Talking population can still be a risky thing. USDA recently hosted a meeting at UC Davis where, my brother-in-law informs me, the projection was made to 8 or 10 billion people. This projection was then used as justification for what apparently is now a USDA policy to withdraw support for organic farming initiatives because only intensive GMO and petroleum-based agri-industrial farming can hope to feed all the hungry people. When I remarked that I did not necessarily believe the projections -- being a skeptic about every projection always -- I found myself somehow in an argument about ProChoice versus ProLife politics.
People are becoming more realistic about over-population and carrying capacity but any discussion of population growth is still mired in emotional quicksand.
Although 'mountain matt' and 'miasmo' have contrary takes on the Occupy Movement, I agree with both on substantial points.
I agree with 'miasmo' here --
So far the movement has succeeded in shifting the national discourse from an idiotic obsession with deficits (which amounts to Hooverism given the current state of the economy) to the issue of jobs and wealth inequality.
I agree (in part) with 'mountain matt' here --
Like nationalizing the Fed and banks, ending corporate personhood, limits to campaign funds, eliminating tax loopholes, single payer healthcare, and treason charges for corrupt politician and police.
Here are my reservations about proposals of 'mountain matt' --
I don't think that the term 'nationalize' is how to describe taking control of the Fed away from the banks, because the Fed is already formally a part of the government, even though the FOMC is currently practically controlled by representatives of privately owned banks, rather than by public members of the FOMC. Also, the American Monetary Act -- the best proposal for monetary and financial reform -- envisions privately owned banks, although without their authorization to create money through fractional reserve practices.
About "treason charges," the proposal of 'mountain matt' is extreme, although not really inappropriate in many cases. The problem is that without a change in the statutes for treason, it would be libelous to publish claims of treason.
But how about this? We should be demanding legislation broader than, but not unlike, the War Profiteering Prevention Act. The bill was never enacted, although some provisions were passed in 2008 -- as part of a deal that allowed oil drilling without regulations that, arguably, would have prevented the BP oil spill.
When I suggest legislation broader than war profiteering, I have in mind such things as possible profiteering through deliberate manipulation of the gold market by Speaker Boehner in August, in timing of his unexpected walk-out from White House debt ceiling talks. (Insider information in that if you knew about this action before the market closed, you could have made a fortune using margin available through the Merc.)
I have saved you from your -1 rating, countering it with a +1 to equal a great big ZERO. My view is that a -1 rating draws more attention to a comment than the ZERO does. (I'm not part of EP but I do get to vote on comments.)
Anyway, I think that there is something to the idea that the power of the executive branch expanded during the first two administrations of FDR, although this could hardly be rationally termed a "coup d'état". You need to take note that the power of the executive branch cannot be equated to the power of the presidency especially since all those powers were (and are) subject to judicial review. Expansion of the powers of the executive branch was mainly due to creation of such entities as the SEC and the NLRB, with the power of the presidency carefully isolated from operations of those agencies.
Power of the presidency was expanded during World War II (not during the Depression). Power of the presidency always expands during times of war, although the most egregious of such anti-constitutional expansions have been the War Powers legislation and the PATRIOT Act, which occurred long after FDR's time and not in times of war declared according to the Constitutional provision for declaration of war.
And then there's the matter of your completely overlooking the role of the Fed in extending (or even in creating) the Great Depression. (The Federal Reserve Act is dated 1916, long before FDR's first administration.)
However, I give you a high grade for originality in your "leaning" toward FDR's gold regulations as extending the Depression -- I guess all the way into the Nixon Administration
But how does that jibe with your recognition that "If gold price manipulation was the case, it would cause a lack of confidence in the legal money and probably contributed to the run on the banks." Are you aware that the runs on banks began in 1930, long before the first FDR administration (1933)? Are you aware of FDR's "nothing to fear but fear itself" radio talk that greatly restored confidence in banks?
Your idea that gold speculation contributed to runs on banks would seem to indicate that FDR's gold regulations contributed to confidence in the USD that lasted until Nixon repealed FDR's regulations in 1971. The original Bretton Woods agreement was in 1944. So if that ended the Depression (???), per another of your leanings, then there was no Depression all the way until Nixon nixed the closed the gold window in 1971. But, if the Depression ended after Bretton Woods, then how could FDR's gold regulations have extended the Depression? And anyway there was no Depression into 1971.
I don't really care if someone "wrote for the New York Times". That rubbish attacking FDR is not for this site.
Good frickin' God, look, this site is solid economics. Trying to claim somehow inflation is the fault, or due to immigration is pure, unmitigated bunk. So is trying to blame the housing bubble.
