4.8 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:53 AM EST
                ebookout

                Nicly

                Lets see with that statement you must work for the unions or government in some fashion. If you were the one being cut you would also be pissed on what is going on.

                • 4 votes
                #4.9 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:53 AM EST
                mybellyaches

                Nicey-1026620 may also want to consider that POTUS has NEVER had the switch to create jobs. Everyone with half a brain knows that jobs are created by the private sector NOT government. Without taxes from the private sector, the fed is a lame duck.

                Try reading this article in the WSJ, a reputable journal that actually employs smart people imagine that....

                http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517303668357682.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

                • 5 votes
                #4.10 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:54 AM EST
                Nicey-1026620

                Or you could just grow some balls and admit what everyone else already knows, that Obama isn't anything close to what he proclaims to be................then SHUT UP

                Since I don't really care about what he proclaims to be or not knowing that bickering over Presidents and our last 50 years of elections is pretty meaningless, I would just move along as I always have.

                Let's not forget that OTHER trillion dollars that was sent overseas and simply disappeared and, when questioned about the money and where it went, Bernanke simply said:

                "I don't know where it went"......................

                The charman of the FED doesn't KNOW where almost a trillion dollars went.........................

                leadership at it's finest..................now excuse me whilst I go wipe the sarcasm off my chin...........................

                Or I could say things like this and prove to everyone I don't know how to add.

                So, you're implying in the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year that we have over 2 trillion in defecit...that's interesting...

                http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-BudgetUpdate.pdf

                According to the CBO the total deficit for the whole year is going to be 1.587 trillion dollars for all government operations, yet you would say we somehow spent 2 trillion dollars.

                Or that the ARRA was 1 trillion dollars...

                http://www.washington.edu/research/gca/recovery/

                When it was issued for 787 Billion dollars, but hey, what's a 213 billion dollar miss.

                And if you look closely at the CBO budget outline, page 24 of 92 you'll come across this:

                Costs for the TARP and support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contribute $424 billion to CBO’s estimate of mandatory outlays in 2009.5 In particular, CBO has calculated the net cost of taking on Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolios of mortgage loans and has recorded a total of $291 billion in outlays for 2009 (see Box 1-1). Similarly, CBO has estimated the net cost to the federal government of the TARP’s activities this year, which results in projected outlays of $133 billion to be recorded for 2009. That amount is about $200 billion lower than the net cost that CBO estimated earlier this year. The revision, which is discussed in greater detail in Appendix A, reflects updated market conditions, revised assumptions about the timing of purchases made under the TARP’s authority, and the likelihood that, in CBO’s estimation, the Treasury will not use its full authority of $699 billion.

                And if you look in Appendix A you will find some real interesting information.

                Like exactly what the Fed/Treasury did to support the housing and financial markets, where the money went, and how much it actually cost. Tracking that is not the difficult part.

                The true difficulty is the Feds balance sheet assets and the offsheet assets, which are not tracked. But The Feds money, is not the governments money, so it has nothing to do with deficit spending. The true fear there, is this is private spending (from the Fed) on free market assets.

                Market conditions have improved since CBO released its baseline estimate in March, and CBO now expects that the full $699 billion currently authorized for the program will not be used

                CBO now estimates that the TARP will use about $600 billion of its currently authorized total of $699 billion.

                And this is thru the end of 2013 for programs that support housing and financial institutions. In addition, a great amount of this spending represents the purchase of assets and preferred shares, which will be paid back and the assets over time will show a slight profit.

                • 2 votes
                #4.11 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:56 AM EST
                Brent-320354

                Nicey, can you explain somehting to me please? Liberals love to blame the recession on Bush's "financial policy". If that is truly the case, why hasn't Obama changed the finance rules? Aren't we in a situation where it could happen again-today?

                • 8 votes
                #4.12 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:00 AM EST
                Nicey-1026620

                BTW, when the recession started in December 2007, the unemployment rate was 5.0. Just for reference and perspective...

                Which is why I said "before the recession started" - if one was content to blame the president for job losses of the recession (as you are doing today with the current president) the December 2007 job losses mark "the beginning" of the recession and are therefor from the 4.7% November number...

                Which the 4.7% for November is reported the first week of December. But you know that right?

                http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

                And it was 5.0%...if you want to use 10.2% (which is the seasonally adjusted number) it was 4.9% in December.

                And 8.1% isn't right either because that's the February number reported in March. You want to use what the real rate was on January 20th...

                It increased from 7.2% (on Dec 31) to 7.6% (Jan 31), 20/31*0.4% or around 7.45% give or take on the day Obama took office.

                So doing this correctly with blaming Presidents, you want to blame Bush for 7.45-4.7=2.75% and Obama for 10.2-7.45% = 2.75%

                So now we can be all even.

                • 3 votes
                #4.13 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:05 AM EST
                Nicey-1026620

                Nicey, telling us to "Shut up" is an old, failed strategy of Olbermann and Obama.

                Given I didn't say "all of you" using "us" is incorrect. I was talking to one person. I was telling them so because they continue to post over and over (and incorrect information I might add) in a spamming fashion.

                • 2 votes
                #4.14 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:07 AM EST
                Nicey-1026620

                Nicey-1026620 may also want to consider that POTUS has NEVER had the switch to create jobs. Everyone with half a brain knows that jobs are created by the private sector NOT government. Without taxes from the private sector, the fed is a lame duck.

                Hmmmm, I wasn't talking about who created jobs. But good job on that.

                I was highlighting how ridiculous it is to associate a president on a 1 to 1 basis with job creation. Which, I didn't do.

                You might want to talk to "The Observer" since that's what he seems to believe.

                Technically the government does "create" a certain number of jobs in that taken on a whole from state, local, federal, they employ:

                http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

                22.447 million people according to the latest numbers.

                Now as to what the government is supposed to do? They are supposed to promote conditions that make for good business and not run businesses themselves but make sure businesses operate within the law. And corporations aren't supposed to be making the laws. Is any of that happening? No.

                Why do you believe the government does anything at all without Corporate Americas consent? The government, much like incorporating a business, exists as a shell and layer of protection for Corporate America.

                • 2 votes
                #4.15 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:16 AM EST
                The Observer

                Obama's stimulus was going to prevent all this, remember Nicey?

                • 7 votes
                #4.16 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:17 AM EST
                Brent-320354

                That's really what it comes down to Observer. Obama made (more) promises he couldn't keep to sell the Stimulus Bill without disclosing what was in it. He likes hearing applause. He has no idea how to get from point A to point B in the real world.

                • 5 votes
                #4.17 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:26 AM EST
                Nicey-1026620

                Without taxes from the private sector, the fed is a lame duck.

                http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=86&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2009

                Corporate America in the most recent quarter reported (Q2) pays 11.8% of the governments total "Tax Receipts" - you and I, the tax payers, pay 44.9% of all tax reciepts.

                The rest are payed by "taxes on production and imports" and guess who those taxes are mainly shoved off on? Since businesses aren't required to pay sales tax on most purchases for production, it's certainly not them.

                It's gas tax, tax on goods from china, sales tax, alcohol tax, tire tax, and so on. And any tax that is made is passed directly on to you and I.

                And guess what, has most of America been participating in "wage growth" to justify the fact that they pay a much large portion of taxes? In the 1950s corporations payed closer to 30% of all receipts.

                So our incomes in middle America must have gone up considerably in comparison to Corporate profits, right?

                http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=575

                The 2001-2007 expansion has been the trend since the 60s-70s time frame. An increasing amount of the growth was redistributed to corporate profits while personal income taxes share of the whole increased.

                • 2 votes
                #4.18 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:29 AM EST
                vol fan in chatt, tn

                nicey:

                I was highlighting how ridiculous it is to associate a president on a 1 to 1 basis with job creation. Which, I didn't do.

                what? That is what they did to Bush, is it not? Any little thing, it was blamed on Bush. That was what the whole election of 2004 was going to be about until job growth started and the Dems had to go with something else.

                • 2 votes
                #4.19 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:40 AM EST
                Nicey-1026620

                Obama's stimulus was going to prevent all this, remember Nicey?

                Psss. Psss.

                Find where I once said I supported Obama, voted for him, or even agree with his policies.

                What I'm really pointing to is the fact that you simply don't know what you're talking about. I could care less about your political affiliation. You can't add, you think presidents create employment and unemployment, you don't know the difference between seasonally adjusted unemployment and non-seasonally adjusted as you posted both numbers interchangeably.

                Nicly

                Lets see with that statement you must work for the unions or government in some fashion. If you were the one being cut you would also be pissed on what is going on.

                Same as above. Assume much?

                No. And No. I work in small private business. Which is what I prefer. Taxes are slanted in favor of large corporations at the harm of small businesses. Along with the anti-competitive nature of large businesses and the tactics they employ by influencing the government to make laws to benefit them.

                Nicey, can you explain somehting to me please? Liberals love to blame the recession on Bush's "financial policy". If that is truly the case, why hasn't Obama changed the finance rules? Aren't we in a situation where it could happen again-today?

                I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent...better yet, I am me. I would hope that most human beings will not define themselves as one set label and relate to talking heads in a corrupted mainstream media.

                I don't blame Bush's financial policy. I blame the collusion of agencies like the SEC, with many private enterprises that were allowed to set up completely unregulated markets worth 100s of trillions of dollars.

                It's not really "too big to fail" as the large US economy could actually withstand the collapse of entities with market caps that are 200 billion dollars, the problem is that stock does not represent the value of a companies trades/bets, particularly financial ones.

                AIG for instance by itself represented over 1 trillion dollars in "derivatives" in total with all its business Partners (counterparties).

                And yes, that market is still unregulated. And the Federal Reserve is still promoting the secondary market which is primarily responsible for the ability of banks to issue a massive amount of loans by reselling them and issuing new ones from the generated revenue.

                There are "some" attempts at a sort of accountability. But even if 1 or a few people try to create good policies or actually work for the people they are shut down by the wave of Corporatism that operates the government.

                • 2 votes
                #4.20 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:43 AM EST
                Nicey-1026620

                what? That is what they did to Bush, is it not?

                How am I "they"?

                I didn't do that. I was actually saying that *if* Observer wished to play that game he has to be willing to accept placing the same level of blame on the last guy.

                • 2 votes
                #4.21 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:45 AM EST
                cain398

                All I hear is people saying the govt. should stay out of the private sector and it will fix itself, and then the president gets slammed for not creating enough jobs. Can't have it both ways.

                • 2 votes
                #4.22 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:48 AM EST
                vol fan in chatt, tn

                I don't want Obama "creating or saving jobs", never have. The fact that he is getting slammed is his OWN fault for saying that unemployment with the stimulus would not go over 8.5%. Most of us knew that would not be the case, becasue the government cannot control themselves.

                Get out of the way, government, and quit stifling the private sector with taxes and ridiculous regulation, and the stupid NAFTA agreement which sent more jobs overseas than anything else, and the economy will take care of itself. Let the markets work, but now we have compounded the problem.

                • 1 vote
                #4.23 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:05 PM EST
                mybellyaches

                "Corporate America in the most recent quarter reported (Q2) pays 11.8% of the governments total "Tax Receipts" - you and I, the tax payers, pay 44.9% of all tax reciepts."

                Nicey - Just curious, where do you think taxpayers get their money to pay government taxes? The money trees planted in our backyards? No, sorry. Taxes come from EMPLOYED taxpayers. You know, the ones with jobs?

                It's the private sector that creates wealth which generates tax dollars, not the government. Those employed by the government are being paid by tax dollars or other forms of fees, etc. that the federal government collects which is a finite amount.

                  #4.24 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:16 PM EST
                  Nicey-1026620

                  "Corporate America in the most recent quarter reported (Q2) pays 11.8% of the governments total "Tax Receipts" - you and I, the tax payers, pay 44.9% of all tax reciepts."

                  Nicey - Just curious, where do you think taxpayers get their money to pay government taxes? The money trees planted in our backyards? No, sorry. Taxes come from EMPLOYED taxpayers. You know, the ones with jobs?

                  It's the private sector that creates wealth which generates tax dollars, not the government. Those employed by the government are being paid by tax dollars or other forms of fees, etc. that the federal government collects which is a finite amount.

                  How is this point not clear?

                  No duh the private sector creates jobs, business, taxes...the point is whose wages have gone up over time and whose portion of taxes has increased?

                  So, you're congradulating the corporations for the ability to force taxes off of themselves and onto their workers because they employ those workers?

                  I wouldn't have a problem with that if over time the workers portion of income went up. But it hasn't when compared to Corporate Income or Corporate Board Income. They are earning a lot more and paying a lot less in taxes, most workers aren't earning anything more and paying more in taxes.

                  What you are basically saying is workers should be grateful for whatever scraps they get (whether that's cutting health benefits, wages, training, etc).

                  That sounds familiar...oh yeah fuedalism. Fuedalism led by the financial elite.

                  You should read Econ101s posts just above mine, he pretty much nails it on the head of one of the greatest swindlings ever undertaken, and you are still for big business!

                  • 2 votes
                  #4.25 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:29 PM EST
                  economics101

                  Agreed 100% Nicey. Very well put.

                  • 3 votes
                  #4.26 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:00 PM EST
                  zanilth

                  Nicey-1026620

                  Easy fix - Start taxing corporations and companies based on the amount of employees they have, while at the same time quit taxing the employees themselves. What does this solve?

                  First, it takes the burden off of the 'bottom line', which is the workers/consumers. Quit taxing us, we have more money to spend. Now, on the flip side, either the company would lose profit (which would come out of the bossman, mr 250k+ a year guys pocket) or the wages would go down and companies would lay off workers to compensate for the added expense.

                  Seems like a bad thing, right?

                  Now, apply a tax credit for companies hiring employees, and tax brackets to fit those employees (for example, if you have 100 employees, you are taxed at % rate x, but if you hire 10 additional employees you get a % break for x amount of time.) Of course in all reality the company is just paying the tax BEFORE giving it to the employee and taking it back (equates to just removing the tax statement on check stubs, so employees don't see it) but doing the exact same thing they've been doing. It also can put more liability on the companies, but if they intend on remaining in business, they can hire more personnel and get a tax break for doing such, while also making more money due to the increased productivity of those individuals.

                  We pay taxes on everything else anyway, shouldn't that be about all we have to worry about?

                  Of course, it would be MUCH more complicated to draft out and actually implement, but it would improve things because companies would have INCENTIVE to hire people, INCENTIVE to grow. People would have more money to spend, therefore keeping the money in circulation and what do you know, miracle fix!

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.27 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:01 PM EST
                  economics101

                  PS I have a problem with this statement:

                  "It's the private sector that creates wealth which generates tax dollars, not the government. Those employed by the government are being paid by tax dollars or other forms of fees, etc. that the federal government collects which is a finite amount."

                  Now who says the private sector creates wealth. Why can't the gov't create wealth? What is the gov't anyway, but a company. It operates like a company, earns revenue, employs people, etc .... So what makes a bank, which does nothing different than a government, create wealth? I would guess, he means cause they transfer "wealth" from their workers and customers to the shareholders ..... But is that wealth creation?

                  Can a bank create wealth? Does the stock market create wealth? Real Estate? How about a factory that processes raw materials into a finished product the same way as it did 100 years ago? Is it creating wealth?

                  My definition of wealth is something whihc can be used to imporve the lives of those who create it. As such, Real estate, stock markets, banks, insurance companies are wealth neutral. Manufacturing, constructing, building, etc. create wealth. The real creator of wealth is innovation and process improvement.

                  Now since these things are the creators of wealth .... the gov't investing in R&D is creating wealth. Frankly virtually every major improvement in the last 50 years in our country was developed using gov't money, often in a gov't facility, by gov't employees. The truly criminal part is too often this process was hijacked by private industry whole stole are bought for nothing these improvements and made a killing commercializing them.

                  So I submit that the creation of wealth is not a private sector club, that wealth needs to be defined as being unrelated to worthless monopoly money distributed to the managerial aristocracy, but to improving productivity and lives of people in general.

