James Fallows, by way of recommending a news item, lays out the key problem with our political system, media structure and economic trajectory. We’ve been chronicling this for close to two years, but he condenses it into two paragraphs.
Since winning control of the House, the Republican leadership has been brilliantly successful in convincing some of the public, enough of the news media, and at crucial points the Obama Administration that the main threat to America is future deficits. Thus the debt-ceiling collision; thus the agreed-on cutbacks; thus the frenzy through these past few months about deficit projections.
Meanwhile, what business people, ratings agencies, financiers, investors, central bankers, and even most Republican economists (with a predictable exception) consider the real emergencies for the country — stagnant growth, very high unemployment, the prospect of worldwide recession yet again, which among other bad effects would drive deficits even higher — will only get worse because of the new austerity drive. These officials are all trying to wave the GOP leaders off their commitment, but the politicians don’t notice, don’t care, or don’t grasp the point.
I might pinpoint the source of the problem a bit earlier – the pivot to the deficit occurred with the 2010 State of the Union, when the first Catfood Commission was enacted. That started to move public opinion and focus media attention on deficits, at a time when the economy was still weak. But in general, this is correct. We’re having the wrong conversation. And we’ve been having it for some time. You could argue that having this argument squarely on GOP turf led to their sweep of the 2010 midterms, ensuring that the conversation and the policy outcomes would tilt in this direction for at least the next two years.
So when you read that this could be one of the longest and most difficult recessions in history, and that it’s due to the “unusual nature” of the financial meltdown, essentially the Ken Rogoff/Carmen Reinhart “This Time Is Different” analysis, understand that such an analysis ignores the self-inflicted wounds from Washington at a time when the economy could have been revitalized. We have a demand problem, and government didn’t do what was necessary to boost that demand. What’s more, to the extent that this is a balance sheet recession (and it is), reducing household debt, particularly through the largest source of such debt, mortgages, would be the appropriate response, and yet the housing policies have been utterly useless if not actively harmful. You can talk about structural factors, the particular past performance of financial crises, and what have you. Government had the ability to fix this – at the absolute least ameliorate this – and they chose not to.
In short, there is no deficit that cannot be plugged except for our political deficit. It sustains the defeatism of years of no growth, stagnant wages, high unemployment. The political tendency toward right-wing and corporatist policy ideas over the past 30 years, tied up with the cost of running campaigns, the failure of traditional media, the conservative movement’s public relations machinery, has widened that political deficit between what government can provide and what it will provide. And this is exacerbated in a recession of this type. Ben Bernanke, of all people, gets this right:
Rogoff and the Reinharts base their conclusions on research into hundreds of economic downturns around the world, and the 2008 book by Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, “This Time Is Different,” has caught the attention of some White House officials.
The economists looked, for example, at the severe financial crises that played out in five industrialized economies: Spain in 1977, Norway in 1987, Finland and Sweden in 1991, and Japan in 1992 [...]
“Another possible explanation for the slow recovery from financial crises [in the other cases] might be that policy responses were not adequate,” (Bernanke) said.
Precisely. And Bernanke ought to know, he’s living through inadequate policy responses right now, through his own actions and that of the entire political class.





71 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
For me the entire Obama adminstration is captured this week. The stock market totally tanks in a global vote of no confidence. He goes to Iowa and tells a retired teacher that SHE must share the BURDEN (and if anyone knows any more frugal, salt of the earth types than Iowa teachers it would be news to me. They educated me and look how well I turned out.) Then he goes to Martha’s Vineyard on the taxpayer’s dime after lettiing us know that he might have a pretend jobs bill sometime safely after Labor Day so that he doesn’t have to link it to something so middle class and tacky as LABOR. Knowing him, it will probably be announced about 9/11 so it can be hidden in the 10th anniversary coverage. Don’t want to say jobs too loud, someone might notice there aren’t any.
We agree that we’re having the wrong conversation, but the discussion should be about structural changes and not stimulus of the current system b/c the current system doesn’t work.
