I have been watching the recent escalation in crude oil and gasoline prices, plus the worsening economic conditions, with a combination of horror and "I told you so."
Back in 2005, I wrote an article for Gather titled A Glimpse of the Future. I looked at the state of our nation's economy and read what economists, energy experts and currency experts were saying. Then, I made some rather gloomy predictions of what the situation would be in 2010 if current trends continued.
A lot of people thought I was doing the usual "liberal gloom," and that things would not be that bad. After all, we had Republicans running the country, and they would take care of things. Republicans are very "pro-business," the logic went, and as a member of the out-of-power party, I was just a disgruntled Chicken Little.
So what did I predict in my gloomy glimpse of 2010?
- We would be paying ten bucks for a gallon of gasoline.
- The value of the dollar would be crashing.
- The value of real estate would be crashing.
- Workers' incomes would be declining as unemployment rose
- Foreclosures and personal bankruptcies would be skyrocketing.
- A lot of people would be driving vehicles that were driving them to the poorhouse.
We are not at $10 a gallon yet, but does anybody want to bet me that we won't be there in two years? The dollar's decline started in 2001, and it is now down 71% vs. the Euro. The decline has been continuous since 2005 when I wrote the article. Real estate…well, I got some help here from a totally insane real estate bubble, and some wild and crazy speculation in debt instruments. The real estate situation is actually much worse than I predicted, and when it is combined with the liquidity and consumer credit crisis, exploding oil prices and crashing dollar, we seem to be headed for the economic equivalent of a "perfect storm."
Given the deteriorating conditions, it seems likely that many people will be unable to make the transition to energy efficiency in their homes and vehicles, and that's a shame, because they will indeed be on that economic treadmill that I predicted. A lot of people are still in denial. The domestic auto makers are dragging their heels, still trying to milk profits out of their SUV monstrosities, and some people are still buying them! A lot of people are still not convinced that the world is changing, and that the change is permanent. We will never go back to the bad old days of profligate energy use. We...and the world...simply cannot afford it.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
This administration has raped our economy and given away our heritage to a few rich supporters. Our children and grand children will suffer for this.
America's economy will be hard to rebuild, but the first step is to get back what has been stolen. If we join with Europe to shut down the tax havens and make transparent the off-shore bank accounts of the vulgarly rich, we can recoup at least $100 billion in unpaid taxes, and throw some tax cheats into prison.
It's not a complete solution, but it's a good start.
True, our trashed economy is the main reason the price we pay for oil is so high at the moment, but the economy can recover, our dependence on oil...pumped from the ground or made out of corn can only become deeper and more pivotal to our health...economic AND environmental, unless we act to develop sources of energy that DO NOT BURN stuff.
If the public considers Republicans as pro-business and Democrats as anti-business and making their choice for leaders based on this, they're not looking at the right parameters for selecting leaders. Business is integral to every culture and to our economy, and any right-minded official would support a well-run businesses. Well-run means not just making money, but being ethical and fair and being an asset to a community. What people often mean when they use the term "pro-business" is anti-regulation. Anti-regulation can be good if regulations are so prescriptive that they are difficult to carry out and enforce, if they are unfair or if they are outdated. But regulation for the well being and fairness of the whole of society are good. The Clean Water Act has accomplished much in improving the health of U.S. waters and our enjoyment of them.
Richard...my pet peeves are the huge subsidies that go to the big oil and agribusiness corporations. And the War, of course. And the US military presence scattered all over the planet. All of the above is money down a rat hole, and it is bankrupting our nation.
Michael...I have been saying for a long time that gasoline should cost at least $5/gallon. It costs at least that in most European countries. They don't have oil depletion allowance giveaways to drop the price artificially, and they tax the Hell out of it to encourage conservation. As a result, they drive much more fuel efficient cars, and their per-capita energy usage is about half of ours. Re ethanol from corn...it's not a good solution. It takes almost as much energy to produce it as it provides. It's another giveaway to agribusiness corporations.
Verie...I take no great pleasure from being right on this. On the subject of business, the deregulation of business started back under Reagan, and it has been an unmitigated disaster...creating vast economic disruption in regulated utilities like telecom, power generation, and the airlines. Unfettered capitalism is a ferocious beast, bent on profits regardless of the cost to society or the environment.
We should have learned that a hundred years ago with the Robber Barons, but the message was forgotten...or ignored. It's time to put the harness back on, but it must be done carefully so we don't kill the beast.
I am not sure we are going to get a "changing of the guard." If McCain wins, it is business as usual. He is a Dubya clone, but smarter.
