If you’re expecting the unemployment rate to start going back to what used to be its normal level, you are likely to be sorely disappointed.
Think about it. There are perhaps only three major entities that exercise some degree of control over the situation - corporate America, the government and the banks.
As far as corporate America is concerned, the present situation is more than acceptable, just as it is. The level of unemployment isn’t so high as to rupture the demand for its products, yet it is high enough to give companies the pick of the litter when hiring. Furthermore, by loading the work of those laid off onto those remaining, the productivity rates have been soaring. And a big added bonus has been the low level of interest rates that has gone hand in hand with unemployment, as these two expense-reducing benefits make their heady way down Corporate Easy Street.
It’s definitely not in its playbook for big business to concern itself with the trials and tribulations of middle America. Nor does it lose any sleep over the fact that America’s students, such as those involved in the OWS movement, are paying more and more for educations that end up dumping them into a jobless wasteland. No, it seems safe to assume that no unemployment relief will be coming from this direction.
And to think that the government - meaning this Congress - is going to step into the breach, is beyond laughable. That crowd couldn’t even pass a jobs bill that made tons of sense and that paid for itself. What the legislators can do, however, and this involves both the Inflexicans and the Wimpocrats, is cut services and government jobs while making sure they don’t make enough noise to annoy the wealthy. The war cry for cutting, cutting, cutting has reached such a crescendo, that it no longer involves just jobs, but entire federal departments. And as for the entitlement programs - Social Security and Medicare - it’s beyond scary that those the senior citizens are counting on to protect these lifelines are the Wimpocrats. Looking down the road, it seems fairly certain that the only impact the government will have on the jobs situation is going to be negative.
That leaves the banks which we would love to think will suddenly decide to loosen up and breathe new life into the small business sector where many, if not most, jobs are actually created. But don’t hold your breath. Banks across Europe are in big trouble and it’s likely to be contagious. How do we know? Well, just this afternoon Moody’s downgraded a dozen banks - not in the economic shambles of Greece or Italy or Spain or Portugal or Ireland - but in the flagship nation of Germany. And then, as if to add insult to injury, the Fitch rating service came along 30 minutes later and said the problems will cascade across the pond into the good old United States. This is like the mother of all echo effects. We pollute Europe, with our exports of toxic assets wrapped up in improperly-graded bundles of sub-prime mortgages, and now, it seems, Europe is about to return the favor. The net result, of course, is that the American banks are going to do nothing but hold on for dear life as the tsunami heads this way. Consequently, the prospect for relief from this sector is about as likely as a Republican-sponsored tax hike on the wealthy.
So, get used to high unemployment. There’s no hero in sight to make it go away and the risks that it poses are all too real. It’s been at its present level for so long we may have become somewhat numb to the fact that it is really on the edge, but it surely is.
And you know what can be found on the other side of an edge…
…a cliff.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 98
Just yesterday there was movement in the country of Burma where pressure from the United States is forcing the government to at least pretend it is going to allow democratic reforms. I don't think that would be happening if it were not for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc - do you?
Regulation never effected jobs, and there is always uncertainty ... especially in a great depression with republicans sabotaging all Obamas efforts to stabilize things.
Just like the "the rich create jobs", it's just made up crap that has no bases in reality.
Pharmacutecal companys ditto.
Bank regulations are really not that difficult to follow and impliment policy, procedures and practices to keep them in line.
Internal and external auditors findings need more bite and follow-up.
Ethical practices and fair companies need to be rewarded with consumer loyalty.
For a better understanding of regulatory impacts, uncertainty and other stuff progressives deny even exist strongly consider this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
and this:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/13/poor-sales-or-economic-uncertainty-preventing-stronger-recovery/
and finally this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2011/07/06/the-cost-of-government-regulation-the-barack-obama-cass-sunstein-urban-legend/
Agreed. And with that liberty and opportunity comes responsibility.
unless you blow it by stupidly embracing the proven failures of socialist policies.