I'm sorry but please stop this nonsense.
Look, inflation has everything to do with global commodities and exchange rates and the housing bubble has everything to do with CDOs stuffed with MBSes.
I'm sorry but trying to blame everything on immigration is just really ridiculous.
The links aren't about the banks, it's a FDR blast which was a propaganda campaign that really hit up in 2008. Complete economic fiction and we'll assume that's because income inequality has swung into the macro economic economy and a host of people despise, absolutely despise middle classes or helping people, providing any social equalizers financially.
But look, I'm not interested in chasing down comments which claim things were are completely, 100%, economics 101, wrong. You can listen, learn but writing nonsense on this site does not fly.
Price stability is simply not wages. Labor costs are not the same thing as "price stability" and please, again, stop this.
It's one thing to argue against quantitative easing or using only core inflation for policy, but simply quite another to throw out a current rate, ignoring a strong deflationary period recently and project this claim Bernake's suggests we lose over 25% of PPP and keep wages flat. That is simply not what he is saying.
The links in the article touch on Bernanke's research papers, I'm not hunting down the connections for you beyond what I know I already looked at when writing up an article for this site.
I've had it on this frankly. I'm sorry, this site is also an educational reference site, so writing nonsense claiming it's fact is simply not going to be allowed.
Who's writing fiction? Sterling E. Edmunds contributed articles to the New York Times. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the pdf. Nothing on Snopes.com.
I read the post you linked, watched the videos and read the comments. Not much on gold except that Bernanke appears to be of the opinion that the U. S. was hoarding, which would be necessary as reserves in order to create more paper dollars, and that the domestic gold valuation was manipulated? If gold price manipulation was the case, it would cause a lack of confidence in the legal money and probably contributed to the run on the banks.
Bernanke's speech is disturbing, does he work for the United States or the Global economy? A targeted "inflation rate" (CPI I presume) of above 2% coupled with "price stability" (i.e. flat wages) is a tax. A 100 dollar bill will lose $25.43 in purchasing power in 10 years, and desired policy dictates that wages will be fixed or lower (i.e. price stability). The CPI excludes food and fuel, so there's no telling how badly inflation would devalue the Federal Reserve Note. (Price stability is achieved through immigration, which also causes housing inflation.)
I still don't get your resistance to brining up any document in the context of how the banksters conquered the USA in this forum. For populism to succeed, knowledge of the tools that the elite use to divide the population is essential.
"So, the real agenda is to destroy the United States. MNCs don't like nation-states, they are inconvenient for their agendas, except to play nation-states off of each other for tax, asset hiding and currency exchange purposes." -- Robert Oak
Reference is to "agendas" (plural) of MNCs. Of course, there are various corporation-specific agendas; however, the greater threat to nation-states (and to global stability) is the arch-agenda of global capital. That agenda is driven through corporations but represents a force that the management of no MNC can long resist. Moreover, the structure of global finance is such that there are no adequate means available to more enlightened MNC management leadership (or investor groups) to effect changes in a system that is structurally designed to drive the downward spiral of the race-to-the-bottom.
There is an overall agenda that is driven by the structure of global finance capitalism. This 'arch-agenda' isn't something governed by some secret group like 'the Illuminati' (Rockefellers and Rothschilds in an unholy alliance with China's Hu and Wen). The arch-agenda of global capital operates rather as a system of social dynamics that follows observable laws that have evolved over time and which have become accepted as laws of human nature, although these 'laws' are actually culturally determined in the complex reality of social globalization.
The situation was well examined, IMO, in the classic analysis of the Bhopal tragedy, The Enemy of Nature by Joel Kovel (2003). However, Kovel's prediction is problematic and doubtful, that the ultimate solution or cure for the race-to-the-bottom is anarcho-syndicalism. I also disagree with Kovel's prognosis that capitalism, as such, is the culprit. Nonetheless, Kovel's analysis of how contemporary finance capitalism functions to determine an arch-agenda with which no MNC can do other than conform is persuasive.
By carefully pursuing a neo-mercantilist agenda along with well-governed monetarist policy, some nation-states with autocratic governments -- like China and Singapore -- are able to resist the power of MNCs and of global capital. Such governments are able to play the MNCs as much as the MNCs are able to play them. Of course, a corrupt autocratic government or military dictatorship, with little or no populist base, inevitably and invariably caves to MNC agendas, even as the national economy and welfare is quickly driven into the toilet.