With either Democrat, I think we will be out of the War quicker...that will reduce the deficit. I would hope for other actions...raising taxes, particularly on corporations and the rich, reducing corporate welfare...oil and agribusiness subsidies. But the current political system limits the amount of change we will get. Money is power. Until we get real campaign finance reform...something McCain used to favor...we will not get government that acts in the interests of the people.
Percent of Federal Income Tax Paid in 2004, by Household Percentage Group
"The top 1 percent of income earners, by household, paid 37 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003; the bottom 50 percent paid a little over 3 percent."
I am really sick of biased statements concerning the tax cuts for the wealthy...I'm not wealthy, but accuracy is truth. Let's but truthful here. The top 1% (ONE PERCENT) of wage earners by household paid 37% (THIRTY SEVEN PERCENT) of all federal income taxes in 2003. I don't have the numbers for 2006 but what if the top 1% paid less tax....so what? THE BOTTOM FIFTY PERCENT PAID THREE PERCENT!!!!!!!! ..in 2003.
Now these are personal income tax numbers, but remember... all increases for business or corporations in the cost of doing business are passed along to the consumer. Do you want to pay the increased taxes if they are imposed on businesses...because you will be...we will pay more for everything we do. The problem of tax revenue is not how much tax the government collects...it's how that money is spent.
I'll stop here...I'm only commenting and I respect Burt's territory. Thanks for the opportunity Burt.
Or the National Tax Payers Union..."Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What
For Tax Year 2005" The top 1% ....39.38%, the bottom 50%....3.07%. Source, the IRS
I can keep this up ...the figures are verifiable. Why don't you check with a source you consider reputable?
When I look at these issues I tend to look at the reasons why, rather than the minutiae of the individual numbers and I am not very favorably impressed with the way this system operates where the richest get richer at the expense of the average person ...
It is all about the present philosophy of mankind in general that I am most concerned about and what the book I wrote is all about.
I have not read your book...I'm certain you present some very important issues and I'm hoping...some realistic solutions to some of our many problems. I am jealous of the mega-money some people are paid. I think it is obscene to pay a sports figure $20 million a year for example or a movie star $20 million a picture. In these two cases...you are correct..these rich people get paid by those of us with less money...vastly less money. Is this what you mean by "the richest get richer at the expense of the average person ..." ? Or are you talking about the business owners and stock holders that are a part of successful companies? I'm not sure what, exactly you mean by the rich get richer at the EXPENSE of the average person. Are you saying that we, in a free enterprise system, should put a cap on the amount of money a person can earn? What do you mean? Should we charge different amounts for goods and services based upon the income of the buyer?
We are all concerned about the present philosophy of mankind...at least most of us do. The world is a mess. It was a mess when Hitler tried to conquer the world..it was a mess when Rome tried to conquer the world...it's always been a mess and there will always be problems and inequities.
But my original point has now been obscured. 1% of our population pays almost 40% of the personal income tax collected. The bottom 50% of our population pays just over 3%.
The latest data that I can find quickly is for 2001.
From this web site I learned that the top 1% of the population hold 39.7% of the wealth in the country. The next 19% hold 51.5%, and the bottom 80% hold 8.8%.
Looking at those numbers, the tax figures you provide don't look unreasonable at all.
LINK
Wealth is not a zero sum game, but even though the pie is growing, a larger and larger slice of it is going to a few people. I don't think that is a healthy trend at all for the nation.
I think the only fair way to look at this: 1% of our population pays almost 40% of the personal income tax collected. The bottom 50% of our population pays just over 3%. is to note what that percentage does to the standard of living. If paying 40% means investing or saving a little less, that can't be compared to the 3% that makes others unable to eat or heat their homes.
When I speak of the super rich I am not at all even thinking of the movie and sports types, I am thinking of people that have been handed down wealth, positions and opportunities involving dynasties, many of which operate in collusion under great secrecy ... those that have the power to even remove themselves from the record books from which you have derived your facts ... which may well be also "cooked" because of the unaccountability of what really goes on at those upper multi-national levels ... go ahead, call me a stupid conspiracy theorist ... but stupid I am not.
I cannot speak logic and rational sense here to "normal" people that play by the "rules" that society has handed down to them, such as America is a great land of opportunity for getting what one wants by working hard ... just because that is true by every "materialistic" standard known to man, does not make it all that great to a person such as myself that has some compassion for the many that are really left-out of the process because they do not have that "great competitive" drive ... let alone opportunity.