What a typically moronic statement completely divorced from reality. This is the USA. The whole "government of the people, by the people, for the people" place. Not solely the land of the super-rich 1%, the super-rich corporations, and the super-inane "waiting for the trickle down to happen" delusions. You're free to live in your fantasyland, the rest of us live in facts and take responsibility for our actions.
If Ken thinks we're suddenly on the verge of embracing socialism thanks to Obama, that would be unrealistic. I don't know if that's what he is saying.
How is it not divorced from reality?
His sentence, taken literally by itself, is correct.
Are you kidding me? His sentence CANNOT be taken literally by itself. It is presented in context. His context is that the USA is somehow "embracing the proven failures of socialist policies," which is patently ridiculous. And given that his implication is that Obama is the one pushing socialism on the USA, his statement is even more asinine and divorced from reality.
Seriously Matthew. You really have to start thinking in real world terms. This ideological vacuum stuff may be fine for theoretical mental exercises but it doesn't work when you have to ignore reality for it to make any sense. Reality will always be here. Whatever surreality that Ken is living in that allows him to rationalize such moronic platitudes as his statement just wastes everyone elses time.
If Ken thinks we're suddenly on the verge of embracing socialism thanks to Obama, that would be unrealistic. I don't know if that's what he is saying.
Really? Then you better ask him because he has gone out of his way for quite a while propagating that exact thing. And given that Obama has been President now for nearly 3 years, if the USA is "embracing failed socialist policies he most certainly is blaming it on Obama."
Any group of people can "blow" their "riches" or "liberty" or "opportunity" to the degree they embrace socialism. Do you disagree with this?
His sentence CANNOT be taken literally by itself.
Maybe so. Maybe you are more familiar with Ken's activities here than I am. I was focused on this thread, though I see above Ken just talking about harm done by this administration. Unfortunately too many focus on Obama and forget everything else.
You really have to start thinking in real world terms.
That's all I (try to) do. Ignoring reality is a waste of time. And we cannot pretend that ideas don't matter. They are behind everything that happens in the real world.
Disagree with what? You've basically said that quite a few countries that are socialist have no riches, liberty or opportunity. That's silly. Especially when you suggest that somehow the USA is "embracing failed socialist policies," which means your definition of socialism is so broad as to encompass nearly every country on the planet.
though I see above Ken just talking about harm done by this administration.
Ken was one of many rabid ideologues who was accusing Obama of putting the country on the road to Marxism before Obama even got elected. And frankly, "harm done by this administration" is nothing but a platitude. This administration saved the country from a severe depression following a completely destroyed economy that happened a year before he took office. He's given tax breaks out the wazoo to pretty much everyone in the country, including and especially to small businesses (and even rich people), all while being accused of raising taxes (again, somehow he raised taxes before he even got elected). If anyone has a beef with Obama is should be the liberals who feel he's been way too friendly to business in his attempt to create jobs. All while the tea party shuts down any attempt to keep the economy going, purely so they can extend tax breaks for the richest 1% and tax loopholes for the most profitable companies (as they ship more American jobs overseas).
Unfortunately too many focus on Obama and forget everything else.
Obama is merely the scapegoat for what amount to extremism and bigotry designed to secure and expand this nation's wealth for the richest handful of Americans. And I'm not talking some vacuous OWS bunk. I'm talking what has become the reality of our economy where more and more wealth builds up in the pockets of the richest few. No beef with being rich, even filthy rich. We all aspire to it. But the idea that loading up the rich will trickle down to the rest of us has been proven to be wrong. And while we argue over paying a few hundred bucks to some unemployed mother we gleefully hand over billions in welfare to corporations who ship that mother's potential job to Malaysia for $1 a month and millions to the super-rich so they can claim a tax deduction for their yacht as their second home (not counting, of course, the other 4 actual homes they may own).
That's all I (try to) do.
I appreciate that you try to do that, which is why I try to find time to converse with you and don't waste my time with ideological bigots.
Ignoring reality is a waste of time.
And yet it seems a large segment of the country actively does just that.
And we cannot pretend that ideas don't matter. They are behind everything that happens in the real world.