Some people want radical structural changes. Some (like myself) favor less financial restriction of business (taxes, licenses, healthcare mandates, etc.) so as to encourage entrepreneurship and hiring.
The answer is not to pour more taxpayer money down the stimulus rathole. That won’t do anything to solve the basic problem of businesses which include not hiring but rather outsourcing production and services overseas b/c of the burdensome government disincentives to hire Americans.
We could have removed that health insurance burden entirely by going to a single payer system. And let the United States government put the burden on foreign corporations. Bring back tariffs. Government is in business to defend the American people in America and businesses who do business in America and reinvest their capital in America.
Rebuild the physical infrastructure of the United States — not China. Invest in research at public universities in the United States. Fund scholarships in math and science for American children.
Bring the troops home from abroad. Close the foreign bases.
I’m sure he’s really suffering too. I wonder if had Ramen noodles, Kraft macaroni and cheese, or Ragu for dinner last night — you know, poor people’s food?
There wasn’t really a “pivot” from jobs to deficit reduction. President Obama was neoliberally focuses from deficits from the outset — that, worry about deficits, was, according to the man himself, one reason why he pushed for such a relatively small stimulus.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003535.html
Earlier this week, I posted a diary and which focused on the 13 elements that Obama encountered when he went into the Ovoal Office and as part and parcel that was the “hangover” from Bush and Cheney. E’nuff said.
Further, the conservatives, Obama and Bernanke created $16 trillion in digital dollars to bailout the millionaires and billionaires. Now, I still find no one advoctating that Obama and Bernanke create another $16 trillion in digital dollars to help the unemployed and under-employed, as well as helping those that lost the primary place of residence and even to include homeowners that are currently underwater. Of course, this is “asking” for too much from the apparent Criminal Stupidity that exists today and which Reagan institutionalized and the majority of Democrats bought the full-scale for the “hook, line, and sinker.”
Jaango
Please, sir, may we have some more link?
Been saying it for months, really years. They are doing the wrong thing. The depression will get worse until Obama starts doing the right thing.
Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor et al have been utterly and consistently clear for quite some time now. They must see to it that things get worse so Obama can be Necklaced with it. They’re counting on being able to sell that.
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
There is probably a 10 trillion dollar plus solid nucleus to the US economy.
If the debt was subtracted and the velocity of money effect from that debt money was subtracted from our nominal 14 trillion dollar economy, that’s where we’d be 10+ trillion. That is our honest economy. The 14 trillion number is just an illusion, a political tool.
A) 10 trillion is still pretty damn good
B) From that solid nucleus we would have the chance for real sustained growth which would lead to a lasting boom
C) 5% growth per annum would have us at an honest 14 trillion dollar GDP in 7 years, 3% growth would have us there in 11 years
D) The current Keynesian approach undermines real investment (who would invest knowing that this economy is a total lie?)
E) Therefore we are likely to have no real growth over the next 7 to 11 years – or worse, real decline!
In the long run we are not all dead. Just ask Japan. They haven’t grown for going on 20 years now. This is exactly what the high priests of the false religion are selling us.
Reading the reviews (not the book) indicate to me that Rogoff and Reinhart provide a historical context for the current U.S. economic problems which have an inevitability in them, but they do not suggest a remedy. (Lest someone misunderstand, the book title “This Time Is Different” is ironic sarcasm.)
one review:
We know how to fix this. We have known for at least 75 years. It is called Keynesianism.
In the long run we’re all dead.
Trends are important, and in the U.S. they are not good when one considers the demographics (older and sicker), the wasteful excesses of empire (with endless war, the worsening education system, a widening economic divide, poor health care, and other factors, all of which suggest to me that any suggestion of 5% growth (w/o structural changes) is fanciful, which is what you suggest too.
So many brains, so much knowledge, so much history, and yet they are the greatest crew of Dumb-Fucks ever. Everything is staring them right in the face and screaming at them and they either don’t see it or they ignore it. I honestly don’t know which is worse.
“They must see to it that things get worse so Obama can be Necklaced with it. They’re counting on being able to sell that.”