                  • 3 votes
                  #4.28 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:20 PM EST
                  Nicey-1026620

                  People would have more money to spend, therefore keeping the money in circulation and what do you know, miracle fix!

                  Sounds complex.

                  Incentives are questionable.

                  Tax Incentives are part of the problem, because they artificially create demand and cause lots of game playing to take advantage of them.

                  I would agree with a system that rewards people and companies for saving money. Not necessarily spending it. Saving and investing. Real investing, like capital investment, training investment, etc.

                  Part of the issue is this credit lifestyle. Banks lowered reserves till they were 1% and 2% of assets. 15 years ago it was standard to hold 8-10% in capital reserves to assets. With 8-10% ratios...none of these companies go bankrupt. And we don't have to bail anyone out at all.

                  but to improving productivity and lives of people in general.

                  The sickening part is American productivity improvement has translated into many bad things for American workers. With less workers needed to do the same thing, companies shovel them out the door. While 1 worker is producing a lot more, he is not being paid hardly any increase in wage. Most of his increased productivity goes right into the pockets of owners.

                  • 2 votes
                  #4.29 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:36 PM EST
                  zanilth

                  Sounds complex.

                  Like I said,

                  Of course, it would be MUCH more complicated to draft out and actually implement,

                  Tax Incentives are part of the problem, because they artificially create demand and cause lots of game playing to take advantage of them.

                  If you tell companies you are about to start demanding more of them, but give them a way to reduce that demand, then any company who wants to keep their money and productivity will comply. Like I said, it would be much more complicated, involving a timeline to reduce the incentives while also reducing the tax burden so companies wouldn't have a reason to terminate the employees once their 'tax' usefulness is removed. Make it cut and dry, and there will be no room for games and loopholes. The government DOES have the power to do such, but why when it loses them money personally?

                  I would agree with a system that rewards people and companies for saving money. Not necessarily spending it. Saving and investing.

                  When I say spend more, I mean buying groceries, purchasing clothing, spending money on products that reinforce business. Number 1 basic rule of business is if you have no customers, you have no business. By consumers spending money with businesses, they ARE investing money into our economy. Why do you think Obama said he was stopping the tax credit program that Bush implimented? Because people would 'save' that money instead of spending it and bolstering the economy with it.

                  Of course people need to save, I'm not saying that. But if John Q Public had a little less tax liability (meaning more money in their pocket at the end of the day) then we (as I am part of John Q Public) would have more opportunity to care for our families and see to the day to day necessities, as well as stick a bit more into savings to prepare properly for times such as these.

                  The sickening part is American productivity improvement has translated into many bad things for American workers. With less workers needed to do the same thing, companies shovel them out the door. While 1 worker is producing a lot more, he is not being paid hardly any increase in wage. Most of his increased productivity goes right into the pockets of owners.

                  Industrilization is what led to this, not productivity. Industrilization did increase productivity, but that isn't what we should look at.

                  My basic point is that we as peons, the government, and the companies/corporations themselves SHOULD want businesses to succeed and thrive, for the better for everyone involved, not just the owner and CEOs. Because the government does also have an interest in the success of the economy, there should be incentives or 'reasoning' for companies to expand, hire more people, etc. Instead, they are downsizing, moving out of the country, laying off people, etc. Primarily because no one is stopping them. Dishonesty is rampant in the upper lofts of such. Perhaps if we change that completely, the dishonest practices will be flushed out and honesty might again become the best policy?

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.30 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 5:30 PM EST
                  Nicey-1026620

                  Industrilization is what led to this, not productivity. Industrilization did increase productivity, but that isn't what we should look at.

                  Modern productivity increases are largely the result of electronics systems. The ability of computers to transform the work place (particularly manufacturing operations). And while this created new manufacturing opportunities, it doesn't change the fact that businesses primarily keep the productivity gains for the owners.

                  This is simply illustrated by GDP growth of the US from 1970 until today. If it was even marginally fair, the middle class would have participated in that growth. GDP growth is the growth of economic activity (i.e. the gain in economic productivity).

                  http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html

                  By Historical income tables the "middle" class has averaged about 0.66% annualized growth in income.

                  http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354

                  If one compares that to real GDP growth, you get about 3.62% annualized. So someone is benefiting from that real growth, but only 1/6th of it is going to about 75% of the population.

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.31 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 12:16 PM EST
                  XDemonessXDeleted
                  Nicey-1026620

                  yeah I gues in a fair and just world, we should just hire about 1400 people, to a plant there only need about 38 engineers to operate, just to be fair towards 75% of American populace.

                  No. Not even close.

                  This goes back to everything that goes on with Mega Corporations. They try as hard as possible to maintain illegal competitive advantages and thwart the free market.

                  Is it somehow a coincidence that Walmart can charge the same thing we were being charged before, claim they are introducing savings, and then pay everyone less?

                  Or that companies like say Microsoft are earning 2.5X what they did in profit 10 years ago, yet all the mid-level employees are at the same wages (and were talking guys who have computer engineering degrees...not some guy shoving mop), and they have less American workers?

                  It's simply corporate control which is becoming absolute. Why share profits when you can threaten employees? Employees have little alternative, the barrier to entry for small businesses is amazing, and small businesses can't compete because they don't get the same tax breaks mega ones do.

                  Between a guy operating a small business and BoA, who is paying at the 35% rate? It's not BoA.

                  I'm not talking about "giving" this money is earned by employees in this corporations. It belongs as much to them as it does to the owners. But the owners have corrupted the system so that only a select group will ever see the true rewards.

                  The Free Market is far from Free and Mega Corps want it that way.

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.33 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 2:09 PM EST
                  XDemonessXDeleted
                  economics101

                  Demoness, Nicey.

                  First of all, if the paradigm is to make as much money as possible and cut out the middle class then why shouldn't the affluent do it ?? The issue comes down to labor participation and politics.

                  The capitalist looks at the situation and says - how can I get the highest ROI. Obviously, employees, customers, suppliers are only as important as how they add to the ROI.

                  The problem is that soon, we will have no need for any more employees. Already productivity has eliminated whole professions, whole businesses .... so how has the capitalist reacted? They haven't, they expect the gov't, soceity to deal with it. It only begins to effect the capitlist thinking when it starts to effect demand for the products.

                  You see, the economy is a big circle. If all we have are rich people and machines producing everything, how are the other 99% going to have the money to buy what they produce? Without demand, even a free supply offers no ROI.

                  Now we can play games with debt, create endless accounting, sales, bureaucrat jobs .... but capitalism's never ending search for ROI will keep squeezing them out ..... so what happens.

                  Well this problem is a very real problem. As I see it Capitalism has no solution, since the solution is that money must be taken from the production and given to the consumer to do BASICALLY NOTHING.

                  Now I can just hear all the GOP righties screaming over a few welfare moms ... how about 50, 75% of the population? Right now most of the US economy is a make work project to keep the factories, mines, wells working. China, Russia, India need to have Americans working ... thats why they keep propping up our dollar, our banks, our government.

                  The problme is that this is not sustainable. The shift from 1st world manufacturing to 3rd world manufacturing is actually a negative productivty move. Woekrs in those countries are much much less productive than we are .... but this is Capitalism.

                  Capitalsim seeks ROI, not productivity, not technology, not a better life or freedom, regardless of what the WSJ tells us. The worlds problem today is an artificial or contrived shortage of Capital and an massive oversupply of labor.

                  The problme with the Capitalist solution of Globalization is that this does not promote technology, improvement of live, std of living .... just as Nicey pointed out 99% of Americans are either the same or worse off than 40 years ago!

                  Since we know that the only real improvements in any of those things are driven by technology or process improvement, the question is why have we allows this backtracking to chase short term ROI. the answer of course is that this is the only thing Capitlism knows.

                  Capitalism is a short term, ROI focused economic system. It is inefficient, unfair, and unstable. In the 200 years it has held court, the world has oscillated between 20% expansion and 70 - 80% recession. It benefits a tiny minority at the expense of the many, and never has a focus much beyond 3 quarters a head.

                  As such, it cannot evolve to deal with the coming crisises in resources, water, health, labor, religion; because it is a transitory system designed to bridge between feudalism and socialism that has lived too long.

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.35 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 10:35 PM EST
                  Mark-702026

                  Econ I am following you thought process. I will give you it is well stated, but I could not disagree more with it.

                  Government funding can pprovide the means of output if done effectively. However, we tend as a nation to only to allow government funding to be allowed with conditions and creation of more governmental bureaucracy and agencies.

                  Capitalism is far less prone to corruption than government. We behave much more honestly and frugally (is that a word?) when it our own money and lively hood on the line. Government is inherently corruptible due to its very nature. 1. The only why to improve ones own benefit is to take more of the pie that you were given. 2. Government writes the rules on how to allocate the pie and has the power to take from the private sector to make the pie.

                  Conversely the private sector the pie must be earned, it is not given and the private person or company has no power to take. Plus there is always plenty of competition to keep everyone in check. Free markets work every time if they are left alone.

                  The best way to corrupt the free market is government interference. Especially with

                  legislation that leads to unintended consequences or perverted market behaviors.

                  Fascism, state-ism, socialism, not free markets lead to tyranny.Free markets give rise to the "middle class" wealth and power that keeps Monarchs, tyrants, and government overreaching at bay.

                    #4.36 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:07 AM EST
                    XDemonessXDeleted
                    economics101

                    Mark.

                    You miss my point ... the seperation of economic activity into the "private" or capitalist sector and public or gov't sector is a modern invention. There is economic activity undertaken by people. They either produce something of economic value or not.

                    Now if a gov't funded scientist at Nasa comes up with a new way to run a computer, or a bureaucrat develops a new way to recycle as part of their gov't job is that not producing an economic value? The bottom line is most private sector jobs produce little or nothing of value either ... accountants, lawyers, bankers, etc .... their role is basically the bureacracy of the private sector .... no differnet than the tax collector, politician or Department of whatever guy .....

                    Finally, you state that:

                    "Capitalism is far less prone to corruption than government. We behave much more honestly and frugally (is that a word?) when it our own money and lively hood on the line. Government is inherently corruptible due to its very nature. 1. The only why to improve ones own benefit is to take more of the pie that you were given. 2. Government writes the rules on how to allocate the pie and has the power to take from the private sector to make the pie."

                    Let me begin with the irony that it is the private sector or capitalist who are doing the corrupting ..... Secondly, there is widescale corruption in the private sector ... theft, fraud, misrepresentation, etc .... this entire "crisis was caused by private sector corruption which has caused far more harm than gov't corruption.

                    Then you talk about a pie and how the gov't take fro the private pie. First of all, the private sector needs the gov't to exist. The vital functions of gov't are what allows capitalism to function. There can be gov't without capitalism, but not capitalism without gov't. As for the pie, cpitalism not only needs the gov't to exist, it needs the gov't to manage the pie. Capitalism inherently will destroy itself without regulation Even Adam Smith said the role of gov't is to regulate capitlaism to ensure it works properly .... Therefore, the gov't must allocate the pie to ensure that capitlaism does not become cannibalistic as it has over the last 8 years.

                    You conclude with:

                    Free markets give rise to the "middle class" wealth and power that keeps Monarchs, tyrants, and government overreaching at bay.

                    Now there is nothing what so ever about capitalism as an economic or social system that supports this statement. As Ive explained, Capitalism is an inherently unstable system that requires constant gov't involvement to stop from imploding. Capitalsim is an explanation of how theoretical "free markets" work. Since no such free markets work, we can only hope to approcimate them through regulation and intervention.

                    In fact what you are proposing (laissez faire or unregulated capitalism) will definatley lead to Fuedalism. An economic system where a tiny minority controls the "Capital", and exploits the majority who are virtual slaves. This was the experiance of the Industrial Revolution.

                    In fact the creation of the Middle Class in America was caused directly by the adoption of socialist and Keynesian policies under FDR, Eisenhower, etc .... ie. regulation of Capitalism, emphasis on labor rights, education and technology, gov't spending .....This is what kept Tyranny at bay.

                    Frankly, it amazes me that in 60 years the right has twisted history to make such false statements about capitalism. In the 1930s, the communist party and the socialists were the fastest growing political group in the USA. FDR had to adopt these policies in fear of an American socialist revolution ...... it was these movements that built the American middle class. Not Bank of America, GE and MSFT.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.38 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:12 PM EST
                    economics101

                    Demoness:

                    No worries about offending me. I come from a long line of conservative business people who operated family businesses for generations.

                    I am not blaming the rich as individuals for this system. I get really tired of people saying Michael Moore is an a hole cause he makes money making movies ... he should give it all away to help the poor. So even if he lived in a box, and gave away all the money, would it make a damn bit of difference? No.

                    The system is the system. we all need to find a way to live and look after our families the best we can. I don't live on a commune and hug trees. It is not a sin to live and succeed by the Paradigm that we are born into.

                    However, it is a crime to tell the poor its all their fault they are poor. To tell the forclosed and repossesed that its their fault they are homeless. Those born into welfare, drugs and abuse that this is all they deserve. Why, cause its all done to support a system based on lies.

                    So the very fact you are here talking about this means that we are spreading the truth. Im not someone who demands that you, I or anyone else give up everything they have for the cause ..... we live in the system we live in .... and we need to change it from working within.

                    Like you said, is Walmart bad because it out competes everyone else. Even if the system is bad, does that mean the winner cheated? Walmart was given the rules and did what the system wanted them to do ..... so they are a success. Its the system tahts bad, not the players.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.39 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:22 PM EST
                    Nicey-1026620

                    We behave much more honestly and frugally

                    I needed a good laugh. You mean the private sector behaves more honestly and frugally?

                    http://www.myinvestmentanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/debt-in-the-united-states.jpg

                    Private Sector debt is 3X+ times as much as the government debt. Enjoy.

                    As far as honestly. No, they do not. Because they are never under any scrutiny. Public Officials are continually under scrutiny. Though we know many are corrupt, there is at least a chance of getting them out. Either by voting them out, or be them being found out.

                    You can't vote out a CEO. Heck, even the shareholders can't vote out a CEO these days because of voting rights and the fact that most common stock doesn't count for the same voting rights. Look at Ken Lewis of BoA. The majority spoke and it was to vote him out...but that didn't happen. Instead, he gets to retire with a golden parachute for being a douchebag and a moron.

                    And they are under very little scrutiny most of the time because the SEC doesn't have the resources or incentive to make sure most are following the law.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.40 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:33 AM EST
                    XDemonessXDeleted
                    economics101

                    "free trade" doesn't exist. Frankly, the more we create "free trade" rules the more we fiind reasons to restrict them.

                    The simple truth is the manufacture of most products is a global oligopoly. There are 1 - 5 global manufacturers who make all the products, or even better hire someone else to make it for them. These groups conspire, whether actively or passively, to fix prices, demand, etc.....

                    Borders are irrelevent to trade. Borders are designed to keep you "in", not to manage trade. The barriers to entry for corps like kraft (which is part of the Phillip Morris tobacco empire) are non existant. Diary is an international business heavily subsidized by gov't welfare programs in most countries - but still dominated by global conglomerates ....does that make sense? We are subsidizing diary prices while the production, supply and profits are controlled by about 4 major multinationals?

                    How about ice cream? we now have 2 multinational who produce 97% of the global ice cream. As such prices have risen at 3 - 5 times inflation or underlying cost, since they acquired all the competition. This is not a national problem, or a regional problem - but a global one.

                    The one that concerns me the most is the apparent coordinated effrot to commoditize drinking water. The "bottled water" that is now being sold to us is mainly derived from municipal water supplies - the same place as your tap water. For the most part, the bottlers pay little or nothing to get the water out of the ground. The major cost of this bottled water is not "treatment", but delivery.

                    Now I have watched the price of this product rise steadily over the last 18 months. At the same time, the local tap water has become increasingly chlorinated ..... making it perfectly safe, but unpleasant to drink. So we have Nestle, Coke, Pepsi producing bottled water from the same source, without chlorine, the local gov't chlorinating city water supplies, and the price skyrocketing (up 50 - 75% at my local walmart in 18 months).