Agreed. Which is why we need to focus on ideas, with the goal of finding real world solutions in real world situations here in the real world. Unfortunately, it appears most people think the Real World is a show they see on MTV.
Gotta go. It's been fun. But the real world beckons.
Of course that would be silly. I emphasized "to the degree", which you ignored. Pretty much no country has anything close to pure socialism. But every country does have some socialism in place right now. As far as I know, most countries allow some amount of capitalism too.
Especially when you suggest that somehow the USA is "embracing failed socialist policies,"
Actually, I was careful to avoid saying anything about the USA. The discussion of socialism and the USA is a big one for some other day.
This administration saved the country from a severe depression following a completely destroyed economy that happened a year before he took office.
You do realize there are legitimate disagreements with this sort of statement?
I gotta run too. Those posts on the candidates were a big task to take on.
To ensure profits, the markets and/or statistics and figures are manipulated by the financial institutions.
From time to time the manipulation fails or send competitors to bankruptcy. (I wonder how come they failed?) The huge losses are any way paid by the taxpayer.
This so called "free market" transfers to the big corporations the profits to be realized and what they feel "fair" to distribute.
If any politician is being member of the Board, then the government will decide about production and distribution. This is NAZISM and FASCISM. Denying reality for Utopia, drives to them.
Are you so sure you want to salute raising your right hand?
The market is already here, there is no fantasy. Nothing prevents us from freeing it of government interventions as soon as we set our minds to it.
There has been very little deregulation and lots of new regulations. The trend has been clear for decades, and what do you want? More regulations?
That depends on the voters. Things are looking better and better in Iowa and other early states.
but he is clueless about this country and what makes it grow
No sir, that would be you.
In view of the computerization of production and service lines, do the corporations, through the GOP/TP, have interest in creating a 9% top 10% cushion of low paid workers?
Is it this why, the GOP/TP tries to avoid creating jobs?
Is it this why, the GOP/TP shrinks the education budgets?
Is it this why, the GOP/TP wants to get rid of Unions?
Is it this why, the GOP/TP wants to get rid of any health care?
Is it this why, the GOP/TP shrinks the education budgets?
Is it this why, the GOP/TP wants to get rid of Unions?
Is it this why, the GOP/TP wants to get rid of any health care?
Yes. Don't think, just follow orders
Having industry also, though I can't provide a link for it, seems to help build industrial base for environmental and alternative energy concerns. This should be important for the whole nation.
There is balance, of course ... we are world citizens and global trade is good. We must have product to trade, though, for that to work.
But when you get greedy then "plenty" isn't enough.
Just a small problem: they don't appreciate when I go naked on the streets!
Our consolidated corporations based around strategic industries - military, energy, communicates, media, big-agra and bit pharma ... believe it is time to enslave Americans as they have done in the 3rd world - that is, they take what they want of the Earth's resources, giving nothing back to the people of the planet, and force people to work for a miserable unsustainable existence, and keep from them the knowledge and education of the great democratic philsophies and religions, using the media to distort what the Bible and Constitution say and mean in order to promote this slave state.
The economy is inherently unstable and there are many positive feedback loops that will hasten any trends. The current tilt is toward less spending, less employment, less production, and greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. This tilt will increase until the economy collapses or we have major social disruption (war, revolution, natural disaster).
As it stands now, most of the country barely participates in the very society in within which they reside. They put forth the minimum, punch the clock, grab a snack, go home, talk a little with their families about what's on t.v., etc...
The economy of today is built on jobs that have reduced us all to nothing but product, and paper pusher.
All we can do is keep trying. Eventually we should interest someone who can get more consideration for the idea from the powers that be.
Hang in there.
Typical ranting of a Koch-sucker ...
Large corporations, like an Apple, have the advantage of keeping their profits "abroad" and not having to pay taxes until they "bring them home." (The goverment sometimes makes a deal, by offering a lower rate, if corporations do. But this often results in companies buying shares of their own companies, which doesn't do much for the economy.) But both big and new or many small businesses have difficulty in building factories here because there are not enough well educated Americans available to hire to work in them. Many who would like to grow a business here find it's more practical to hire say 10 Americans here and another 100 people abroad to produce the products to sell here. We need to develop new technologies and build factories but it's difficult to do both here and get the funding and so on.