It’s actually true. Obama started his Catfood Commission way before the last election. What’s causing the problems is what Obama has either voluntarily chosen to do or chosen not do to do. It’s not the the Republicans are the solution, but neither is Obama as he’s advocating the same destructive policies.
How is, in any way, the current approach Keynesian? It really isn’t. It’s more like supply side Globalism, or whatever, but it is not based on the policies used in teh 30′s and 40′s to get us out of this sinkhole.
Do you have any comparative evidence? Ie. German, Scandinavian, Japanese, “disincentives” to hire natives?
The political leadership has been using “your” line for the past thirty-plus years, which has brought us to this point. You won’t do any good for the world saying stuff like that, but if you can combine it with a CV which reveals continuous employment with the elites, they’ll give you a job with some power.
“Dumb-Fucks” that laugh all the way to the bank, that is.
The Japanese know how to stick together better than we do. Americans form “friendships” easily, but which are of no consequence. Take away our money, and we’re alone in the world.
Maybe I’m just dumb but…
I’m having trouble interpreting the “change” in the chart that accompanies the front page version of this story.
Which way do the +/- figures on unemployment work? Does + mean that unemployment in that state changed to more people unemployed or fewer.
No.
Generally speaking, though, someone here needs to call bullsh*t on Fallows, who said:
The “deficit” thing was, first and last, Obama’s doing. It was in his plans all along. Pinning this on the Republicans just makes it worse.
There are one or two hungry people in he world who take a different view of laughing all the way to the bank. I think you could not have disclosed your fundamental me first values more clearly.
Guess what — politicians rarely do what they say they will do, particularly when there is no urgency from the citizens that they do so.
I wonder why you chose the passive voice – “when the first Catfood Commission was enacted” – instead of pointing out that it was created and stacked with deficit hawks by Obama?
Also, my recollection is that Obama was channeling Geithner well before this recent hysteria, saying that their plan was to do a stimulus and within two years turn to deficit reduction. And seems I read that Geithner reiterated this plan during a recent magazine interview.
Bull. Shit.
What effing ‘Keynesian approach’?
Obama’s approach is straight up Chicago school and Milton Friedman. Not Keynesian – Krugman and Roubini are Keynesians.
Some do. Some don’t. You obviously believe it’s okay to promise stuff you have no intention of delivering.
It’s too bad that they decided to skip the stimulus part of their plan, then.
Actually the joke is on you.
Note to everybody else:
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/71485
Thirty years of cutting taxes and deregulating cause a financial meltdown and whats the big fix proposed?
Cut taxes
Deregulate
Oh, and shrink government by screwing you out of the programs you’ve paid for your whole working life that work fine and are self funded until you give the rich endless tax breaks and get in endless losing wars that make us less safe.
Well, this is a FUCKING great plan! Where can I sign up? Oh, I see, I can have all this AND vote Democratic or Republican! Such a deal!
I don’t know why this is being called Lesser Depression. We don’t know how severe it is, since the numbers are cooked. However, my guess is that the numbers are closer to 20% unemployment than 9.4%. This is what it feels like.
Do you really believe the Administration, which is lying about everything else would level with us on the stats? And we have not yet reached peak, we still have a way to go. But for sure this is not a recession, we are way beyond it. Our pols have been telling us that the recession has ended. I know this is a joke. And the joke is: what is the difference between recession and depression? Answer: when your neighbor is unemployed it is a recession, when you are unemployed it is depression.
jawbone@7
Here are the 13 elements. And taken from my diary.
1. The Great Recession
2. Two Deadly Wars
3. A Jobs Crisis
4. A Massive Deficit and Budget Mess
5. Crushing National Debt
6. A Healthcare System in Shambles
7. A Climate Crisis
8. An Ineffective Energy Policy
9. An Ineffective Immigration Policy
10. A Housing Crisis
11. The U.S. Auto Industry Verging on Collapse
12. The Retention at Gitmo
13. An Angry and Divided Electorate
Hope this helps, for starters.