                    Now is this capitalism? Sure .... they found a product that costs nothing and created a demand for it through cleaver marketing. Is it positive? Well there are several factors that are of concern. First, that they have made a product out of something which was not only free, but accessible through the spending of public funds to produce it. your municipal gov't spends a major portion of its budget managing water resources.

                    Secondly, depleting water resources to produce bottled water at no costs fails to adress the environmental cost and long term inpact of what they are doing. Typically they bottle water near a major city and virtually suck dry the local aquifers .... the local govt is sop happy to have a few jobs they don't realize that the long term effects are far worse ...

                    Finally, the very act of creating a commodity out of water which is available for free is scary. The excellent movie "idiocracy" talks about the path of unmitigated capitalism and water. Its funny, but frankly not far off the mark.

                    The problem with Capitalism is that it is an reverse explanation of how markets were observed to work. This system is prone to corruption, flagrant abuses, revolution and exploitation, and tyranny. As we have seen it is virtually impossible to balance capitalism with a beneficial society.

                    The flipside of this is the failure of any other system to execute in the real world any more effectively. The issues you raise are valid. The real problem of modern "free market Capitalism" is that it is neither free nor capitalist. It is, in fact, plutocratic socialism. IE as system designed to benefit a small minority, by providing a decent standard of living to a significant minority to prevent revolution.

                    Thats why we have the banking sector, all the corporate welfare, oligopolies, scams and corruption. these guys aren't just lying and cheating to get something for themselves, they are doing it to make a better world for you - they just expect to do a little better than you do for their trouble.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.42 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:53 PM EST
                    XDemonessXDeleted
                    economics101

                    hey there are lots of smaller companies who supply the big guys, but ask anyone who supplied GM aboput who sets the terms of the arrangement.

                    corporate welfare tends to target the big producers, naks and special interests .... but when one subsidizes one part of the chain it messes up the entire chain.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.44 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:14 PM EST
                    Mark-702026

                    Regarding those supply chain producers. GM either has back ended ownership or there only allowed to contract with GM, it is a way to shift losses and profits where they need them.

                    They do not exist without GM not matter what happens.

                    Auto manufacturing is inherently prone to natural formation of oliogobies due the unbelievable barrier of entry. Largely due to the large start up cost, made worse by the government compliance red tape.

                      #4.45 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:54 PM EST
                      economics101

                      Exactly, so you may have tons of little mom and pop operations producing parts claiming to be capitalists, but in fact the entire industry is based on a handful of producers who ,collude to set prices and fix the market, not to mention enact protectionist legislation and collect endless handouts form gov't.

                      • 1 vote
                      #4.46 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:43 PM EST
                      XDemonessXDeleted
                      Mark-702026

                      economics101 let's not forgot the greedy union and its memebers that weld the auto manufactures and the people of the us ransom for years. Yet you do list them your enemy of the system list.

                        #4.48 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:27 PM EST
                        economics101

                        When you build a system whose sole purpose is the exploitation of the other participants for your benefit why wouldn't the workers unite to take advantage of the situation? Itis interesting that the right consistently blames the unions and other labor organizations for adopting their behavior.

                        Unions are non productive in so far as bargain in bocs and affect the price of the goods sold. ie. hect of the union laboris passed on o workers who donothave their power to exploit managment.However, unions do rereset one of a veryfew place were labor i fairly valued compared to capital in our economy.

                        The cause is not "markets" but the legal and political support for our system which paces capita ahead of a other inputs -unions are the evolution of this structural arbitrage where labor can exploit it.

                        • 1 vote
                        #4.49 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:10 AM EST
                        Mark-702026

                        what they haven't taken advantage of the situation Last I check they now own the company. You talk in circles and around the truth.

                        UAW has also exploited the position, that is why cars cost as much as houses, that and the crazy mandates placed on quot manufacturing by countless federal agencies.

                          #4.50 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:38 AM EST
                          Nicey-1026620

                          Itis interesting that the right consistently blames the unions and other labor organizations for adopting their behavior.

                          Because why would you want anyone else to get on the system you've gamed for your advantage. Exactly. Do as I say, not as I do.

                          • 2 votes
                          #4.51 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:57 AM EST
                          Reply
                          The Spirit

                          But, but, but, but, but Obama said if we passed the stimulus package NOW, if we passed it NOW NOW, NOW,NOW, NOW, the unemployment rate would not go above 8.5 percent!

                          DAMN BUSH!

                          • 16 votes
                          Reply#5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:08 AM EST
                          gregjarvis

                          hahah yep. good ol barry. at least he comments on bull@!$%# racial disputs between cops and citizens and has time for late night shows.

                          what a joke of a president

                          • 12 votes
                          #5.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:26 AM EST
                          Canadian Dave

                          Spirit -

                          We've ALL noted your economic genius through your postings. So, in the absence of first stabilizing the underpinnings of the economy to ensure that businesses (and thus JOBS) will ultimately be able to grow, what would you have done differently and why?

                          Please be specific. The country (or at least Newsvine) is hanging on your wise answer.

                          • 2 votes
                          #5.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:00 AM EST
                          dfizDeleted
                          Canadian Dave

                          dfiz - Read my bio, dumbass!

                          • 1 vote
                          #5.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:55 AM EST
                          mybellyaches

                          Dave, I think dfiz was suggesting you move back to Canada.....

                            #5.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:18 PM EST
                            Reply
                            proud2bconservative

                            Hey, Obamanation (that can be taken two ways)

                            How's that "Hope and Change" thing working out for you?

                            • 10 votes
                            Reply#6 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:22 AM EST
                            zanilth

                            proud2bconservative

                            You know, I think I just figured it out. The "Hope and Change" slogan is supposed to mean "By the time I'm done, all you'll have is hope for a change!"

                            • 8 votes
                            #6.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:41 AM EST
                            mybellyaches

                            Or, all you can hope for is a little bit of change left over after we tax all your income, substantially increase the budget deficit, and reduce the strength of the dollar....

                            • 1 vote
                            #6.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:20 PM EST
                            Reply
                            Dylan923

                            Where are all the Obamaniacs at?

                            Here little sheep, come out come out wherever you are........................

                            • 10 votes
                            Reply#7 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:28 AM EST
                            Ghulam Ghaus

                            The US is using its economic energy in Afghanistan, Iraq & Pakistan etc. This crisis is now like the growth of bacteria with uncontrol growth. I think the US should say good bye to these wars otherwise the US will sink whole of the world economy. Really a togh challange to cope with for Obama administration.

                              Reply#8 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:35 AM EST
                              Patriotic Dissenter

                              Why isn't our community organizing president not organizing for more jobs? He probably delegated away all responsibilty from agitating the community as well.

                              • 7 votes
                              Reply#9 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:40 AM EST
                              mybellyaches

                              Patriotic Dissenter - Sorry, creating jobs is above the President's and his Czar's pay grades.... You didn't watch one of the dozen white house briefings in the last hour???

                              • 1 vote
                              #9.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:23 PM EST
                              Reply
                              ebookout

                              Bottom line is this does not reflect the tru unemployment rate. Who cares who is in office when it started , the question is what are we doing to get people back to work. So far all I see is we are spending a lot of cash just to buy votes and generating nothing.

                              Is this the rush for health care to be government controlled so they can hire all the minorities so they will vote for them? Someone with some business back ground needs to wake these idiots in congress up and make them think about what this country needs and stop playing politics.

                              • 4 votes
                              Reply#10 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:45 AM EST
                              Michael Crowley

                              The company I work for spends many millions of dollars every year just to ADMINISTER our heath care plan.

                              The passing of the health care bill will save that company millions every year..

                              Millions in tax cuts, or millions in health care savings.. both save a company money... right?

                              • 1 vote
                              #10.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:03 PM EST
                              ebookout

                              Than fix it the right way . Do you really think the government can even get out of it's own way? If your company spends millions a year which I question to administer your health care than you must be union. Because they would be the only ones who could waste that kind of funds on administration cost of a program.. RIGHT!

                              What's the old questions how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb? Depends if your union or private sector. One has one thinking about it and 10 on coffee break and the other has just one doing it.

                                #10.2 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 8:49 AM EST
                                Reply
                                dfizDeleted
                                Ralph-482541

                                Everyone has been predicting that unemployment will go up some more and then start producing jobs some time in mid to late 2010, so whats the surprise. Hunker down and ride it out as best you can. If you have a job, there is basically no problem, I do and the numbers mean nothing to me. Sounds callus but when jobs left my area of the country to move south thats what I heard from folks and politicians down there so suck it up and stop whining. I have mine and am not worried about anyone else, as they didn't worry about me twenty years back.

                                • 2 votes
                                Reply#12 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:55 AM EST
                                dfizDeleted
                                Ralph-482541

                                They have been saying for months we can expect ten percent or higher unemployment, where have you been in a cave. And as I said, I went through my hard times 20 years back and I survived so let's all stop whining and deal with it as best we can.

                                • 1 vote
                                #12.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:11 AM EST
                                RainDaze

                                dfiz

                                not corporate friends

                                They are corporate fiends.

                                  #12.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:12 AM EST
                                  Canadian Dave

                                  Ralph - You're right. Most have been predicting job loss even after other LEIs go green. I don't recall anyone mentioning 10%+, but quite possibly that was only for political expediency.

                                  It's crucial to understand that the basic underpinnings of the economy, in particular fluidity in the credit markets, HAD to be accomplished first and foremost. Without that, no significant recovery could be expected. It's also naive in the extreme to think that the stimulus' effect could trickle down to Main St. in 6-8 months. Nevertheless, why isn't the rest of the budgeted funding being spent?

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #12.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:09 PM EST
                                  OBwan

                                  The number I have been seeing projected is about 10.5%, we will see.

                                  Good news from Elkhart County Indiana - JAYCO, one of the RV manufactures has called back 200 since the summer and production has risen from 75 RV per day to 135 RVs per day. Business has been up 13% for the second month over last year - they expect 27% jump in shipments in 2010. My understanding is that they are not the only ones.

                                  Here is an article http://www.wsbt.com/news/business/69175552.html

                                    #12.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:05 PM EST
                                    Reply
                                    dfizDeleted
                                    DeltaForce1

                                    Funny how one day after the election, the Senate rushed to pass the unemployment benefits extension (and tax credit extension for 1st time homebuyers) and the House promptly adopted the final revisions for the White House signing ceremony - the lifelines for 7,000 Americans are dropped each day as more job seekers are dropping off as simply statistics.

                                    We knew those optimistic job numbers earlier this week were just a smoke screen for Wall Street and Washingtonians inside the Capital Beltway.

                                    We live on a small, quiet residential block in the city's "suburb" section and our neighbors joked that it's very easy these days to get to know everyone living on the street during the day since one of 7 or 8 aren't working - plenty of time on hand to mow the lawns & grass, wash the cars & watch those poor real estate agents hang up more "For Sale" "For Rent" and "Open House" signs.

                                    On the corporate front, as more annual budgets for 2010 are finalized & put in place, expect more pink slips (in our case, nicely padded brown legal sized envelopes) to the distributed on Fridays this month - watch out for last minute meetings at the management office for 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. etc.

                                    Don't be surprised if the unemployment numbers get even worse next month when the November folks start filling for their benefits at the local UI offices across America.

                                    • 4 votes
                                    Reply#14 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:00 AM EST
                                    Neale Osborn

                                    No, Delta, Obama, Underwear Gnome in Chief of the US, will point to all the temporary Christmas season jobs as proof that the Stimulus Package is finally kicking in!

                                    • 3 votes
                                    #14.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:33 AM EST
                                    dfizDeleted
                                    Reply
                                    Mary Glass

                                    Greetings!

                                    When reports like this are given, they are doing a huge disservice to the problem when they fail to give the facts at the level of People of Color and the Working Poor in cities across this country.

                                    These are the folk that have had "decades" of unemployment above 10%.

                                    In fact, Milwaukee is at a 47% - 65% unemployment right now. This is the majority population of Milwaukee's 602,000 people. Detroit and Cleveland are also desperate for family supporting employment opportunities for their heads of household.

                                    When we fail to share the total picture, it undermines RECOVERY.

                                    It allows solutions to be skewed, continues the gap of "haves" and "have nots" and raises the debt of the country.

                                    I ask that you complete the reporting of the employment picture by be "inclusive".

                                    Its a great idea.

                                    Thanks for the opportunity of sharing with you and your readership.

                                    Mary Glass - Milwaukeean

                                      Reply#15 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:01 AM EST
                                      zanilth

                                      When reports like this are given, they are doing a huge disservice to the problem when they fail to give the facts at the level of People of Color and the Working Poor in cities across this country.

                                      Perhaps because they aren't trying to give just one specific class number of unemployment? They are giving a national average. Black, white, asian, hispanic, woman, man, etc are all rolled into that number. Asking for specifics in a general discussion is like asking for oranges at an apple convention. While I'm not saying it isn't a viable issue that needs to be addressed, I am saying that it isn't necessarily the issue that is being discussed, so they aren't doing a disservice to the country or people.

                                      People of Color

                                      How about just people?

                                      I ask that you complete the reporting of the employment picture by being "inclusive".

                                      These numbers are inclusive, just not specific.

                                      • 4 votes
                                      #15.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:13 AM EST
                                      The Observer

                                      When reports like this are given, they are doing a huge disservice to the problem when they fail to give the facts at the level of People of Color...

                                      Mary, it's always in the monthly report...

                                      Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.7 per-cent) and whites (9.5 percent) rose in October. The jobless rates for adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (27.6 percent), blacks (15.7 percent), andHispanics (13.1 percent) were little changed over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
                                      
                                      • 3 votes
                                      #15.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:21 AM EST
                                      black spider

                                      And most people of "color" live in districts run by corrupt Democrats, always have been. Clinton was the champion of NAFTA and CAFTA, which sent millions of high paying manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico.

                                      • 3 votes
                                      #15.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:59 AM EST
                                      black spider

                                      The observer, do you know where they get these numbers? Do you really trust the Obama regime to be fair and impartial or spin and doctor the numbers?

                                      The fact is that these unemployment numbers only count people "in the system". It does not count people who have given up, working part time, lowering wages or lowered hours on the job.

                                      These figures are only a starting point to begin to examine the level of despair and dropping confidence with the Obama administration and the government overall.

                                      The government continues to do the wrong thing. They need to give a tax break to small businesses and create an investment climate in the US so that jobs will be created, research and investment will increase, and the standard of living will increase.

                                      What we have is a highly centralized dictatorship in Washington DC that prints money at will, borrows money from future generations, and does everything in its power to increase the level of dependency on the govt to keep their power.

                                      In the meantime they are protecting the interests of central bankers, hedge funds, investment houses and cheap foreign labor at the expense of native citizens and future generations. The House of Cards is coming down, and when Rev. Wright refers to the chickens coming home, he ought to look who the head Rooster is in the White House.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #15.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:06 AM EST
                                      Nicey-1026620

                                      They are giving a national average. Black, white, asian, hispanic, woman, man, etc are all rolled into that number

                                      They give reports broken down every month for Black and Hispanic workers.

                                      There are also usually monthly reports from most major cities.

                                      It's not 65% unemployment in Milwaukee.

                                      http://www.bls.gov/web/laummtrk.htm

                                      U3 highest is 30.1, U6 varies, it's usually double U3 in expansion, but drops to less than 2X during recessions.

                                      National average is 10.2 U3, 17.5 U6, 1.7X factor. So unemployment in El Centro for U6 is likely as high as 51%.

                                      Milwaukee is U3 8.5%, there's no way full unemployment is anywhere close to 40%, it has a lower average than the US, U6 is likely around 15%.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #15.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:50 PM EST
                                      Nicey-1026620

                                      The observer, do you know where they get these numbers? Do you really trust the Obama regime to be fair and impartial or spin and doctor the numbers?

                                      The BLS is just another survey collecting entity like the US Census. It has little to do with the administration in power.

                                      Or is Obama down there schooling PHDs on why they are using the wrong Algorithms to calculate employment from the survey.