By contrast, nations with democratic traditions, including the rule of law, are having a difficult time resisting the globalist agenda, now that it has taken hold. IMO, this situation derives from two sources: (1) the WTO program to eliminate non-tariff barriers by first eliminating all barriers to the flow of capital along with tariff barriers on goods and services, and, (2) the now experientially bankrupt pseudo-economics of the "Austrian School" and related globalist pseudo-economic theories that set up the accumulation of free-floating capital as, in and of itself, the ultimate "good" that society should or must pursue. (The Citizens United ruling can be seen as a corollary of the experientially bankrupt pseudo-economics of the 'Austrian School'.)
Among the many challenges presenting in our brave new world at the beginning of the Third Millennium -- now that the false religion of financial globalism has been exposed -- is the restructuring of trade barriers to include the regulation of capital flows. Unfortunately, there are many in government today (including the otherwise laudable Rep. Ron Paul) who still cling to the pseudo-scientific economic theories of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, ironically and falsely advanced as in support of individual liberty and the rule of law.
Absent intelligent call for structural reform both economic and political, it makes little difference whether we elect Barack Obama or a Republican in 2012. For fundamental economic reform, the first step for the USA is available in HR 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011. See, American Monetary Institute:
"Occupy protesters just want to 'give it to the man', because that is all the detail that their limited education and pop culture driven mentality can produce."
Their is a wide spectrum of education and economic understanding within the movement. Referring to the protestors as if they are a homogenous monolith is simple-minded. Perhaps this is caused by your "limited education and pop culture driven mentality." (See, two can play this game.)
"They need to grow up and join an organized movement with real leaders and real goals."
So far the movement has succeeded in shifting the national discourse from an idiotic obsession with deficits (which amounts to Hooverism given the current state of the economy) to the issue of jobs and wealth inequality. Please show which "organized movement with real leaders and real goals" has managed to do as much. Hurling mean-spirited insults at the movement that has already gotten better results than any other group or phenomenon in the country is what I would call "just [an] angry [child] throwing a temper tantrum."
that link is just pure fiction, CT, not appropriate for EP.
On Gold and it's relationship to the Great Depression, believe this or not, Bernanke has talked a lot about this and he has some really interesting research. some overviews on his research here.
Anyway, please refrain from linking to absurd CT.
and no, high tariffs did not cause the Great Depression. We've debunked that repeatedly as many other economists have as well. the U.S. was primarily a domestic economy in the early 1930's and Smoot-Hawley didn't raise tariffs by much in comparison to previous.
It's just a lobbyist talking point to push for more bad trade deals. They whip that bogus claim out as often as the other lobbyists name call people racist xenophobes to get their unlimited migration/foreign guest worker Visas passed.
I figured I’d get a “judging a book by its cover” response from the comment. I’m finding the similarities between the Depression era and today quite astounding — but largely in documents originating from the period. Sure, some noble social INSURANCE (not entitlement) programs came from the period, but a lot also went wrong.
I believe that we (myself) included have a superficial understanding of the Great Depression. Yes, the document (written by an attorney) has the slant of producerism, but the document contains an outline of the period that has survived, and is free from spin and paraphrased interpretation of those who did not live through the Depression.
For instance, I'm looking for instances (written within the period) of blame being laid on tariffs as the cause for extending the Depression. I lean more towards the gold control act extending the Depression and the Bretton Woods act as a agreement that broke the depression (fixed gold prices caused later problems though). I’m only finding modern economists who blame tariffs -- to support the concept of Income Tax -- which in turn is required to support central banking.
(I just searched the ROOSEVELT COUP D’ETAT document, it does not contain the word “tariff”)
I take the conservative slant of the document with a grain of salt, as I do with progressive and liberal POV writing -- but I read them both to try to understand grievances vs. spin. The value of the document is that I see similar action/reaction to today's economic hardship, and evidence of how the central banks (once again) manipulated process.
IMHO: Most in OWS blame the banksters, but the tool to defeating the banksters is in restoring sound currency.
Think Progress has some more stats and the fact in one month, people joined credit unions greater than all of 2010 is amazing.
That's before yesterday, bank transfer day and OWS is also holding a "move your money day" on Tuesday.
This is very exciting. It would be great if America acted in concert and used their consumer power to control corporate behavior and have a say in these monstrosities running the nation.
I actually closed out my Wells Fargo account awhile ago but I had similar problems, so they aren't exactly nice when trying to close out an account, or make it easy.
This should push those with accounts at Wells Fargo over the line, story.