Jaango
You deserve a “D” for labeling the current approach Keynesian. This austerity policy is Milton Friedman supply side economics straight from the “Shock Doctrine”. Keynesian economics is the antithesis of our government’s economic policy, it doesn’t create the wealth inequality that is strangling our country.
Should change its persona to afterNOthought.
The “Dumb-Fucks” are enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, and they could not care less.
“I might pinpoint the source of the problem a bit earlier – the pivot to the deficit occurred with the 2010 State of the Union”
Thank you!
Paul Krugman used the term The Lesser Depression as the title of an OpEd on July 21 and DDayen hearts Krugman.
How severe is it? We’ll find out. Meanwhile we know:
* U.S. consumer confidence has crashed to a 30-year low.
* stock markets worldwide have been ringing warning bells since late July, as share prices have plunged in the steepest pullback since the 2008 financial-system crash.
* prospects in the manufacturing sector have dimmed markedly.
* economic growth this year: first-half growth was shockingly dismal. GDP rose at a mere 0.4% rate in the first quarter and 1.3% in the second.
* banks brace for more troubles
* the housing market remains a problem
* many public-sector employees must choose between taking cuts in wages and benefits or enduring massive layoffs
* U.S. military spending continues unabated
for more see jaango above
That’s a rather regressive economic solution you’re proposing. Deregulation got us into this mess and you advocate for more of the same. Free up the market and rely on the it to police itself. That was just sarcasm, right?
this is so wrong, so incorrect on so many levels, I can’t even make a joke about it
OBAMA wanted the changes he made believe he was “forced into” bargaining away
we KNOW this as a fact SINCE he gave away the issues before negotiation even hit the floor
obama did this on his own, he was not maniputed” by the republicans, HE is the republican, HE is the corporatist and the policies he passed were HIS
It’s really unnecessary to separate Obama from the word Republican when referring to him or his policies.
Obama should not appear, ever, without a backdrop of the deficit chart showing contributions of the tax cuts and the wars. But since he now owns both, he won’t.
I obviously didn’t bother reading this far before replying to the BS @2.
Well, Barack Obama’s response to the economic devastation being wreaked on the United States is to wander through the least economically devastated area of it (the Midwest) on a campaign trip and ramble on about tackling the deficit and how Social Security’s COLA adjustments need to be readjusted downwards.
So I expect the next decade or two is going to be a fucking bumpy ride.
You’re confusing deregulation of the financial market (i.e. banks allowed to sell securities) with business over-regulation. Job creation must be done at the small business level. According to federal statistics, small firms (those with fewer than 500 employees):
• Represent some 99 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ more than half of all private-sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
Economists believe that regulation hurts small business in several ways. First, regulatory compliance exerts a disproportionately large burden on small companies because the fixed costs of adhering to rules can be spread out over more revenue in large firms than in small ones. Second, government regulations make small businesses less competitive against foreign competition. Third, adding regulations creates uncertainty, which keeps small business owners from investing and hiring. The new health care requirements are an example.
The United States does not compare well with many industrialized nations on the dimension of small business regulation. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that the U.S. had higher regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship, greater administrative burdens on small business owners, and higher barriers to competition than a number of other industrialized countries.
I won’t go into specificity on the various regulations, licenses and mandates, at the federal, state and local levels, but they are there and they are plentiful. Small businesses are subject to a bewildering array of regulations at the municipal, state and federal level. Various licenses, taxes and restrictions drive jobs overseas.
Small (and large) business has discovered that outsourcing manufacturing and services (even legal!) overseas is a simple and efficient way to avoid government regulation, so the outsourcing industry is huge. And guess who has spoken at their annual convention? Robert Reich, Clinton’s Labor Secretary. “Outsourcing isn’t to blame for the slow recovery. The jobs recovery has been anemic because there hasn’t been enough demand to restart the jobs machine.” And don’t forget Obama’s jobs guy, Jeff Immelt: “When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China. [Five Chinas] You need to be there. You need to change the way people talk about it and how they get there. I am a nut on China. . .The cost basis is extremely attractive. You can take an 18 cubic foot refrigerator, make it in China, land it in the United States, and land it for less than we can make an 18 cubic foot refrigerator ourselves.”