                                      The fact is that these unemployment numbers only count people "in the system". It does not count people who have given up, working part time, lowering wages or lowered hours on the job.

                                      False.

                                      You just have to look.

                                      No one is preventing you from looking.

                                      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

                                      U6 includes everyone that is still in the labor force who are working part-time because the economy, have stopped looking from discouragement, or who are not looking now but have sometime in the previous 12 months.

                                      Not only that...but the BLS gives you the data for everyone outside the workforce as well.

                                      http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab13.htm

                                      Table A-13, you may select from many options what you want to know about the unemployed outside the labor force.

                                      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

                                      Page 3 of 29, the average work week (for all workers part-time and full-time) and the average pay for those hours.

                                      You can look at Table B-2, or B-3 to compare the year-over-year. Which reveals that while wages have increased 2.4% the average weekly earnings are almost flat because of lower hours.

                                      That's in the situation report (the main report) the BLS does every month. U3 is the reported unemployment figure, but they aren't stopping you from looking at the other one if you want.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #15.6 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:59 PM EST
                                      zanilth

                                      They give reports broken down every month for Black and Hispanic workers.

                                      I know that, was just pointing out for Mary Glass that in this specific discussion, we weren't breaking down those figures, we were looking at a nationwide issue. The breaking down of numbers is a different discussion entirely and can lead to topics that would incite all sorts of rash feelings and observations (which I, for one, would much rather avoid.)

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #15.7 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:06 PM EST
                                      Nicey-1026620

                                      I know that

                                      I was really responding to the post you were responding to, it was just easier to highlight your quote as my response was to that issue.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #15.8 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 4:21 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      Julie from MN

                                      There will be no consumer spending from our family this Christmas, since my husband was laid off 6 months ago from his computer programmer job! I think it's very un American of those of you who have no empathy for others. We are not the dregs of society here. We adopted 2 foster children to give them a decent home and now we will be forced out of our modest home due to this recession.

                                        Reply#16 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:01 AM EST
                                        black spider

                                        God Bless you Julie. While your husband looks for work, the Chamber of Commerce and most computer software giants and universities continue to hire and retain hundreds of thousands of h1-b visa and green card holders at the expense of your husband and many others.

                                          #16.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:09 AM EST
                                          Michael Crowley

                                          I, like most Americans will give empathy when empathy is due. A father's job is to provide for his family.. no matter what... I'm sorry he lost his job, but it's not the government's fault he hasn't found another one. He's aiming too high.. If i lost my job, i'd dig ditches, or flip burgers to provide for my family.. not shoot off resumes and wait for another job to come along.

                                          A computer programmer can do a LOT in 6 months! he could have written some software, and be selling it right now.. I'm not a genius, learned about an industry, learned a programming language, and wrote a business software program, and started selling it.. in six months! I am willing to bet your husband is just as able and intelligent as I am..

                                          And if he's not providing after six months.. he's not a very good provider..

                                          That's not the government's fault.. that's his.

                                          And THOSE are the cold-hard facts.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #16.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:11 PM EST
                                          economics101

                                          If i lost my job, i'd dig ditches, or flip burgers to provide for my family.. not shoot off resumes and wait for another job to come along.

                                          thats a pretty big if .... you think there's work digging ditches? How exactly is a family going to live on what a burger joint pays? Now I agree that he is likely more intelligent than you are, and those are the cold hard facts.

                                          100 years ago we had the ability to work and provide no matter what. In our specialized world, with all of our financial committments, these claims of being a "provider" don't make sense. He spent years getting trained, specialized and building experience. He is "worth" a decent wage as a programmer - as a min. wag flunky he would likely make less than on unemployment - even working 2 jobs - so what is your point?

                                          Finally, the gov't has committed 15 - 20 Trillion to the banks and Wall St., without any public support, without any oversight. Now to ask the gov't, who apparently has Trillions lying around to hand out to criminal scum in the banking/investment business, you would think they would have a few billion for actual working, tax paying Americans - but apparently not.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #16.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:09 PM EST
                                          ebookout

                                          Michael Crowley

                                          And who do you work for ? The government who's buying your votes at the expense of the one who really pay for your salary.

                                            #16.4 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 8:58 AM EST
                                            economics101

                                            I don't work for the gov't. At the end of the day, does it matter who you work for? Since most corporations get back from the gov't far more than they contribute to it I would contend the same thing right back at you.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #16.5 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 10:36 PM EST
                                            Mark-702026

                                            economics101 Trashy the productive side of our economy is getting old. The government produces nothing. Period.

                                            It is a necessary evil to keep law and order, provide defense, and public projects that the private sector would not be able to provide at a price we would be willing to pay.

                                            Everything wrong with today's economy has it's roots in in the Federal Government.

                                              #16.6 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:16 AM EST
                                              economics101

                                              This right wing GOP dogma is not correct just because the high priests say it is .....

                                              The gov't is an important sector of the economy. I can tell you having worked for lots of fortune 100 companies, the gov't is usually one of the "best" customers .....

                                              As for the claim that the private sector "can't" do these things ... the truth is the private sector makes most of its profits by taking advantage of gov't largesse ..... if they had to pay the real cost of all these things. most businesses would be barely viable.

                                              This ridiculous antagonism between the private and public sector is mainly a political creation. Economically, the trickle down, supply side theories are based on half truths and faulty assumptions ... and never did work.

                                              There is a famous story that Cheny built his economic policies based on a 5 min conversation with Prof Laffer and a picture of his laffer curve on a cocktail napkin. That, for the most part is what your approach is based on .....

                                              During this 30 year experiment with getting rid of the big bad gov't there has only been one positive economic fact - that the top 1% have dramatically increased their incomes and wealth, while dramatically reducing the tax they pay on it. For every other group in our economy it has been an unmitigated disaster. So >1% has benefited from your approach, < 99% have suffered! Now call this the "productive" side of the economy if you like, but the bottom line is that the only producing it has been doing is making the top 1% richer and the rest poorer ....

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #16.7 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:57 PM EST
                                              Mark-702026

                                              We will just have to agree to disagree ...

                                                #16.8 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:53 PM EST
                                                economics101

                                                OK, but the purpose of this discussion is not to make statements and then disagree with criticisms of them by stating that you don't agree with them.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #16.9 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:53 AM EST
                                                Reply
                                                brianfromPA

                                                This isn't about our government anymore... This is about the global economic structure. Capitalism is an illusion. American well being is an illusion.

                                                Google Search Carry Trade. This will tell you why the Yen remained the toilet currency from 1990 to 2007, and why the new toilet currency is the dollar. It will tell you why the FED announced rates will stay at 0.25% through 2011, and why there is no recovery for the American public coming anytime soon.

                                                Get ready for the long haul folks... if you haven't been putting your ducks in a row, or saving, and buying physical commodities, you'd better start now. There is only one way to fix what is going on now, and American's aren't prepared to do it. Voting another politician in isn't going to solve this. This is beyond politicians people. Our government has ZERO control over what is happening, and they are being fed the same lies we are.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #17 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:02 AM EST
                                                black spider

                                                Oh, zero control eh? Hmmmm..... let's see..... why dont we, government print $3 billion a day, borrow $1.2 trillion in 9 months..... take over huge industries by force.... screw and meddle with the free market system.... for political contributions.

                                                yes I said political contributions! end the PACs and the lobbyists now.

                                                but hey, we have no control do we!

                                                you missed the point. the intervention of government CAUSED this mess in the first place! the high tax rate on US corporations is about the same rate as Japan.

                                                It is the Japanese Government's fault and Washington DC's fault that these economies are tanking. It's no outside magical force here.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #17.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:14 AM EST
                                                brianfromPA

                                                The FED is not a government entity... nor is the Japanese Central bank... I urge and encourage you to Google search Carry Trading... The government has no control over this practice or many of the shady paper selling that now happens in the global financial system. We used to regulate this type of thing, but the safeties were removed in the Reagan and Clinton years. Now the system runs all over itself for greed and profit.

                                                Deregulation actually is the animal here, but you can believe what you would like to believe. Funny how America prospered after World War II until 1971 isn't it? I don't have enough page space to explain all that to you, but I will hint you. 1971 is when Nixon killed the gold standard. From 1971 to around 2000 all the Gold that the United States held in reserve magically left the country, and the top 1% rose to levels of wealth over the bottom 95% that is usually only seen in 3rd world countries. Why do you think that is?

                                                  #17.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:20 AM EST
                                                  Mark-702026

                                                  The Fed reserve is not the enemy. The rest of the world is not operating on the gold standard no more we are. You cite an interesting coincidence put they is no correlation, in fact I take issue that 1971 was the height of economy.

                                                  As a nation and as people we still have tangible wealth. The real danger is when are the produces of the nation going to say enough government theft (over taxation, and over spending) is enough and quit producing.

                                                  There is a reason we are in a go nowhere economy. Individuals and businesses are afraid to make any long term plans until we see what Obama and the crowd are going to try and steal next.

                                                  When we get them out of power you will see the producers relax and go back to business as usual. If we do not get them out of power a lot of producers will stop producing and get in line with everyone else, thus the end of life as we know it.

                                                  You can only take the peoples hard earned money for so long.

                                                  When beggars start using force they are muggers. Which end of the spectrum have we allowed the Federal Government to drift?

                                                    #17.3 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:29 AM EST
                                                    economics101

                                                    So the Fed is our friend? They print money for nothing and lend it out to the taxpayor at interest? The Fed's creation is the number 1 cause for personal income tax, rising debt, inflation, depressions/recessions, inequality ..... oh and lest I forget and entirely unecessary organization to begin with.

                                                    Why, as a defender of the FED, does the US gov't need a private central bank to create money for free to lend back to the government who authorized its creation? Thats like a guy who has a money press legally from the mint in his basement that can make money for free, choosing to go to the bank and borrowing it instead? (except in this case its the personal income tax whihc pays all the interest)

                                                    The gold standard is nonsense. But since the US Treasury (US gov't) backs up every dollar issued by the fed and their memeber commercial banks, why the h@#l do we need the FED?

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #17.4 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:02 PM EST
                                                    Mark-702026

                                                    In order to control the money supply since there is no lnoger a physcial money limit.

                                                      #17.5 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:53 PM EST
                                                      economics101

                                                      So why do you need the FED to control the money supply? How exactly does the FED control the money supply - do you even know? 95% of the money supply is created not by the FED, but by commercial banks who "own" the FED - so why does our gov't use this convoluted, expensive private system to create money? Why not just get rid of the Fed and make our own money without any debt?

                                                      I don't advocate a gold std or a physical limit on the money supply, but I have to question why the people of the USA are subsidizing the wealthy to the tune of several trillion per year to do absolutely nothing but keep the gov'ts secret about where money comes from.

                                                      The monetary system is actually the single greatest innovation of capitalism - the problem is that it is neither market driven nor market neutral. The need for a banks based debt currency long since passed. At this point our monetary system is nothing more than an elaborate wealth redistribution system - and I thought the capitalists were against that kind of thing?

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #17.6 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:00 AM EST
                                                      Nicey-1026620

                                                      At this point our monetary system is nothing more than an elaborate wealth redistribution system - and I thought the capitalists were against that kind of thing?

                                                      That's the real irony. They start talking about any kind of "make the wealthy pay" as redistribution of wealth to people who don't earn it. And then the entrepreneurs come in to defend them.

                                                      Especially small business owners. How can they not get that the system is set up for small businesses to fail and for their assets to be siezed by the wealthy elite?

                                                      The ultra wealthy are all about redistribution of wealth. To them.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #17.7 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:25 AM EST
                                                      Nicey-1026620

                                                      in fact I take issue that 1971 was the height of economy.

                                                      It was the height of total economic participation.

                                                      http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-27-08tax2.pdf

                                                      There is a reason we are in a go nowhere economy. Individuals and businesses are afraid to make any long term plans until we see what Obama and the crowd are going to try and steal next.

                                                      The POTUS has zero control over the banks decisions to lend or not lend to small businesses.

                                                      Go ask the bank why they won't lend. What other conditions could they possibly need?

                                                      • Short rates are 0.00-0.25% to borrow directly from the Fed
                                                      • Mark to market rules have been nullified so as to protect banks from having to write down assets immediately
                                                      • Preferred Shares were directly bought in order to infuse capital directly into banks

                                                      The reason is...the secondary market isn't there and the bank is not interested in making money off a standard interest loan. They want to package your loan. They want their old revenue stream back. An unsustainable revenue stream.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #17.8 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:31 AM EST
                                                      Nicey-1026620

                                                      you missed the point. the intervention of government CAUSED this mess in the first place

                                                      The Feds low rate policies create Bubbles in a system where the private banks no longer lend money to create jobs. These bubbles are formed in assets and distort true demand or supply and the actual cash flow of those assets.

                                                      Given the Fed does not adhere to the Government what is the likely conclusion.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #17.9 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:39 AM EST
                                                      economics101

                                                      Nice expalnations. I would add once again, the seperation of the govt and private enterprise, especially as it relates to monetary policy or large conglomerates does not exist. Of course gov't intervention caused the recession, and the expansion, and everything in between. The gov't is supposed to intervene - the question is who did they intervene on behalf of?

                                                      The right lives in some disney land where the private sector and their shareholders earn everything, and the rest of the population (99%) are just leeches trying to drain them. Last I checked the top 1% are directly responsible for very little economic activity, beyond investment.

                                                      Now anyone who has followed economic theory since about 1800 understands that "investment" is a contrived construct to maintain the aristocracy in their place at the top of society. Most investment today is made through virtual money created at zero cost, with very limited risk to those investing.

                                                      The monetary system creates money and distributes it to the wealthy who then "invest" it, generating both income and tax savings ...... since it is the gov't who ultimately guarentees and allows the rich to issue the money, the question si why they allow the majority of this financial "wealth" to be distributed to the top 1% and not the rest of us.

                                                      Most economists just ignore this problem. Krugman talks about the wonders of the modern monetary system and writes off those who complain about its inherent inequality are sore losers at the hand the "market" has dealt them. That is patronizing nonsense - the market for money which is the market for credit is created by the gov't. Without gov't backing of credit markets, would you take a Bank of America "dollar" or Citibank Dollar?

                                                      So to suggest that the credit markets operate on the basis of supply and demand is a streatch - there is unlimited demand, and unlimited supply for money. The gov't uses private means to constrict the supply and distribute most of the money to the top 1%. The rationale for this is that these guys will best use the money (sort of trickle down theory) to invest and grow the economy for everyone.

                                                      Now you can see the problem here right - if the general public, you know that 95% who have less of this financial wealth than the 1% at the top - ever figured out that the guys in DC were intentionally NOT giving them money and choosing to give it to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Richie Rich IV INSTEAD of them????

                                                      First of all its not constitutional.Secondly its unfair. Thirdly, its dishonest. Finally, it is the cause of more pain, hardship, crime and injury to Americans than all the wars, all the crimes, all the bad things - and the gov't is behind it!

                                                      The creation of money is the greatest invention of the Age of reason. It is an ingenuous system that allows those who control it to effectively control all economic activity in an economy by simply changing interest rates or issuing more money. The real danger is who controls it, and who benefits from it.

                                                      The G8 countries have leveraged on this ability to control the global economy. Organization like the World bank, IMF and International banking cartel have allowed the residents of these countries to live way beyond their means, and control the entire global economy for their benefit. This was the fundamental reason for the fall of communism, for Globalization, for the US power base.

                                                      The problem is in 2008 the abuse of the system by the private interests that have controlled it for 200+ years required drastic action. Not to "bail them out", but to replace them. This system does not require private bankers, arbitrary and arcane credit rules and markets - it needs to be brought back under state control where it should have been all along.

                                                      If it doesn't, the rising economic power and knowledge of the emerging economies will eventually destroy it, and those country's economies along with it.

                                                      • 1 vote
                                                      #17.10 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:47 AM EST
                                                      Anita Bail Out

                                                      The Feds low rate policies create Bubbles in a system where the private banks no longer lend money to create jobs

                                                      The responsible bank doesn't lend with specific intent.... to create jobs or otherwise. They lend money to borrowers who can pay it back.