"Bleak" may be the operative word as to today's situation, Jerry. The financial crisis blindsided us a few years ago and, just when some domestic economic data are beginning to improve slightly, another financial crisis may be looming.
By the way, is anyone else getting the feeling that the word "socialism" seems to be taking on new meanings?. Technically speaking, the president who came closest to emulating socialistic policies was obviously George W. Bush, who committed large amounts of dollars which provided the government with interests in recipient companies. However, I believe one must analyze the motivation to determine whether this was true socialism and such an exercise, in my opinion, shows that it was not.
Was the UK being a socialistic government when it nationalized troubled banks? Will Obama be a socialist if he nationalizes a troubled Bank of America next year? I don't believe so. When the government steps in to restore order and confidence in a deteriorating situation it is entirely different from when, for example, Venezuela nationalizes the oil operations within its borders.
I can't think of anything Obama has done that smacks of socialism. In the two programs that he encouraged there was no taking over of private enterprises, even though 60% of the public wanted a government run healthcare system for all. (That was before "Obamacare" was poisoned by the most egregious program of lies I've ever seen.) As far as providing healthcare for the uninsured is concerned, the government is involved - yes - but the law gives the private insurance companies the right to opt in if they wish. As far as the financial reform act is concerned, it simply calls for what many feel are appropriate regulatory controls. Whether one agrees with the need or not, it isn't "socialism" by any definition I'm aware of. Similarly, the stimulus program, which may have accomplished less than what it was expected to, is not by any standard I'm aware of socialistic.
So, it would be interesting and possibly enlightening if Ken, or any of the others who seem to use the term "socialism" quite liberally, would spell out in detail exactly why they feel it is accurate as it applies to Obama, whose policies to me seem more akin to what used to be those of moderate Republicans..
"You never change something by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." – Buckminster Fuller
Came across this 1994 Cato Journalpost by Bruce Bartlett recently. Of course I said to myself: this sounds familar: "... ....the fall of Rome was fundamentally due to economic deterioration resulting from excessive taxation, inflation, and over-regulation. Higher and higher taxes failed to raise additional revenues because wealthier taxpayers could evade such taxes while the middle class--and its taxpaying capacity--were exterminated. "
How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html
When I majored in history in college, the historians I studied attributed the decline of Rome primarily to widespread corruption and to a complete breakdown in social values.
Gee, that kind of sounds familiar too, doesn't it?....
Are you going to respond to my question above relative to your use of the word "socialism," and in your case, Micky my friend, also the word "Marxist," as they apply to Obama?
By the way, is anyone else getting the feeling that the word "socialism" seems to be taking on new meanings?
Just like with "free market". Everyone has their own definition, it seems. That's a problem.
It would be helpful if you defined socialism as you use it here. It seems you are using an extremely narrow definition.
I say it's fine to have a narrow definition. Socialism is "pure" socialism. Free Markets is "pure" free markets. If one is going to be narrow the other must be as well. However, I recall you weren't concerned about the definition of free markets and insisted that it didn't really matter, in a previous comment thread. Can't have it both ways, Dave.
Free markets are based on only private property.
Socialism is based on social/common ownership of property, which means government ownership.
Anything the government does, therefore, smacks of socialism. Not necessarily pure socialism, but it certainly "smacks of socialism". If not, what else? Certainly not free markets/capitalism. There is no other system which does not fall under either private ownership of property or social/common ownership.
In that sense, it is absolutely not a stretch to call Obama and Bush socialist to a degree. Obama, like Bush, has acted to maintain and increase "social/common ownership of property". That's the problem. We need someone to decrease it.
Free markets are not based only on property (there lies the Utopia) but in what people expect to be the property of the seller. The "expectation" implies that the "naked" property responds to its expected qualities and existence.
Capitalism is based on a hold existing property which may be partially or totally used (machine tools) for production of goods or interests, while working time with such a tool is considered as a capital bought at the lowest possible rate.