So structural changes are needed, not least in the tax laws. The current tax law gives US corporations an added incentive not only to offshore employment but also to reinvest the earnings of offshored operations outside the United States.
Thinking of starting a business? Then think on the IRS.
Increase in Information Return Penalties
Section 2102 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 increased penalties for failure to file information returns, failure to furnish correct payee statements, and for intentional disregard of the law.
Under section 6721 of the Internal Revenue Code, penalties may be assessed for failure to file correct information returns by the due date, without reasonable cause. This includes forms in the 1099 series. The penalty may also apply if you show incomplete or incorrect information, or file on paper when you were required to file electronically, or fail to file machine readable paper forms.
For returns required to be filed January 1, 2011, or later, the penalty for each information return filed is as follows:
$30 per return if you correctly file within 30 days; the maximum penalty is $250,000 per year. For small businesses, the maximum penalty is $75,000 per year.
$60 per return if you correctly file more than 30 days after the due date but by August 1; the maximum penalty is $500,000 per year. For small businesses, the maximum is $200,000 per year.
$100 per return if you correctly file after August 1; the maximum penalty is $1,500,000 per year. For small businesses, the maximum penalty is $500,000 per year.
The penalty for failure to furnish correct payee statements under IRC 6722 increases to $100 per return. The maximum penalty under this provision is $1,500,000 per year. For small businesses, the maximum penalty is $500,000 per year. These penalties may be reduced as follows:
For failures corrected within 30 days after the due date, the penalty is reduced to $30 per return. The maximum penalty is $250,000 per year. For small businesses, the maximum penalty is $75,000 per year.
For failures corrected on or before August 1 the penalty is reduced to $60 per return. The maximum penalty is $500,000 per year. For small businesses, the maximum is $200,000 per year.
etc.
The working class spent most of the twentieth century trying to claw back some of the wealth that had been taken from them by the royalty since about 1300. I guess the workers figured they had some kind of right to it since they had died by the millions in the royalty’s wars and they knew how to get guns and fight. But sometime at the end of the 20th century the wealthy decided that this process had gone far enough, and they started to take some of it back.
It appears that in the last few years they have taken steps to go in for the kill and take away the fundamental structures of the working class’s security system: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public worker jobs and pensions. They are getting their wealth back the same way they got it the first time, by privatizing public land and resources, moving people off their land, separating them from their own means of making a living and then running them into debt. Once in debt it is only a couple of steps down to servitude and slavery. You owe your soul to the company store.
You have to hand it to them. They have done a great job stopping any trends toward equality and prosperity, killing regulations on business and diverting tax money to support their bad investment decisions. They have completely taken over the political system all the way to the top and eliminated any possibility of a movement to protect Social Security and the rest.
As Jon Stewart put it, “The free ride for the poor is over.” The Heritage Institute has proven it: “If you think you are poor now, you have got no idea how poor real poverty can be.”
This is not a recession or a depression. In those kind of events there is hope of coming out of them after some length of time. But this is a new era in the economic structures in world society, a return to a feudal structure dominated by a new royalty of corporations superseding the nation state with the corporate state.
I stopped reading James Fallows when he wrote and article about how our trade policy with China was “working” for both America and China. It was ridiculous, elitist, nonsense. Our current trade policy has never worked for most Americans and it’s still not working. Yes, we are having the wrong conversation, but we need to broaden it to address the failed neoliberal ideology that has led us here.
We are so far from that point it is laughable. When you have Matt Yglesias and others on the so called “left” side of the blogosphere defending neoliberal policies you know how desperate the situation is.
Stimulate the economy. Hire an accountant.
You do realize that the feds classify small business as to ownership rather than the number of employees or their net profit. The Koch brothers are “small business owners”, according to the feds.
The enactment of free trade policies like NAFTA are what enable businesses to outsource jobs without penalty, and Immelt is a greedy pig who profits from outsourcing and the war machine. If the global corporations could have their govt. representatives deregulate enough so that the minimum wage was reduced to $5/day and no benefits, we could compete with the slave wages and conditions that are the hallmark of those countries to which we’ve outsourced our manufacturing.