                                                        #17.11 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:31 PM EST
                                                        economics101

                                                        based on what .... this crisis found that people who were bad risks were just as likely to pay as those who were good risks .....

                                                        The fundamental problem is using private for profit organizations like banks to excercise gov't economic policy doesn't work or make sense.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #17.12 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:14 PM EST
                                                        economics101

                                                        based on what .... this crisis found that people who were bad risks were just as likely to pay as those who were good risks .....

                                                        The fundamental problem is using private for profit organizations like banks to excercise gov't economic policy doesn't work or make sense.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #17.13 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:16 PM EST
                                                        Anita Bail Out

                                                        this crisis found that people who were bad risks were just as likely to pay as those who were good risks .....

                                                        Can you back that up? What do you mean "the crisis found..."? I'm married to one of the responsible bankers who has been part of the rescue team in SoCal. What you claim is a lie.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #17.14 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:38 PM EST
                                                        economics101

                                                        I don't think there is such a thing as a responsible banker. As for this statement it is one of the myths of the crisis:

                                                        http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4102

                                                        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/business/12credit.html

                                                        http://www.commonsenseeconomics.com/Activities/Crisis/CSE.Housing%20Crisis.PPT.pdf

                                                        Secondly, subprime represented less than 10% of all mortgages. Now to deflect the fundamental problem with the credit system to begin with, the emphasis has been directed to that 10% and the "securitization" business ..... the real issue is that all lenders were willing and active participants in building the housing bubble.

                                                        In California, where you are commenting from, at the peak of the market >1% of the population could afford to buy an "average" house by std risk calculations. So anyone who made a loan at that time was "responsible"? >1% ...... everyone in California was making bad loans .... and as scuh everyone is at fault. The sad part is using bankers to clean up their own mess, mainly by destroying the lives of their victims .....

                                                        So your handle means???

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #17.15 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:10 PM EST
                                                        Nicey-1026620

                                                        The responsible bank doesn't lend with specific intent.... to create jobs or otherwise. They lend money to borrowers who can pay it back.

                                                        Name any of the mega banks that would apply to.

                                                        They actually do not any longer lend on that policy. That's the point. If they did lend only on the policy of making money by borrowing short (at short low rates) and lending long (at long higher rates) that would be prime for small business growth.

                                                        Today they lend with the intent of trading the debt, playing it in the paper market, packaging those loans into SIVs, etc, etc.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #17.16 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:13 PM EST
                                                        Nicey-1026620

                                                        Secondly, subprime represented less than 10% of all mortgages

                                                        Most people don't see there was going to be a bubble regardless of being a prime or subprime borrower.

                                                        There's always a scapegoat for the "system" not working...it's never just the system.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #17.17 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:16 PM EST
                                                        economics101

                                                        The other problem with that statement is that the gov't and the fed justified giving Trillions to the banks so they would lend and create jobs ..... they just didn't make it contingent (big surprise). These statements are just misinformation by the banking industry trying to disguise what business they are really in.

                                                        Banks leand money to distribute it for the gov't. Interest is the fee to distribute the funds on behalf of our govt. Now, when I lend real money that Ive earned to my brother in law, I want some assurances that I can get it back. A bank only has the money to lend you as a function of your promise to pay it back .... so frankly they need to lend it.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #17.18 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:19 PM EST
                                                        Anita Bail Out

                                                        Most people don't see there was going to be a bubble regardless of being a prime or subprime borrower.

                                                        Total garbage. The republicans were all over Bawney Fwank and Maxine Waters. The videos of them warning of the bubble are all over Youtube. They denied, denied, denied there was a problem, and then acted surprised when it burst. You can peddle that maybe in a lib circle, but there were warning signs for years, and the libs in charge just kept pissing all over us and telling us it was raining..

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        #17.19 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:40 PM EST
                                                        Shawn [a.k.a. "Shadow"]

                                                        The republicans were all over Bawney Fwank and Maxine Waters. The videos of them warning of the bubble are all over Youtube.

                                                        Thank you...

                                                        I encourage everyone to watch these...SEVERAL times.

                                                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=related

                                                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

                                                        "they would not have qualified were it not for this affirmative action plan"
                                                        "...at higher risk and I'm sure they'll be a higher default rate than on the rest of the portfolio"
                                                        4/6/98

                                                        "they would not have qualified were it not for this affirmative action plan"

                                                        "...at higher risk and I'm sure they'll be a higher default rate than on the rest of the portfolio"

                                                        4/6/98

                                                        "the original idea was a good one...distribute risk more broadly and make it easier to provide loans to those who could not get them" (i.e. financially unable to get them) - Barack Obama

                                                        And now we have this medical bill which will distribute the cost broadly to make it easier to provide health insurance for those who can not afford it.

                                                        hmmmm....

                                                        I would love to sit in a room with each of these folks in these two videos and see what they are thinking when they said those things then and what they're thinking now.

                                                        "I see nothing wrong" (Barney Frank)

                                                        "Everything has worked just fine" (Maxine Waters)

                                                        I bet...

                                                          #17.20 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:16 PM EST
                                                          Shawn [a.k.a. "Shadow"]

                                                          The warning signals were actually started by GWB way back in APRIL 2001 (and upgraded the concern in 2003, but got strong pushback from...Barney Frank).

                                                          Really pay close attention to dates on this timeline video. It truly is fascinating:

                                                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

                                                            #17.21 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:31 PM EST
                                                            Anita Bail Out

                                                            Shawn... thanks for the links. I have seen all of these. Very disturbing that this is out there, and they continue to LIE right to our faces...

                                                              #17.22 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:17 PM EST
                                                              economics101

                                                              Since I believe that both parties are equally responsible for the mess .... all of this roughly means nothing to me. The FBI also warned in 2003/4 that the bankers and other lenders were creating an epidemic of mortgage fraud and that it originated with the institution not the "borrowers" .... GWB did what? reassigned FBI resources to spy on Americans and leave his family business of banking alone.....

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #17.23 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:12 PM EST
                                                              Anita Bail Out

                                                              So because both parties are responsible (which I happen to agree with), then your logic is to blame neither? Did you even watch how blatant those videos are?

                                                              The FBI also warned in 2003/4 that the bankers and other lenders were creating an epidemic of mortgage fraud and that it originated with the institution

                                                              I'd be very interested in a link to this. And the mortgage fraud originated and was covered up by the government regulators, in addition to a handful of over-indulgent lenders -- certainly not all of them

                                                              and leave his family business of banking alone

                                                              What family bank does GWB own?

                                                                #17.24 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:51 PM EST
                                                                economics101

                                                                The Bush family business was the Union Bank and his grandfather was censured for financing the nazis while we were at war with them ..... just search on Prescott Bush and the Union bank.

                                                                As for the FBI:

                                                                http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/mortgage.fraud/

                                                                "The FBI has dispatched undercover teams across the country in an urgent investigation into dealings by suspect mortgage brokers, appraisers, short-term investors, and loan officers, Swecker, flanked by FBI executives and Justice Department prosecutors, revealed."

                                                                Until they started to realize that they were getting really close to some important people (like CEOs, etc) .....

                                                                My point is pretty simple. Banks are important because they are central to the monetary policy implementation of the US govt. Therefore, to suggest that they are private businesses is insane - so they should be not only heavl=ily regulated and restircted, but all this "independance" nonsense makes no snese. Do we want an independant post office? independant judges who can make deals? Independent cops?

                                                                So I couldn't care less which politician was asleep at the wheel, or even actively working against the public interest with the bankers .... mainly cause it was virtually all of them. Therefore, make it so this can't happen again by revisiting Glass Steagal and making it even tighter ... included all these "kinda" banks and enforce mortgage fraud laws even when its the head of the Treasury or the President's no 1 contributors .....

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                #17.25 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:21 PM EST
                                                                Nicey-1026620

                                                                Total garbage. The republicans were all over Bawney Fwank and Maxine Waters. The videos of them warning of the bubble are all over Youtube. They denied, denied, denied there was a problem, and then acted surprised when it burst. You can peddle that maybe in a lib circle, but there were warning signs for years, and the libs in charge just kept pissing all over us and telling us it was raining..

                                                                When housing loan interest rates are influenced low by the system...what do you expect to happen?

                                                                And secondly, almost all ARM loans of every type were made to prime borrowers. Not subprime.

                                                                I'm niether a liberal or a conservative, I'm just who I am. But objectively...who was in the whitehouse from 2000-2006 and who controlled the house and senate from 1994-2006, and who controlled the Supreme Court?

                                                                Both parties have interests in the distribution of this money. Be it thru an oil bubble, a tech stock bubble, a housing bubble.

                                                                Because of the Federal Reserve Policies these bubbles will always form.

                                                                  #17.26 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:54 AM EST
                                                                  economics101

                                                                  My point exactly. Trying to divert attention from the FED, Treasury and the bankers themselves by blaming the GOP or the DEMs is ridiculous. these guys are politicians. Most of them have limited unde4rstandding of how the eyetem works anyway, and are beholden to their contributors who invariably are the culprits in this mess ......

                                                                    #17.27 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:56 AM EST
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Andromeda-510639

                                                                    It's the underemployment figure that is even more distressing.

                                                                    I know, the economy is getting much better... tell that to those folks struggling to keep their homes, battling to put food on the table, and just trying to survive. The economy is recovering, even if it's a "very soft recovery"; and they wonder why consumer confidence is low, no one has any money to spend?

                                                                    Spreading the wealth, indeed! The only work available are the positions of czar in the Obama White House.

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    Reply#18 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:07 AM EST
                                                                    antoniojvr

                                                                    Buh buh but lagging indicator!

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    Reply#19 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:19 AM EST
                                                                    prone2xs

                                                                    Grab your butt cause the unemployment number is going higher than 10%. The economic indicators everyone keeps referencing to show the economy is getting better is a bunch of hooey. Certain sectors may be getting better (like financials, utilities, oil, etc.) but you wont see widespread growth until housing and the construction sectors come back.

                                                                    Hiring by companies is driven by increasing sales orders. You can cut taxes and provide any type of incentives to companies you won't. All this does is lower a company's cost. It's greatly appreciated but it won't stimulate hiring. Companies downsize and then figure out a way to produce their product more efficiently. They won't hire anyone back until sales orders continually exceed their capacity to produce. This being the case, don't expect any great improvement in hiring for another year.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    Reply#20 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:23 AM EST
                                                                    kalywisperDeleted
                                                                    Greg Johnson-900798

                                                                    I'm sick and tired of all you right-wingers out there always complaining that President Obama isn't doing enough about unemployment. You don't understand how much he cares about us and what a great man he truly is and how much his golf game has improved since January 20th. You're a bunch of whiners and not half good enough to carry his clubs.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    Reply#22 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:55 AM EST
                                                                    brianfromPA

                                                                    He could work at his desk 25 hours a day... it wouldn't matter. This economy is out of his hands. The only thing he is guilty of is foolishness in thinking he has any control of it whatsoever. If and when the time comes that the government cares about us they will storm the FED, and take all of the information there.

                                                                    However... after Kennedy tried, nobody seems to have the willpower to try again.

                                                                      #22.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:58 AM EST
                                                                      The Observer

                                                                      LOL!

                                                                        #22.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:03 AM EST
                                                                        vol fan in chatt, tn

                                                                        I'm sick and tired of all you right-wingers out there always complaining that President Obama isn't doing enough about unemployment. You don't understand how much he cares about us and what a great man he truly is and how much his golf game has improved since January 20th. You're a bunch of whiners and not half good enough to carry his clubs.

                                                                        first off, now that's funny!

                                                                        secondly, to the last statement, I wouldn't want to - he is the antithesis of what is good for America. He can carry his own dang clubs...Unfortunately, I am already being forced to support everything else he's doing - I will NOT carry his clubs!

                                                                        oops, just got the sarcasm - good one, Greg, you got me!

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #22.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:56 AM EST
                                                                        economics101

                                                                        So Please illustrate to me how a GOP President would have done anything better (or differnet) here? As I recall the choice to throw the debtors in front of the train while bailing out the country club set was a GOP/Dem joint venture No? So what policies that the GOP is pushing would have "fixed" this?

                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                        #22.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:03 PM EST
                                                                        Greg Johnson-900798

                                                                        economics 101 - Have you taken econ 101? If not, take Micro and Macro and pay attention. A Republican in the WH (John McCain being the exception) would likely have cut taxes by now to put spending money back in the hands of the People. I would hope that a Republican (we really ought to be discussing 'conservatives', not 'Republicans') would not have come up with this $787B 'stimulus' package which has stimulated nothing, would not be discussing government run health care, would not be discussing cap-and-trade, would not be discussing turning over our soverignty to the UN, would have put controls back on the financial institutions (such as the Glass-Steagal Act which Bill Clinton repealed), and would have let GM and Chrysler go to bankruptcy right off the bat.

                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        #22.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:12 PM EST
                                                                        brianfromPA

                                                                        Ah... you are correct... A Republican would have cut taxes by now... But there is another of the problems. He would have cut taxes for the top 10% which as we can see by the history of our wealth and income since Reaganomics took hold DOES NOTHING for most of America. It does however perform wonders for the top 400 individuals in this country.

                                                                        Under Carter the tax rate on people making over $250,000 a year was 70%... this wasn't insane compared to the history of this country after the Great Depression. But, magically at the end of the Reagan administration that tax rate was moved around so that $81,000 was the new rich, and your tax rate was 36%, but if you made over $250,000 a year you became some other form of rich and your tax rate was 28%. You can thank Phil Gramm for this.

                                                                          #22.6 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:22 PM EST
                                                                          Michael Crowley

                                                                          Yes! Cut taxes! Trickle down economics.. cut those taxes so the rich can build more factories...

                                                                          IN CHINA!!

                                                                          Reagenomics worked (kinda) because people built factories HERE.. they dont' anymore.. tax cuts create jobs.. in CHINA.

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #22.7 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:14 PM EST
                                                                          Charles McKenzie

                                                                          Bush DIDcut taxes and put money in the hands of the people (remember the Bush stimulus when everybody got a $1,500.00 check??). I wonder what happened with that, because the unemployment rate at that time was lower than it is now.

                                                                          While you can't spend your way out of debt, you can't tax cut your way out of it either. Not in the age of this so-called global economy. The answer is to walk away from this free trade crappola and start requiring that a certain percentage (I think 70% is good) of all products and components sold in the US are made in the US. Let the imports have the other 30%. Then we can start supporting our own economy and lower the jobless rate.

                                                                            #22.8 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:22 PM EST
                                                                            Homeboy-1410986Deleted
                                                                            economics101

                                                                            Sorry, Im talking about graduate level monetary theory, not high school economics. Well, lets see, "trickle down" economics as you propose has done the following over the las 30 years:

                                                                            1. Increased the financial wealth of the top 1% of the populaiton to be more than the bottom 95% of the populaiton

                                                                            2. Reduced the Average net worth of the bottom 3 quintiles (60% of the population) to zero or negative. That means they actually have NOTHING!

                                                                            3. Financed middle income growth solely through debt, while incomes remained stagnant over the enitre period, personal debt rose 400+%

                                                                            4. Sold the entire US manufacturing sector to overseas interests in exchange for enriching the top 1% further ....

                                                                            Shall I continue. Trickle Down economics was based on the baseless supply side theories that after 30 years make Marxist implementation in Stalin's Russia look like a monster success! The bottom line is a tax cut here would've been a stimulus .... but given that Bush had already blown Billions on tax cuts ....

                                                                            what would have been better was an increase in benefits for the unemployed, increased funding for education, housing, a halt on all residential (homeowner) forclosures and rental evictions, a fund to help those who couldn't pay for housing ..... now by my matth 100 Billion would have housed everyone through this crisis, fed everyone, kept everyone in a decent standard of living ..... but spending hundreds of billions on wars, welfare for the rich, bailouts was a much better deal right?