Socialism is based on capitalism while it considers that working time value represents about 30 to 35%. In fact it shares the gross profit in 3 thirds: capital, work and expenditures.
Communism is based on capital and work as the property of the government.
If you prefer, communism is a reversed capitalism.
Free market was a perfect notion when communications were slow and restricted to a small area because both the seller and the buyer use to know each other pretty well. This notion has been applied by the Physiocrats before the industrial era and Adam Smith/Jean-Paul Say(1776).
Physiocracy was itself based on the fact that "1 grain plus work provides 100 grains". Even if this was estimated to be on a full year, time was not considered for 2 main reasons: one religious and one for tax set on request by the kings.
Capitalism, called liberalism by Adam Smith himself, is the consequence of the steamer, of the huge investments needed in order to remain competitive in the cloth industry. The small "home" units were then so much suffering that the king issued a law stating that all bodies should be buried with shrouds. Zola described this industrial and capitalist society since 1868.
Socialism, as I stated above tries to share profits after expenditures between capital and work and therefore taxes accordingly with a scale which should be based on the minimal living standard and increasing per steps. Problem: a few shareholders pay a higher proportion than a lot of workers or employees obviously. Some countries, mainly the Scandinavian, Sweden in particular before being at 95% were taxing at 102% outsourcing the main capital.
Communism decides of the production, of who can buy what and of how much the wages are. It initiated the Stakhanovism were the best and more effective workers were rewarded with diploma and titles implying a better wage than the average for touring the country.
Neither communism neither capitalism dare too much about the welfare of the employees and the fast communications, the ability to issue more or less acceptable papers, the fact that at the end of the day one deals with someone unknown renders the free market notion as an Utopian one as described already by Thomas More in 1516, 260 years BEFORE the end of the Physiocracy.
I just hope to have been clear enough ... however it seems that every 250 years a huge economic change is taking place ... next one may be the Dynamism (LOL)
What a bunch of crap ... TR broke up the trusts that were squeezing the life out of capitalism. Go back and look at what was happening when there were allowed to be monopolies in this country. The government in that case acted against private interests for the benefit of capitalism and the people. That is so simple and obvious that it gives the lie to absolutely everything the far right people put up here ... from the time they joined Gather, they have no intention of having an objective conversation, they just meddle trying to confuse and kill the ability for Americans to understand what is going on in their country ... and the latest Supreme Court decision that Corporations are people in right in line with that so that the money of a few virtual monopolists can out-yell and drown out any inkling of democracy.
Bloomberg: "Workers' Health Coverage Premiums Climbed 63% In Seven Years, Study Shows
U.S. workers' health insurance premiums rose 63 percent from 2003 to 2010 as employers shifted more of the burden of rising medical costs to individuals and families, a study showed. The total cost of insuring a family through employer- sponsored health plans rose 50 percent over the same period, reaching an average of $13,871 a year by 2010."
...and "Obamacare" would be bad??????????
You can't be unaware of the immense web of red tape regarding healthcare. Here's a partial list:
?Employer health benefits are exempted from income taxes.
?The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act forces hospitals to treat all emergencies regardless of ability to pay
?Government programs account
?Mandatory government licensing
?FDA regulation, testing, and approval of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment
?State mandates for insurance companies
?Certificate of Need
?Restrictions on interstate health insurance purchases
?The AMA has lobbied for myriad restrictions on the supply of doctors
?Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
And then there's this: According to Henry Jones, M.D.,
➜The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act forces hospitals to treat all emergencies regardless of ability to pay
Do you really believe that this a hospital gift? This costs, as I already explained to you (was it on your site?) about the equivalent of more the expenditures of 200 MILLIONS people due to just a few 30 millions calling on emergency rooms (ER).
Obama care would SAVE (SAVE) about 20% of the present expenses!
Of course not, and I didn't say so ;-)
Boy, that's a real great job by the free market - a great job at greedily screwing the American public. And now the industry is flooding the information streams with flat-out lies about the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
If we want a realistic picture of how the people of this country is doing we should be looking at the employment rate.