Of course, we’d cease to be the USA.
The emphasis on deficit reduction becomes understandable when viewed in the context of class warfare–the upper one-tenth or one one-hundredth of one percent against everyone else. The debt reduction campaign has the effect, entirely intended, of crushing the middle and working classes. This is the real goal of the plutocrats, not economic recovery.
A good line about the economy by Larry Elliot writing in the Guardian about the Brit economy and the riots.
“We have seen the future and we know it sucks.”
That would be good on a T-shirt with a vision of both the Anti-FDR and Hairy Perry displayed.
Maybe, someday, our presently nonexistant FDL store, selling Made In USA stuff, will carry that item.
Wrong.
SBA defines a small business concern as one that is independently owned and operated, is organized for profit, and is not dominant in its field. Depending on the industry, size standard eligibility is based on the average number of employees for the preceding twelve months or on sales volume averaged over a three-year period.
Bullshit. What we need is a good dose of Keynesian stiumulus, one that can make a dent, not some vague bs about regulations. If we had more regs, we might not be in this fucking depression. Find a lousy reg, sure we can dump it, but the focus has to be on jobs. If we really wanted to we could put everyone to work in a year, but we won’t. Just give a job to everyone who wants it working on infrastructure at $8 as a transition. Go read Warren Mosler, he’ll give you an idea or two.
All this talk about deficits is killing us. But the tea party has us all over a barrel with the debt limit. It’s a fucking worm hole with no way out. We have a first class political crisis and I begin to think it can’t be broken for five years and not then if we cannot take back congress and get a sane president. Funny, the problems are all fixable but the Kochs and their friends won’t let us.
You keep overlooking the fact that the destruction of the US and world economy is P L A N N E D.
Destroying sovereignty and independent wealth of nations is the plan and the banksters are doing it with Obama’s and our bought congress’ help
As I said, all fixable but the Kochs won’t let us.
So I did. Warren Mosler writes:
*cut FICA taxes
*Restore Small Bank Lending
*cut income taxes
*don’t pressure China to revalue its currency
I don’t have a problem with any of those.
For a brief second there I thought you wrote “Walter Mosely” and I would never read any of his stuff, like:
“There are people dying and being tortured because of the exigencies of the corporations that we support with our dollars and by the government we support by being good Democrats and by the cars we drive fueled by foreign oil and the clothes we wear that were made by slaves to our dollars. We are becoming what we have fought so bravely against, and in becoming our enemy, we stumble and fall.” –Walter Mosely
Its sad that this time around, unlike in the 30′s Depression Gov’t is already a huge part of the economy and pouring more $$ into it won’t change that much IMO. In NJ we already have $150K a yr. ( with pension and health benes included) cops, teachers, firemen etc.. So saying were going to make them 200K a yr. while the communities they serve fold because nobody can afford them and all the businesses are either failed or leaving makes little sense. The last stim. ended up just fattening these folks bottom lines and did Nada for everyone else.
BO alright. He stinks.
The feds are hiring — here’s 1002 jobs in Washington, a quarter of them paying over $100K. How about Human Resources Officer at $119,554.00+ ? Somebody has to help manage the two million federal employees, and growing.
Lesser depression? They never heard of it.
Businesses are hiring too. They’re always hiring, even companies that are shrinking their payroll. You see, there’s this thing called “attrition” which goes on among workforces…
The fact is that the number of federal employees actually *shrank* under Obama in 2009-2010. The net change has been downward.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/09/the_everexpandi.html
(So much for your “stimulus doesn’t work” argument. The problem is stimulus has been scarcely tried).
-stewartm
Sheesh, we’ve got guys like Schumer whining that we can’t raise takes on people making $250K because that’s just barely a living wage on the East Coast but you whine that professional experienced public employees should be capped at half that in total compensation. Here’s a clue: they pay taxes, they have mortgages, they don’t get free utilities, their children also need to be educated.