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            #22.10 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:26 PM EST
                                                                            Canadian Dave

                                                                            Greg Johnson -

                                                                            I would hope that a Republican (we really ought to be discussing 'conservatives', not 'Republicans') would not have come up with this $787B 'stimulus' package

                                                                            Lest we forget, it was mostly Republican fiscal practices that put us in this Black Hole in the first place. As I asked a poster a while ago (and got no answer), in the absence of first stabilizing the underpinnings of the economy (credit flow & consumer confidence) to ensure that businesses (and thus JOBS) will ultimately be able to grow, what would you have done differently and why?

                                                                            Please be specific.

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            #22.11 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:51 PM EST
                                                                            economics101

                                                                            Good point Dave, and Bush oversaw the largest budgets and deficits in hsitory. Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 were all spendthrifts. They just thought it was ok to take from single moms and veterans and give it to rich people.

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            #22.12 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:54 PM EST
                                                                            ebookout

                                                                            The only thing he is guilty of is foolishness in thinking he has any control of it whatsoever.

                                                                            Well put. But this foolishness is costing us trillions of dollars that has to be paid back.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #22.13 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 9:04 AM EST
                                                                            Reply
                                                                            Dylan923

                                                                            You don't understand how much he cares about us and what a great man he truly is and how much his golf game has improved since January 20th.

                                                                            I understand that if you believe that @!$%# you just wrote then you're delusional and in denial.................and I don't mean the river in Egypt either.................

                                                                            You're a bunch of whiners and not half good enough to carry his clubs.

                                                                            He's the President of the United States, let him hire some Obamaniac lackey for a caddy. Maybe if he kept his recreational ass off the links and hardwood and in the Oval Office for a change, something MIGHT get done.

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            Reply#23 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:00 AM EST
                                                                            brianfromPA

                                                                            Dylan... I believe you didn't read his whole post... It was sarcasm. See the dig about his golf game.

                                                                            Also... the belief that the POTUS has to sit in the Oval Office to get work done is at best marginally delusional. Again... I must point out... The POTUS of any party no longer controls the economic well being of the nation. That is controlled centrally now for all of the Western world.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #23.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:02 AM EST
                                                                            ebookout

                                                                            The POTUS of any party no longer controls the economic well being of the nation.

                                                                            But they can affect it's course tru regulations and interference in thinking that they can control it. Japan tried and it took 10 years to rebound and they admit they should have let it go it's own way.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #23.2 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 9:09 AM EST
                                                                            Reply
                                                                            ObamaTheLoser2012

                                                                            It's Obamanomics GREAT! Higher Unemployment! Millions of homes going into foreclosure! A ballooning federal debt! NO job growth for the future! Tent city for those unemployed! Soup kitchen for the homeless! What a great future for the American Worker!

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            Reply#24 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:11 AM EST
                                                                            Texasguy01

                                                                            Obamanomics=Failure

                                                                            Obamanomics=Steal from poor (cap and trade) to give to the rich (Goldman Sachs)

                                                                            Obamacare=Ration healthcare offing grandmothers to lower the cost to give to the rich

                                                                            Class warfare usually defeats the poor

                                                                            Democrats are right. The poor are too stupid to know what is good for them.

                                                                            Barack Hussain Obama mmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmm

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            Reply#25 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:16 AM EST
                                                                            billy-witchdoctor-com

                                                                            There is No Way the Jobless rate would top 10 % ...this has to be a conservative Joke....really!...although if the adminstration had been allowed to do what it wanted to do instead of Hindered by Conservatives and Republicans they could have instituted a plan to save they economy that would have worked. Every knows that Obama had said he needed a stimulus package and if The Republicans would have supported it ...the jobless rate would have been under 8 % and to reduce it even further a second stimulus.

                                                                            We have the same problem with the healthcare plan ...if the Conservatives and Republicans had notgot these people all riled up over healthcare, we could get a plan with universal coverage, single payer type and we would have the same success we would have had had Obama been allowed to get a stimulus package to the people, and then apply a second package. But you people with your George Bush Idealogy of letting the people work for it, is how those greedy corporate executives got all that money, gave their employees those phony healthcare plans, with those do nothing jobs...letting people think it is ok to feed their families on what they got from those jobs...yes everyone knows that Obama has done everything to help America but the Republicans have gotten in the way...if we could only have gotten a stimulus package like we needed.

                                                                              Reply#26 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:18 AM EST
                                                                              zanilth

                                                                              Every knows that Obama had said he needed a stimulus package and if The Republicans would have supported it ...the jobless rate would have been under 8 % and to reduce it even further a second stimulus.

                                                                              Uhm, am I missing something here? He DID get the stimulus package passed, the one that he claimed would keep unemployment under 8%. It didn't work.

                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                              #26.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:39 AM EST
                                                                              Luminator

                                                                              billy-witchdoctor-com I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'm sorry I have to be the one to tell you you're wrong.

                                                                              The Republicans didn't do this, the Democrats didn't do this. The economy did this due to the lack of foresight by EVERYONE involved. Regulation was laxed (by Republicans and Democrats), the response was slowed (by Republicans and Democrats), and the stimulus is a pork-filled project that is extremely slow in making a difference (little to none) while spending money we don't have.

                                                                              Not the Republicans fault. At what point are we going to stop blaming things on Bush? I wish we could, he wasn't that great of a President, but sooner or later we're going to have to take responsiblity for our actions.

                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                              #26.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:43 AM EST
                                                                              Dylan923

                                                                              Uhm, am I missing something here? He DID get the stimulus package passed, the one that he claimed would keep unemployment under 8%. It didn't work.

                                                                              B-I-N-G-O....................................

                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                              #26.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:45 AM EST
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              Eric + Cheney

                                                                              I think you need to answer this question honestly. Forget the fact that Bush and Cheney are my heroes, this is a non-partisian question.

                                                                              Our government passed a $787B stimulus package in fear and in the name of hedging unemployment. 640000 jobs saved or created. OK. This has to be one of the biggest failures in American history. No?

                                                                              • 10 votes
                                                                              Reply#27 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:37 AM EST
                                                                              1Philosopher

                                                                              No,

                                                                              The biggest failure in U.S History is our Acamics who sold anyone with the brain for memorization and a fat bank, a degree that allowed them to become Republicans in the first place.

                                                                              The 787B Stimulus was after the fact of 8-years of Bush/Cheney stupidity and a Reagan for 16 years, then a Bush for 4-years and then a Clinton for 8-years who inherited the Reagan created Voodoo Economics and Business Discipline that bred Quantitative Physics and Corporate Raiding or Junk Bonds and the "Quick and Debtly" or "Leveraged and Dead".

                                                                              Get it Pal? You and your Pal "Republicans" own this mess--get right with the Real God first, then get your family right so your kids don't become like you.

                                                                                #27.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:11 PM EST
                                                                                1Philosopher

                                                                                Academics.

                                                                                  #27.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:13 PM EST
                                                                                  1Philosopher

                                                                                  Sorry................Reagan for 8-years. Trying to work and type at the same time--my bad.

                                                                                    #27.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:14 PM EST
                                                                                    smokedbrisket

                                                                                    Putting Hussein Obama in office is BY FAR the biggest mistake this country has ever made.

                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                    #27.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 9:36 PM EST
                                                                                    ebookout

                                                                                    Trying to work and type at the same time--my bad

                                                                                    So who's paying you to be on newsvine? Must be a government job?

                                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                                    #27.5 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 9:12 AM EST
                                                                                    Reply
                                                                                    Luminator

                                                                                    This really sucks. And they've changed the way they count people who are "unemployed" so the real number is much higher.

                                                                                    They used to count everyone who didn't have a job and add them to the unemployed percentage.

                                                                                    Now they only count people that are collecting unemployment benefits as the "unemployed" of America. And don't the benefits run out after 6 months? After that, you may still be unemployed but you don't "count" towards the number anymore, it's really messed up.

                                                                                    But at the same time this is a terrible recession. Real Estate, Madoff, Republicans, Democrats, Banks, Business, etc. whatever you blame it on they all blew it, they're all at fault. Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

                                                                                    Let's stop the bickering and just fix the problem. And lets also keep in mind, Republicans aren't the ones destroying this country's economy anymore than Obama. Recessions happen, it's a circle of Economics, this one just happens to be large.

                                                                                    Please stop the stupid partisanship arguments.

                                                                                    • 6 votes
                                                                                    #28 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:40 AM EST
                                                                                    Eric + Cheney

                                                                                    Let's stop the bickering and just fix the problem.

                                                                                    Luminator, agreed. You know what our real problem is? We look to the government to solve our problems. If every business community in the US put an action plan together to CREATE economy, vs. looking for bailout handouts. This country would be on the path to recovery.

                                                                                    But no, the name of the game now is the blame game. Let's get over it all ready and kick some as$.

                                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                                    #28.1 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 11:48 AM EST
                                                                                    1Philosopher

                                                                                    Hehehehe......................I have been writing that for years, the government is its single biggest enemy--false Economic Indicies have askewed the truth about our economy. Take a look at the IRS "Means Test" for each State--hehehehe. I hope you don't have to go through Bankruptcy.....................which no longer "forgives" but rather "enslaves" the American to Chapter 13 as opposed to Chapter 7 Charge-Offs, based on the IRS "Means Test". Hehehehe.........................so much for "Forgiveness of Debt" as not a soul in America could survive eating Cat Food and living in maybe The Hood, based on the IRS Means Tests that are so out of touch with reality that it's almost commicly obvious that Banking and Credit Corporate Lawyers wrote those new Laws.

                                                                                    C'est la vie........................we live by our own failures to hold others "accountable"--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the others throughout our history who argued Executive Immunity as they murdered, pillaged and plundered others around the world in the name of NATO collusion and seclusion. But then, what should we expect from Framers who borrowed Revolutionary monies from France, then enacted Bankruptcy Laws so those loans could be dismissed, thus throwing France into its Revolution. Hehehehe........................ahhhh..........................if only history was truthfully taught, we might not be a society so full of our own hypocrisy--but then, the truth hurts all too often so lying to ourselves and our children is much better--don't you think?

                                                                                    The "Rule Of Law" is merely for sale to the most grotesquely "Socratesian" amongst us, without the consequences of being Socrates. "The United Scammers Of America", should be the epitaph written on our National Grave Site in December of 2012:

                                                                                    "The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782.

                                                                                      #28.2 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 12:19 PM EST
                                                                                      Eric + Cheney

                                                                                      blah, blah, obamah, obamah . . . so it's your phiolosphy that more government is the answer to our troubles? 787,000,000,000 for 640,000 jobs. That's $100K for jobs that will bleed out of the economy in the next quarter. Hooray for government!

                                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                                      #28.3 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:45 PM EST
                                                                                      1Philosopher

                                                                                      Liminator.........................Fair and Free Markets "Free Ecnomies" only exist when there exists "competition". Competition is not just a word, but is a mandate of Free Economies un-regulated and un-ruled by Centralized Governance.

                                                                                      Ours failed as a result of a lack of competition--that simple.

                                                                                      Early in the 1990s, our country shortly after the 1987 Market Crash, began an onslaught of Corporate Raiding--companies that held Cash in the form of Capitalization, were penalized for it by Raiders who would use it as liquidable leverage along with other assets of the company's, in which Bankers would underwrite the dismantling of America--piece by piece, companies were "Taken Over" and sold off in the name of forced "Growth"--companies either grew quickly or they were slaughtered by Bankers and Raiders who had not a shred of morality or ethics about the people with whom built, financed or invested Sweat Equity into those companies who were being taken over and then sold off. None, at KKR or Drexell Burnham or even Wall Street's God "Warren Buffet" stopped to think about people as opposed to profits. I called it back then......................Americans taking the Prophet out of Profitable businesses. We became Ego-Eccentrics who lived fat off excesses. We consumed the world's resources whilst we destroyed Traditional Retirement and the ideology that 20-Years and a gold watch stood for something.........................that it stood for people who paid thier dues and deserved a break going into their older years, where life might be less of a struggle.

                                                                                      We changed Academia from teaching kids about life and "how to think for themselves" to selling degrees like used cars.......................as a commodity for those who could afford to pay for thier "Entitlements". We watched CEOs with "Entitlements" pay themselves egregiously huge salaries above those without degrees--as it a College Degree made a person something more than just another sold out piece of Dung produced by Hypocrites affraid to make their own way in the world--Academics. We sold out Exceptional men and women who could not afford school or who might have been Right Brained and thus, not of the "Memorization Nation" that was created by a Minority of 30% that sat at the top of 90% of all companies private and public. How is it that a Minority in a Democracy, controls its Majority? It does so by selling "Opportunity" like a Pyramid Scheme.......................Harvard at the top, then say, Princeton and Yale in second place, then say Cornell and Stanford and so on and so on and so on..............................all the way down to Technical Schools. There is no more Mentoring or Apprenticeships for we live in the vaccum of belief, that Services Economies can survive and thrive--not so--not without becoming "Slaves" to the countries or companies that manufacture and then require "Backend" services employess. We cannot keep manufacturing Lawyers and Bankers who leach off the sweat and efforts of people who do things with their lives, where Nation Building begins and ends--with people who labor for a living versus those who sit around and just talk about it.

                                                                                      Our economy went from having a Gold Standard to having a Dollar that the world Economies bought and elected as their Gold Standard--except our GNP is valued on Debt Accumulated to look like Growth which is the Credit Debt both in Trade and Personal, that is causing the rubber-band reaction today--we stretched the bubble or Rubber Band too far for too long and now it either must recoil or break--Newtonian Science makes this easy to understand, whilst the Mathmetician's Great Folly of "Quantitative Physics" a hoax of Biblical Proportions....................they forgot that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". That, Galileo is NOT God, and that mankind has to have a belief system that is steeped more deeply in something greater than him or her Self--God as an ideology was put to bed by a Nation of Gluttonists, who no longer had the 7-Virtues to offeset the 7-Sins and so, we simply bought Educational "Titles of Entitlement" and "let the most corrupt win".

                                                                                      Today........................... we need God, but he is no longer here for the majority who believe in Sin--our children will suffer greatly as we reap what we have sown for so long--the 30-years you write about, is the final deggradation of a Nation of selfish Imps who sold out God, country, Wall Street and themselves for a slice of fame and or fortune--things one cannot take with them where they are most certainly going--eventually. And so now we want to fix all things, but have no idea where to begin--and we wonder why our Academics can't figure it out either--the Fools? Why, it is right under their Provost noses--which is why they cannot see the forest through the trees of debt-ridden children and Godless wonders they created who now march on the globe like Nero....................fiddling not an opus, but rather death and mahem disguised as Democracy.

                                                                                      To fix America, we must demote Academics to thier rightful place--we must wage war on Enlightenment's Alluminati and Masons, whom created the global messes of selling God out, for the option of a carrot dangled before our children who shall become the oxen who pulls the cart of the Pharo, anew.

                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                      #28.4 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 1:54 PM EST
                                                                                      1Philosopher

                                                                                      "Alluminati" being, my word for Allumni who conspire within disciplines of study, simply to become published--"Illuminati being its predecessor word of origin."

                                                                                        #28.5 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 2:05 PM EST
                                                                                        economics101

                                                                                        1 philosopher .... good post. Im getting awfully tired of peopple saying we should leave the "economy alone" and then complaining that the reason leaving it alone didn't work was too much Gov't involvement. The Economy is not operated on capitlaist or free market principales ... it is a plutonomy. An economic system based on 99.5% of the population working to provide benefits to the top 0.5%, the managerial aristocracy.It is basically financial feudalism.

                                                                                        So all this crap about letting the economy do what its supposed to is a joke - it is. The worst part is that the biggest beneficiaries of gov't largese are not the poor, the union, the unemployed or the minorities - but those at the top.

                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                        #28.6 - Fri Nov 6, 2009 3:40 PM EST
                                                                                        ebookout

                                                                                        economics101

                                                                                        Where do you think the government gets it funds to operate?

                                                                                        What in the business world would government be considered?

                                                                                        If this section of your business get to large what happens?

                                                                                        How many productive people does it take to pay for just one of this factor of business?

                                                                                        So how long would you survive with this idealogy in the real world?