The only thing that I have going for my comparatively weak case is a spiritual intuition that has come from spiritual experience that is comparatively rare and not either understood or valued by most people ... in other words I am just a crackpot that does not make much sense ... to "normal" people that value objective facts as they do ... information handed to them by the very leaders that require the systems status quo in order for them to maintain their positions at the top of the heap ...
In the spiritual realm all of the most important things to be known are not a secret, they are neither facts either, as much as metaphor and allegory, basic thoughts concerning deeper truths that result in wisdoms that have eternal values more subjective than objective ... I only attempt to get people to escape from the rather confining "boxes" that they have let society build around them. That is what my message and book are all about ... I do not expect many "takers" of that message ... sadly.
Jerry...I am confused about your interest in these material matters. Spiritual wealth is a completely different affair than tax brackets. If your subjective spiritual realm of deeper truths is your message...than by all means..peddle your book. And I am not making light of your effort. It is very important to you or you certainly would not have put forth the effort to write it.
But this paragraph : "I cannot speak logic and rational sense here to "normal" people that play by the "rules" that society has handed down to them, such as America is a great land of opportunity for getting what one wants by working hard ... just because that is true by every "materialistic" standard known to man, does not make it all that great to a person such as myself that has some compassion for the many that are really left-out of the process because they do not have that "great competitive" drive ... let alone opportunity." can be interpreted to mean that money equals a lack of compassion for the less fortunate of our society. Bullshit. BULL...SHIT!
As you say, in the period of the great Robber Barons, we had some obscenely rich people. FDR came along and changed that, adding regulations to rein in the rapacious practices of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and others. And in the process, raised income taxes on the rich to as high as 91%! The rich guys still survived just fine, and the country thrived. Income taxes on the rich top out now at what...35%? And most of their earnings are from long-term investments that are capped at 25%, I think. I am just a modest retired guy, but I pay over 30% on some of my retirement income!
So...I guess the question is fairness, and that's a judgment call. You think the rich are already "burdened" with excessive taxes, I guess. I disagree...but we can still be friends. (grin)
Say Bert....do you know what the hell Jerry is talking about? It seems I am in a big box of BS...no wait, a small box of BS...no hold on..oh never mind..I'm in a box of BS because I have looked at something from my own ego perspective!!?? AND...AND! I'm in some sort of denial! Hey..I deny that I am in denial ... I am in denial of being in denial...wow..I guess I am in denial. Damn Jerry... you ARE the deep thinker.
Jerry's superior universal perspective and true spirituality is just too esoteric for my feeble ego driven mind.
I do indeed share your concern for how our tax money is spent. Entirely too much of it goes to corporate welfare and other subsidies that are not in the public interest.
Our government is influenced far too much by big money donors and their lobbyists.
We are not going to get honest government that is responsive to the legitimate needs of the people until we solve this problem
Jerry is a very spiritual person whose heart is in the right place. I must admit, I don't understand some of his ideas either.
" As always, I appreciate your comments, Colonel, but just so that the readers don't get the idea that those tax cuts were "fair and balanced," here's the bottom line expressed in four different ways, so as not to be construed as misleading. The data was provided by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Tax Model, March 2007.
The data compares the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% of earners with the impact on the bottom 40%, through the year 2010.
Thus, if kept in place, the cuts will produce:
- an aggregate benefit of $130 billion for the bottom 40%, versus an aggregate benefit of $719 billion for the top 1%.
- The bottom 40% will receive 6.1% of the total cuts. The top 1% will receive 33.3% of the total cuts.
- The bottom 40% will receive an average aggregate benefit of $2,300. The average benefit for the top 1% will be $522,000.
- And finally, the tax cuts as a percentage of income, will be 1.2% for the bottom 40% versus 3.9% for the top 1%.
Comparing the bottom 40% with the top 1% is a standard measure for assessing the so-called income gap.
Obviously, the top 1% have been paid back, and continue to be paid back, for providing our politicians with much of their campaign finance funds...
Dave McGill, Mar 15, 2008, 2:14pm EDT ""
Peace, j.
One way around this is to give a tax rebate to low-income people, and this has been proposed as part of almost every flat tax proposal. Ironically, the proponents of a flat tax are usually conservatives or libertarians who abhor most welfare programs. Yet a huge government handout to low income people looks suspiciously like welfare payments to me. There are many other arguments against flat tax, but they are to lengthy to pursue here.
Thankfully, Mikey is gone, along with his Bible pounders...although they will be back, touting McCain. It's a tough pill for them to swallow, though. They have long distrusted McCain. James Dobson has said that he will not back McCain. But when the alternative is a liberal, populist, pro-choice black? Dobson will be there for McCain. I have no doubt.