This happens all the time among the right. Can’t tax a millionaire!!! That teacher making $40K is a freeloader!!!!
We’ve had thirty years of that, with sad results.
A better strategy is to socialize the economy and to push wealth downwards. Remove some industries (finance) from profit-making entirely; finance would be handled by a Bank of the US and by credit unions. Revoke the charters of all corporations and transform them into employee-owned cooperatives, governed by employees with one person, one vote. Their stocks would be transformed into bonds (you invest money, but you don’t have a direct vote).
End “free trade” agreements, or re-write them to encompass labor and environmental concerns.
Lastly–this talk of “structural unemployment” is BS. We don’t have an underqualified workforce, the problem is that our education system produces too many overqualified people. You don’t need a PhD to be a bench scientist, for instance, nor a BS to be a technician or analyst. Yet that is the model you see being used by companies today, because there is this surplus of candidates overqualified for the positions they are taking. Too little education is not the cause of our unemployment.
It’s jobs. What we need is a *permanent WPA*, not just for low-educated unemployed doing physical labor (though we need that too) but also for those with degrees, employing them in their field of education at slightly below-median wages. There is always the public sector work that needs doing, despite the cries of the free marketeers.
And we need a high progressive tax system (up to 90 % of incomes) to prevent the rich from capturing government and to push wealth downwards (which is what that does). We need a stimulus of at least $4 trillion, $2 trillion to infrastructure that is already crumbling and another $2 trillion to improve on it–solar roofs on all houses, high-speed rails, a new power grid, faster internet, energy efficiency, the list goes on and one.
$4 trillion is not the budget-buster you pretend it is; in fact, it’s just about 5 years of current military spending. And with the tax increase, we would end our deficit and shrink our debt all at once.
-stewartm
Obama interview this morning:
‘”You’ve got an unemployment rate that is still too high, an economy that’s not growing’ fast enough,” Obama said in an interview with CBS News taped during his economic-themed bus tour of three states last week.
‘”For me to argue, look, we’ve actually made the right decisions, things would have been much worse had we not made those decisions, that’s not that satisfying if you don’t have a job right now.
. . .
‘”I don’t think we’re in danger of another recession, but we are in danger of not having a recovery that’s fast enough to deal with what is a genuine unemployment crisis for a whole lot of folks out there — and that’s why we need to be doing’ more,” he said.
“Hardening his tone, Obama has accused Republicans of blocking his plans to create jobs and revive the economic recovery, and of putting their own political gain ahead of their nation’s needs.”
The bastids are busily scurrying around to protect themselves:
“The immediate issue is a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, the corporate and Wall Street regulatory overhaul act passed last year to address some of the financial abuses uncovered in the wake of the 2008 crash. In the year since its passage, Dodd-Frank has become a favorite target of business leaders and conservative lawmakers who blame it for creating “uncertainty” in corporate boardrooms, and therefore hampering job creation.
“One of the fiercest attacks involves a little-noticed provision requiring that companies disclose the ratio between the average pay of all employees and that of the CEO. This ratio, as it happens, all but defines the pathology of income inequality in the United States; over the last 30 years, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and elsewhere cited by its author, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), it has ballooned from 42-to-1 to more than 300-to-1. In the same period, according to data compiled by economist Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkeley, the richest 10% of U.S. income earners captured 98% of all income growth, and the bottom nine-tenths got 2%.
“The disclosure provision plainly has gotten under Big Business’ skin. Although Dodd-Frank includes rules requiring that shareholders get a vote on executive pay and for a “clawback” of pay based on inaccurate financial statements, “there has been a more substantial amount of commentary on the pay ratio than any other provision relating to executive compensation,” Paul Hodgson, a senior researcher at the shareholder research firm GMI, told me.
. . .
“Corporate lobbyists argue that compiling the numbers will be a huge burden for multinational companies forced to compile information from dozens of incompatible payroll systems and will require reams of explanatory pages in corporate documents.”
Great comment. Should be a poster in the WH, but Tim would tear it down.
Are there people who are paid by corporations to post on Liberal boards like this?
Some info here.