                                                                                        Business 101

                                                                                          #28.7 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 9:19 AM EST
                                                                                          Mark-702026

                                                                                          Government direct involvement in the free markets is always bad ... Period

                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                          #28.8 - Sat Nov 7, 2009 5:29 PM EST
                                                                                          economics101

                                                                                          so enforcing contracts is bad? Provifing police? building roads? allowing imports/exports? How about everything else go'vt does for businesses?

                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                          #28.9 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:02 AM EST
                                                                                          economics101

                                                                                          Where do you think the government gets it funds to operate?

                                                                                          Gov't is funded mainly by economic activity of individual people. Whether we were a feudalist state, a "capitalist state", or a communist state, it is the labor of the working population that generates all the wealth. Gov't, just like the wealthy, the banks, the lawyers, takes a portion of that labor to provide "services" for which it was contracted or feels entitled. Where do you think gov't gets it money from?

                                                                                          What in the business world would government be considered?

                                                                                          No idea what this means? The division of the private and public sectors is an artificial construct stemming from the creation of the "corporation" about 350 years ago. Defined as "An ingenious invention which allows individual profit with no individual risk".

                                                                                          If this section of your business get to large what happens?

                                                                                          What? If I am understanding you (and that is not clear to me), the size of a business is important since "capitalism" or "free markets" depend on competition to operate efficintly. Without "real" competition a capitalist system is nothing more than feudalism - exactly my point. When Businesses get so large that they control prices, and more importantly, they control the medium of exchange (money), the regulators (gov't) and the press .... we have a Plutonomy. A economic system designed to benefit the top 0.5% at the expense of the other 99.5%. That is exactly what the US economy is.

                                                                                          How many productive people does it take to pay for just one of this factor of business?

                                                                                          Again, no idea what you are talking about. productive people create something (presumably) and thus generate wealth of some kind. The problem with economic systems is who gets the product of our labor? In our system an inordinately large share of the "product" produced by working goes to those who "own" the capital (ie. Capitalism). That may be the building, the raw resources, the machines, or even the company. For the most part, in a modern company, that means bankers or shareholders. They actually put up nothing, but get more than anyone else out of the transaction. As Edison (of GE fame) said in 1921 in the NY times:

                                                                                          "Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 -- that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

                                                                                          "But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

                                                                                          " ... if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.

                                                                                          "It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.

                                                                                          "Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds?"

                                                                                          That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

                                                                                          So I would say that with Henry Ford and Thomas Edison in my corner, I am in pretty good company.

                                                                                          So how long would you survive with this idealogy in the real world?

                                                                                          Well, if you read and understand what is written above, we would actually do alot better in the "real world" if we implemented this. The transfer of wealth based upon criminal control of the money supply by private, for profit ventures is fundamentally wasteful and inefficient. The point is that those who are benefiting from this are very interested in it continuing ..... thats why it does.

                                                                                          Business 101

                                                                                          Well since 3 of 4 questions made no sense whatsoever .... you made no reasonable points or even actual criticism of what I said .... I would say it was more like kindergarten finger painting 101.

                                                                                          • 3 votes
                                                                                          #28.10 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:23 AM EST
                                                                                          Mark-702026

                                                                                          economics101 --- You are being silly. The items you raised are the the Judicial branch doing its job. That is hardly government interference, that is our republic doing what it is designed to do. Enforcing the laws fr the people that formed a nation based on the law of man to protect our freedoms.

                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                          #28.11 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 2:59 AM EST
                                                                                          economics101

                                                                                          Please explain what the FED has to do with the judicial branch? So since the system was set up 225 years ago to ensure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor that we should abide by it for ever? These people are claiming the gov't interfering is "the problem" - well then the gov't "doing its job" is not interfering? Why, cause it maintains the status quo? Why should someone born into poverty have to accept that this is the way it is and not demand more? Why should the gov't protect the rich and not the poor?

                                                                                          Our judicial system serves on main purpose (modelled on the British one) - protection of property rights - ie. protecting those who have from those who don't. What this has meant over 1000 years of judicial history is that the judicial branch is basically been used as control mechanism to keep the poor in line while they are exploited by the rich. Apparently this relationship is sacrosanct and beyond question.

                                                                                          The best part is that it is the middle calss who get to pay to have the rich's "enforcers" work on the poor!

                                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                                          #28.12 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 10:37 AM EST
                                                                                          Mark-702026

                                                                                          Enforcing contracts is the courts job. That is not interference. Providing public projects to for the defense and general welfare (ie infrastruce, defense) of the population is not interfering either, that is the basic functions it was designed to do.

                                                                                          Writing bad bills and laws in an attempt to redistribute wealth, use the markets for social engineering, and attempting to influence peoples behavior is not the role of the government or good economics.

                                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                                          #28.13 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 11:54 PM EST
                                                                                          economics101

                                                                                          Mark. there is no property without gov't. There are no contracts without gov't. The main thrust of defense is protection of those who have property .... since if Im a serf what do I care if my master is American, canadian or Mexican?

                                                                                          Finally, the whole nonsense of wealth redistribution is nothing but GOP talking points. OUr legal system is specifically designed to redistribute wealth - from those who work to earn it to those who claim "ownership" .... Taxes, interest, debt, ownership, etc ... these are all ways to redistribute wealth. Most property was stolen, scammed ot taken at force from its rightful owners .... lawyers and cops enforce the rights of the thiefs, brigands and conmen to keep and launder thier ill begotten gains. Thats the basis for your system.

                                                                                          In 1776 most of the property that the founding fathers claimed as theirs was stolen from the First nations not a generation or two before. The traded people as chattel, only the rich would be able to vote for close to 100 years .... Weatlh was redistributed by birth .... the poor being indentured to a master for virtually no pay, including kids as young as 3, for a lifetime. Thats the basis of your system. Slavery, theft, murder and fraud.

                                                                                          Now you accept that because it has been that way for a number of years that any change is a redistribution. I understand that. The problem is that without gov't there is no wealth, not property .... so why should gov't intervene to provide protection to those who have, and ignore those (more than 60% of Americans) who have nothing? I thought this was a democracy?

                                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                                          #28.14 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 1:13 AM EST
                                                                                          DonkeyRidder

                                                                                          Mark. there is no property without gov't. There are no contracts without gov't.

                                                                                          Positively untrue. Power and might in the hands of the owner enforced property and contract rights in ungoverned lands.

                                                                                            #28.15 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 8:33 AM EST
                                                                                            economics101

                                                                                            Excuse me, all property rights are derived by law. Law flows from Gov't. If the courts decide tommorrow that your "right" to your property is no longer recognized by the state do you "own" it? If the USA is invaded, and the occupier controls your land or property is it yours?

                                                                                            The very creation of government is based wholly on the need of property owners to protect their property. Owner enforced property rights? So If I claim ownership of part of a national park and defend it does it make it mine? In ungoverned lands anarchy rules. you won something until someone with a bigger stick comes along and you either run away or die .... that's why we have gov't so you can have the state protect your "rights". Contracts are even a bigger stretch ... how do you enforce a contract in Nigeria, let alone Liberia? Ever heard of bribes?

                                                                                            Frankly Im amazed how something as bizarre as gun ownership has led to this belief in self enforcing rights. In the USA there is no ability to owner enforce property rights ... ask anyone who's been foreclosed on or evicted. So why do so many Americans believe in it? The state controls who owns all the property, to the point that your ownership of any property in the USA is only at the pleasure of the gov't.

                                                                                            Therefore, those without property have a valid argument that the state is intervening on behalf of those who own property to prevent them from taking it .... Just because it is the law now doesn't mean it is valid. 150 years ago you could own a person, beat your wife, employ a 3 year old to work 18 hours a day ....

                                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                                            #28.16 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 11:18 AM EST
                                                                                            Mark-702026

                                                                                            economics101 Yes the government has too much control of our property rights. And, wrongly so. The seperme court is alseep at the wheel.

                                                                                            In fact I hold all Property taxes are unconstitutional for a host of reasons. However, that is off topic.

                                                                                            Foreclosure has nothing to do with Federal power, but a private agreement between a buyer and a seller.

                                                                                            You state your position well. You almost convince me until I back up and realize it does not hold water. To put it in common sense terms for everyone you are putting the cart before the horse.

                                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                                            #28.17 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:42 AM EST
                                                                                            ebookout

                                                                                            economics101

                                                                                            Where do you think gov't gets it money from

                                                                                            Same place you do.

                                                                                            What in the business world would government be considered?

                                                                                            Government is an overhead for all the people who contribute to the GNP. When your overhead get to expensive and the people get taxed to death production goes Down and the business has to cut its over head or fold. Common problem in business. And government.

                                                                                            Corporation ,An ingenious invention which allows individual profit with no individual risk".

                                                                                            I don't know of one Corporation that does not have a risk for share holders. They hold the investment. If you are referring to corporate heads they are employee like everyone else. The share holders are the ones at risk but also they are responsible for the salaries being paid.

                                                                                            A economic system designed to benefit the top 0.5% at the expense of the other 99.5%. That is exactly what the US economy is.

                                                                                            Really what do they have that I can't have if I choose?

                                                                                            That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

                                                                                            So why are we adding to the debt? I'm all for balancing the budget? Common sense, don't spend what you don't have. Need to express yourself to congress , not me.

                                                                                            Point I was getting at, you are slamming the corporate world because for some reason you believe they are the bad guys. They pay the bills!! The corp that are to big to fail should have done just that failed. That's the checks and balances. This Government will fail also for the same reason ,to big, and to bloated. That's why we are now having a problem .Not enough people paying into the overhead to support it. But they want to get bigger.

                                                                                            That's were the part about how many people does it take to cover the expense of overhead(Government)come from.

                                                                                            And I'm well beyond finger painting . I hold a degree in Fine Arts and went to one of the top ten Art Colleges in the country. So I finger paint quit well. I also own my own Corporation.

                                                                                              #28.18 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:41 PM EST
                                                                                              economics101

                                                                                              mark - you have the cart before the horse. The gov't arbitrarily assigns property rights and upholds the ability to transact ..... how do you own "land". You didn't make it - so someone had to "claim" it. therefore the entire cusal relationship of property ownership is based on a lie or con. Upon this lie or con we have based an elaborate legal system to give title.... which is of course derived from the English to grant "title" by the crown ... since the crown owns everything. That title can of course, be taken away at any time by the crown (in our case the state). This is where the property tax comes in as well - title was granted so the noble lord who had hereditary title could force his slaves to produce income from whihc taxes were derived.

                                                                                              In case you forgot, US law, particularly property law, was based on British Common law .... And property tax is actually codified in the constitution, personal income tax however, was added in the questionable 16th amendment.

                                                                                              I won't go into contracts, but suffice it to say, there have been at least three precedents where evictees were able to show that all debt contracts with banks were null and void under law, and likely frudualent, sincew they failed 2 key tests of a contract - legal consideration and utmost good faith. You see banks don't actually have the money they lend you, through a slight of hand trick between them and the Federal reserve called fractional reserve banking the bank creates the money to lend you as a credit in your account, offset by a debit for the loan ..... therefore, legally the oney doesn't ever exist. Likewise when you repay the loan, the principal is retired, since the payment of principal is a credit to offset the debit for the debt.

                                                                                              This is basically the same principle as selling your neighbors house. collecting the money, and convincing the buyer that you own it .... ie fraud. Therefore not just a contract.

                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                              #28.19 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:15 PM EST
                                                                                              economics101

                                                                                              ebook:

                                                                                              The simplicity of your responses does not demonstrate an understanding of this subject matter. For example:

                                                                                              Corporation ,An ingenious invention which allows individual profit with no individual risk".
                                                                                              I don't know of one Corporation that does not have a risk for share holders. They hold the investment. If you are referring to corporate heads they are employee like everyone else. The share holders are the ones at risk but also they are responsible for the salaries being paid

                                                                                              The quote alludes to the fundamental premise behind the corporation .... that the risk of the shareholder is limited to the investment whihc they made. For example, shareholders cannot be responsible for criminal behavior by the corporation, for liability for negligence by the corporation, for the debts or contractual obligations of the corproation - the worst they can get is they lose their investments.

                                                                                              So, if you understand the legal construct, a shareholder can benefit from all activities of the corporation - whether legal, illegal, criminal, negligent, etc ... but can only be held responsible up to the value of thier investment.

                                                                                              You are actually correct about this statement, but for all the wrong reasons.

                                                                                              Where do you think gov't gets it money from

                                                                                              Same place you do.

                                                                                              Yes, we all get it from commercial bankers who create it from nothing for free and lend it to us at interest, while the gov't guarentees it all with our taxes. Not exactly what you meant Im sure .... The real question is where the banks get the money from? The answer to that is they just make it up as they go along .... they create it from thin air.

                                                                                              Thins is how the top .5% keep the wealth in the "family" so to speak. Since they make interest on every, every dollar in circulation, for doing roughly nothing to earn it. That is why:

                                                                                              A economic system designed to benefit the top 0.5% at the expense of the other 99.5%. That is exactly what the US economy is.

                                                                                              Really what do they have that I can't have if I choose?

                                                                                              Well since you don't create money and lend it to the gov't, people, etc .... you can't "choose" to do so. The number of people in a lifetime that make it into this group is a handful ... the vast vast majority were born into it. Look at the guys running the FED, the Treasury, Goldman, Citi .....

                                                                                              That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

                                                                                              So why are we adding to the debt? I'm all for balancing the budget? Common sense, don't spend what you don't have. Need to express yourself to congress , not me.

                                                                                              you clearly don't understand what the quote is saying. Edison asks why the gov't issues a bond at interest, why can't the gov't issue a dollar with no interest. So its pretty simple the gov't can print money without debt - it says so in the constitution. So why do we pay interest on a national debt (to the rich people you admire so much) when we dopn't have to - why not just create the money without the bond. The Fed does exactly that ... it accepts our treasury bond and creates a dollar ....

                                                                                              I suggest you read the quote again, do a little research on how the Fed and other central banks work, the fractional reserve banking system and then make an informed comment.

                                                                                              PS money, bills, etc means nothing to banks, gov't .... why do you think all these geniuses had such a problem explaining what was going on 1 year ago ... cause money is irrelevant to them - its all BS to keep them rich and you poor.

                                                                                              • 1 vote
                                                                                              #28.20 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:02 PM EST
                                                                                              DonkeyRidder

                                                                                              Excuse me, all property rights are derived by law.

                                                                                              Excuse me, but there has not always been government exercising authority over all lands or all peoples. The biggest took the right to the property and enforced that right in ungoverned lands. I realize that doesn't apply much any more, but that was the way it was for centuries.

                                                                                                #28.21 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:52 PM EST
                                                                                                economics101

                                                                                                yes and who came up with the idea of law? The big guys who stole all the land from everyone else and got to be afraid of someone bigger taking it from him .... therefore, they created laws. The irony is that they stole their land, but sought to protect themselves from the same plight by using laws and cummunal resources to protect them ....

                                                                                                Regardless, all property rights are derived by law. Therefore, for you to "own" property requires a gov't to intervene to stop the bigger, smarter, or more ruthless guy than you from taking it from you .... that's my point. Without law there is not property, there is natural law .... ie. the law of the jungle.

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                #28.22 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:47 PM EST
                                                                                                DonkeyRidder

                                                                                                The big guys who stole all the land from everyone else and got to be afraid of someone bigger taking it from him .... therefore, they created laws.

                                                                                                Okay, we basically agree. But how can one steal land from people and then make laws to protect it? It wasn't stealing if the ones it was "stolen" from didn't have property rights defined by those laws that didn't exist when the "stealing" occurred.

                                                                                                  #28.23 - Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:30 PM EST
                                                                                                  economics101

                                                                                                  You are getting at the reason why any self respcting person who values honesty has no time for lawyers. Understand that the "law" is basically a way to make what is immoral and unethical "moral and ethical". So I steal land from the Indians by getting them to sign a contract, whihc they neither understand nor have the legal capacity to contract - since they do not understand the concept of "ownership" to begin with. I then claim that this con or fraud is legally binding and proceed to parcel and sell off this land claiming title. Now to a lawyer this is OK as long as no one calls this a fraud during the statuatory limits to do so .... once these have passed, its all good.

                                                                                                  You see under common law, a fraud is only a fraud when someone says its a fruad - not when it was committed. So as long as no one says its a fraud, it isn't. this is how rich people get away with so much malfaesance all the time against poor people - cause they don't call them out on their unethical behavior.

                                                                                                  Then, even if they do, since the rich are the ones who pay the lawyers, the courts are clearly stacked against those who are poor vs. those who are rich. Go sit in a court one day and see what goes on - especially if you think rich people pay too much tax!

                                                                                                  Regardless, my point is that the basis of capitalism is property ownership. However, since all property ownership originated in either theft or fraud the very basis of the system is a fraud. You cannot sell something which you do not own can you? No that's fraud. If you do, the contract, and all future contracts involving that property are fraudulent. As stated above, the way out of this is statuatory limits, so a lawyers get out of jail free card - so that even if the original transaction was based on fraud, as long as you wait a certain period, the "law" now makes the theft or fraud legal.

                                                                                                  So "legally" property rights are "legal"; ethically? morally? not so much .....

                                                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                                                  #28.24 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:11 AM EST
                                                                                                  DonkeyRidder

                                                                                                  So I steal land from the Indians by getting them to sign a contract

                                                                                                  Why would you say it was the Indians land in the first place?

                                                                                                    #28.25 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:40 AM EST
                                                                                                    economics101

                                                                                                    lets see .... they lived on it for thousands of years .... they were there when we got there. I can ask the same question today - why does you house belong to you? Because a lawyer and realtor said so?

                                                                                                    I would actually agree with you, the Indians were easily conned by the Euros cause they had no concept of personal property - the land was everyone's. They had a territory, but no one could own the land - the land was a gift from God, and it was to be worshipped. It was the Euro slavery/feudalism/criminal behavior that brought ownership to the indians.

                                                                                                    My point was this - under contract law, it is required that certain things exist to form a contract - 1. Good faith. You need to act in good faith. 2. Ownership. You need to own what you are selling. 3. consideration. Something of value has to be exchanged. 4. Ability to contract. you can't make a contract with a little kid, someone who is insnace or incapacitated. Now these rules existed then too, and the "agreements" with the Indians really don't meet any of them. Later when the indians smartened up, the Euros just breached the contracts anyway .... so yeah all this land was taken illegally - by criminal enterprises.

                                                                                                    Its not good enough to say it was ungoverned land, the Euros ignored local law which said there was no property, and used their own law - so they must at least comply with there own law .... cause under Indian Law, there was no "ownership" as we understand it.

                                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                                    #28.26 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:55 AM EST
                                                                                                    DonkeyRidder

                                                                                                    I'm not so harsh about how and why law came about. I like to think it was a voluntary agreement amongst men to form a civil orderly society. Of course many don't agree with the agreements, but what's a society ot do?

                                                                                                    As to the Indians, no Indian had lived there more than a lifetime, so the thousands years stuff means nothing. The people alive today own the lands, and they relinquish ownership when they die. Sure, there are laws regarding who assumes ownership at death. But land isn't passed along in the genes. And if I recall correctly, the Indians fought each other over land "ownership", or access rights.

                                                                                                      #28.27 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:47 PM EST
                                                                                                      economics101

                                                                                                      First of all, law is not related to agreement, it is based on precedent and was and is generally arbitrary decisions made by rich old men. As such the law is mainly concerned with protecting the property of the haves from the have nots ..... so it is highly unlikely the majority (have nots) agreed to it. Law is always enforced with violence, whihc makes it even less likely.

                                                                                                      This is why the legislative, judical and executive branches are all separate ..... and the judicial (whihc is really a few rich old people) can supercede the will of the "people".The point is we have a democracy where we can all "vote" on a few things, mostly irrelevant frankly; but the majority of important stuff is all tied up by the vested (ie. proepried) interests. Do you think if there had been a party in 1935 who advocated that the banks be broken, and the rich stripped of their wealth that they would have lost?

                                                                                                      Now on the Indians you are basically saying (as most rich people seem to believe) that law only applies to rich people stealing from poor. If its OK for us to steal from the indians cause they haven't lived on the land forever, why does Bill Gates get to keep his money and property? Either you believe in the right to own property, which at its core has the Rule of thiumb that possession is 9/10s of the law or you don't. If the indians had no rights thane neither do you or anyone else.

                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                      #28.28 - Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:31 PM EST
                                                                                                      DonkeyRidder

                                                                                                      Law is an agreement. Not everyone participates in the agreement and for good reason. If the laws become disagreeable to enough persons, there is a revolt. That has happened many times through history. Laws applied equally to all, rich and poor, can still be fair and equitable. You want all to have the same, which will be another source of revolt.

                                                                                                      Bill Gates gets to keep what is his because we have an agreement that lets him keep what he has earned. If a poor person gets a load of money, by work or luck, he too gets to keep it. The rich and the poor have the same opportunities. In the absence of any agreements about property and governance, Bill Gates would hire his personal army to maintain ownership of his property.

                                                                                                      As to the Indians, their troubles occurred in another time, in entirely idfferent circumstances. Their squatters rights claims to the land didn't hold water then and they lost. Sure, from the modern day perspective the times were brutal, but I wasn't there, and people did what they thought best or right or correct at the time. It is not my place to sit in judgment of past generations.

                                                                                                      Do you think if there had been a party in 1935 who advocated that the banks be broken, and the rich stripped of their wealth that they would have lost?

                                                                                                      Yes, they would have lost, one way or the other. The economy would have worsened and the rich left the country, or the rich would have hired their own soldiers to protect their property, a new civil war.

                                                                                                      The Indians had no rights to their property at the time it was being taken. Now they do, and I do. So mine is mine and theirs is theirs.

                                                                                                        #28.29 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:00 PM EST
                                                                                                        economics101

                                                                                                        You are clearly not a student of history.

                                                                                                        FDR adopted radical Keynesian policies like the New Deal not because his NYC banker family wanted that, but because it was the only way to save "capitalsim". In the 30's there was a very real threat of a communist revolution, bank robbers were public heros, and robbing the rich was almost a socially acceptable thing to do. The populist newspapers of the day, published columns by know socialists who compared bankers to common theives .... look at the biography of Woody Guthrie and others ....

                                                                                                        Your ignorance of the crimes committed against the indians is frankly appalling .... did you skip the entire American history part of the lesson. The Indians were "squatters"??? Why cause they didn't murder the Europeans as soon as they stepped on their land? The dual standard which you apply is completely illogical. the basis for the Europeans murdering, raping and stealing from the indians, including our own American ancestors was that they were savages, non christians and therefore had no rights. But then again, until the early 20th century likely you , your sister and the vast majority of Americans had no rights either ....

                                                                                                        Finally, as to the rich vs. the poor. To suggest everyone has the same opportunities is some right wing nonsense that makes moronic clowns like Beck and Palin able to look in the mirror after their rants about how the poor ruined America ..... There is absolutely no equal treatment in America for the rich and poor, no fairness or justice - thats a complete myth. A microscopic fraction of Americna end up any better or worse off than their parent, and even then are unlikely to move even a standard deviation.

                                                                                                        There is zero empirical support for the American Dream's existence. Quite the contrary, it is clearl that the majority of Americans actually get nothintg from the system but lies and spin. 60% of Americans in 2008 had zero or negative net worth. That is no better than it was 100 years ago, or even 200 years ago. So what you have is a false promise of wealth, mainly as the result of sports or other celebrity. In mathematical terms the chances of significnat improvement are zero.

                                                                                                        That brings me to full circle to law. you make this statement:

                                                                                                        That has happened many times through history. Laws applied equally to all, rich and poor, can still be fair and equitable. You want all to have the same, which will be another source of revolt.

                                                                                                        Now I don't recall stating either of these things. The law is inherently unfair and inequitable since it inherently protects the wealthy from the poor .... it is easy not to break the law when you have wealth, and often incredibly difficult if you are destitute. The American Justice system is in no way fair or equitable.

                                                                                                        Secondly, I don't advocate that everyone have the same. Even if I did, there is no reason to believe that that would cause a revolt any more than our current system does. Then you talk about Gates. First of all Gates only has his wealth as a result of the govt. His company was based on work conducted under govt funding in the UC system, whihc they commercialized. Secondly, it is only IP law which allowed MSFT to build its empire. Finally, it is the repeated and continual support of copyright and IP rules by our govt that keeps MSFT in business.

                                                                                                        So its not just about his "private army", its about how govt faciliatates wealth.

                                                                                                          #28.30 - Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:25 AM EST
                                                                                                          Mark-702026

                                                                                                          economics101 --- I am perplexed with myself. I find myself agreeing with you in on many pivotal points but coming to very different conclusions.

                                                                                                          I will need to re-read your posts and try and follow your thought process.

                                                                                                            #28.31 - Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:28 AM EST
                                                                                                            economics101

                                                                                                            The reason is that Im not a communist or democrat per se, I am seeking that govt, banks and others actually do what they claim they are doing.

                                                                                                            I think capitlaism can work if it is allowed to function as it is supposed to. But telling mme MSFT or Berkshire Hathaway are examples of capitlaism in action .... why not Soros? I mean he wrecks entire currencies?

                                                                                                            The problem is there are way too many people who arbitrarily control the econiomic outcomes in this system - for better or worse. They believe they are acting in the public good, but even when acting that way there is great potential for misuse. For example, to tell me the market system is working when 60% of the population has zero or negative net worth in the richest country in the world?

                                                                                                            Capitalism works great in theory, but even samll inconsistencies over time can destabilize the system. The problem is that the fiat banking system, the monopolies, the military industrial complex, etc. are far more than small inconsistencies .... and thats why its not working for 95% of Americans, and 99.9% of the worlds population.

                                                                                                              #28.32 - Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:37 AM EST
                                                                                                              leonahardware

                                                                                                              economics101- STANDING OVATION!!!!!

                                                                                                                #28.33 - Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:41 AM EST
                                                                                                                XDemonessXDeleted
                                                                                                                economics101

                                                                                                                Demoness:

                                                                                                                I don't hate banks, I hate dishonesty. Banks deal in fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit. If they were up front and honest about what they do and how they do it, I would have no problem with them. Furthermore, Banks and their fundamental role in the economy are the single most important innovation of the last 300 - 400 years. The creation and management of a fiat currency was the foundation for the modern age, the invention of capitalism.

                                                                                                                My problem, s well summarized by Thomas Edison and Henry Ford in 1921 is who should have the power of this wondrous creation? Should it be private banks who use the creation of money as a feudal tax system to redistribute wealth from the working classes to the wealthy? Should it be the gov't who can use money to manage the economy directly without paying the rich for the privilege? or should it be the people themselves through a democratically elected independant body that oversees this process? Or should we go back to a gold standard, where money is actually worth comething and giuve up the great advantages of fiat currency?

                                                                                                                Currently we have the first system. We get a little of the second when the banks decide to let their trained dogs in gov't "regulate" them as they do in Europe. The bottom line is there is no reason why private for profit institutions like banks should control the issuance and mamangemnt of the nations money supply no matter how regulated.

                                                                                                                You post talks about differnet risk assesments and requirements for debt .... now that would all be fince except for the fact that Banks don't actually have any money to lend. They create the money the lend, increasingly without even the pretense of a reserve (which was never an actual "reserve" anyway), out of thin air without even any express legal authority in most jurisdictions to do so!

                                                                                                                The key practice in banking is the assumption by 99.9% of the population that banks actually have the money they lend out, and thus all this subterfuge about deciding who gets it at what rate, and how much risk is OK. The truth is they don't have any money, and that the "monetary system" relies upon them to make subjective judgements about who gets the money which is created by the state.

                                                                                                                This is vital to understand - the state uses private, commercial, for profit banks to distribute the money that it creates! Even your own gov't must pay interest to create money, but the banks do it for free.

                                                                                                                So the deception is complete. You believe that its far to pay Bank of America or HSBC or BNP "interest" because the banks, the gov't, the media lead you to believe that they "own" the money they lend you. While, in fact, the oney that you are lent is mainly an accounting entry much like Maddoff's returns.

                                                                                                                Why does this happen? Originally, gov't needed the banks. If the King just created money, the people didn't want it. However, banks had been creating money and using other people money held in trust as collateral for centuries. These Banks often found that the aristocracy were their best and worst customers. They always needed money for war, but often refused to repay (think about the Merchant of Venice).

                                                                                                                The other problem was that these banks were issuing paper IOU type notes which are the predecessors of our dollars or Euros. They generally issued 10 notes for every 1 in actual gold on hand ..... so when people got worried about the security of the bank ... they came and called in the IOU .... the original bank run. The IOU was called in specie - gold or silver, which couldn't be faked.

                                                                                                                So the geniuses at the banks figured out a solution. Created a central bank, which would finance all the wars with a fiat currency. The fiat currency would be backed by the government, but issued by a Central bank that would then assume control over the nation's reserves. The govt (aristocracy) could borrow as much as they wanted, and would impose a tax on their subjects to pay interest back to the central bank for the loans on the money it created from thin air.

                                                                                                                The commercial banks would control the central bank to create the illusion that the gov't was not running it. For there part they would now issue the fiat gov't backed currency directly instead of the IOUs ..... ending the insecurities about their own security.

                                                                                                                This system is basically how the ECB, The Fed, the Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Canada, etc operate to this day.

                                                                                                                The problem is pretty simple, with the end of the aristocratic rule, the need for private control of the banks ended. Banks by 1900 controlled the gov't, controlled the money supply, controlled both the domestic and global economy. We could vote, but the "independance" of the central banks meant that the real issues - jobs, economy, law, etc .... were controlled in board rooms and country clubs.

                                                                                                                So the question is today, does the gov't need the banking system or the other way around. At present, the gov't is basically an elaborate "front" to keep the banking system in control. The income power of the gov't has been illegally hijacked by bankers who take at least 50% of your income taxes and redistribute it to the wealthy. They control the FED, refusing to relinquish control over the issuance and setting of terms claiming the need for independence. They won't even allow an audit.

                                                                                                                The basis of this system is that every dollar issued by a bank or central bank is backed up by the gov'ts credit worthiness. The banks don't really worry to much about us, the real key is the market for gov't bonds. The question poised in 1921 still stands - If the government can issue a bond in exchange for dollars (Fed Reserve Notes) why can't it just issue a dollar?

                                                                                                                In the intervening 88 years no one has publically answered this question. Why? Well thats simple. Banks operate by creating money for free, lending it out at interest. They count on the central bank (which they own) and the gov't to bail them out in this process. The large revenue which they generate for selling their creation (which costs about 0.25% APR max to make) they distribute to the wealthy. This process redistributes more than 50% of the labor produced wealth in this country to the wealthy through taxes, fees, interest payments, etc .... And its all based on the same deception as the first bankers lending out the money they held in trust for their customers fraudulently.

                                                                                                                Sorry for the long explanation, but I have to deal with a lifetime of misinformation and deception to explain my problem with this. My choice for the right system is 3. Independent body democratically elected and accountable to both the people and their representatives to manage the money supply. Frankly, this is the main economic tool available to our govt, so why in God's name would you assign it to a bunch of people who you wouldn't trust your silverware too? We need to have a national, global discussion about this and fix these things before the inevitable next time comes ....

                                                                                                                  #28.35 - Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:31 AM EST
                                                                                                                  XDemonessXDeleted
                                                                                                                  Reply
                                                                                                                  Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                                                                                  Leave a Comment:
                                                                                                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                                                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                                                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                                                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                                                  FUN STUFF:
                                                                                                                  • Leaderboard |
                                                                                                                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                                                  • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                                                  • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                                                  • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                                                  • The Greenhouse
                                                                                                                  COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                                                  • Code of Honor |
                                                                                                                  • Company Info |
                                                                                                                  • Contact Us |
                                                                                                                  • Jobs |
                                                                                                                  • User Agreement |
                                                                                                                  • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                                                  • About our ads
                                                                                                                  LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                                                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com