The intent of the occupy protesters does deserve respect. However, they have no leadership, no goal, and no plan. Just like the individual protesters themselves. They would like to say they are modelled after arab spring protests. However, the protesters in north africa had a goal. They wanted a new constitution and free elections after the removal of a dictator. Occupy protesters just want to "give it to the man", because that is all the detail that their limited education and pop culture driven mentality can produce. How will you give it to the man? By sitting in a cold park and protesting nothing in particular? Occupy protesters are just angry children throwing a temper tantrum. They need to grow up and join an organized movement with real leaders and real goals. Like nationalizing the Fed and banks, ending corporate personhood, limits to campaign funds, eliminating tax loopholes, single payer healthcare, and treason charges for corrupt politician and police.
I like the fact the purple font color matches the purple kool-aid. Yeah, Jim Jones and watch out for the cult. You simply have to be kidding me. The FDR administration laid the foundations to grow the U.S. middle classes to the largest in it's history. All sorts of things, now taken for granted were done in FDR's administration. Congress went along with FDR mainly because the country was in absolute crisis and the people voted them in to do it. That was the first 100 days often referred to. Hello, it was 1934 and people were literally starving, never mind shelter. Then, there was this minor thing called Hitler and a world war, which had a tendency to stream line Congressional action.
This site is an economics site and when it comes to analyzing, overviewing government statistics, it's key critical to be accurate because so many in the press, never mind regular people, get it wrong.
So, don't worry, every month when I overview this report, and I still have two more overviews to work on, I mention that foreign guest workers and illegals are counted, both in civilian non-institutional population and employed statistics.
But if you want to gain credibility that U.S. workers are being labor arbitraged by foreign workers on guest worker Visas, it's key critical to be deadly accurate and present valid data, statistics.
I agree that we can't objectively state that all of this months jobs went to temporary worker, Currently, the cap subject H-1B applications are 70.800 with an unknown number of exemptions.
BLS data is seasonally adjusted and subject to revision, they know the temporary workers are coming. Further, the DOL manages the BLS and the Labor Certification Applications for H-1B. I'd say there is a lot of pressure on BLS to use all of the tricks in the book to deliver a better job number. Does it matter if the H-1B arrive in Oct. or Nov -- especially if they were hired in Oct.?
The Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, shows 1.14 million non-immigrant admissions for FY-2010, from India which generally contributes about 50,000 H-1B, so the airlines are quite capable of transporting the workers in a single month.
After waiting six months, and with the three/six year clock ticking, and business preferring the H-1B over the green-card due to expedience (no FBI background check), why would you think that these workers wouldn't go to work immediately?
here we go again blaming everything on FDR, a president elected 4 times... this rule overturned by right wing republicans who never thought they'd have a president of their party again elected as president
once again we have an economic disaster created by republicans in which a democrat is trying to solve only to be vilified by the neo-conservatives.
you guys suck... plain and simple please just go away and let rational people fix the current problem
Every month I do point out foreign guest workers and illegals are counted in the statistics, but that said, one cannot say this month it's all H-1Bs. The payrolls are done by business survey, each month. So, the H-1Bs come year round in so many words via the survey.
Yes, the H-1B application date is April 1, the commencement date is Oct. 1 which began first fiscal qtr. of 2012.
From the H-1B wiki:
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services accepts H1-B visa applications no more than 6 months in advance of the requested start date, which is the start of the US fiscal year (October 1st of the previous year). Thus the first business day of April opens the H1-B visa application window.[8]
They are all added at one time, at that date? That seems odd since the survey in payrolls is from employers, and then the household survey goes into homes.
So, as far as I know employers do not all hire H-1Bs only on 10/1. If you can cite differently give me a link please.
I get you're trying to say the USCIS approves all Visas (although the cap/application is one thing, using them I thought is another), by certain dates but I thought that was in Q1, done by April or so, each year.
Talking population can still be a risky thing. USDA recently hosted a meeting at UC Davis where, my brother-in-law informs me, the projection was made to 8 or 10 billion people. This projection was then used as justification for what apparently is now a USDA policy to withdraw support for organic farming initiatives because only intensive GMO and petroleum-based agri-industrial farming can hope to feed all the hungry people. When I remarked that I did not necessarily believe the projections -- being a skeptic about every projection always -- I found myself somehow in an argument about ProChoice versus ProLife politics.
People are becoming more realistic about over-population and carrying capacity but any discussion of population growth is still mired in emotional quicksand.
I see that although Mayor Bloomberg is deservedly given a poor review today, Bloomberg News is cited, also deservedly.
He can't be all bad.
Although 'mountain matt' and 'miasmo' have contrary takes on the Occupy Movement, I agree with both on substantial points.
I agree with 'miasmo' here --
I agree (in part) with 'mountain matt' here --
Here are my reservations about proposals of 'mountain matt' --
I don't think that the term 'nationalize' is how to describe taking control of the Fed away from the banks, because the Fed is already formally a part of the government, even though the FOMC is currently practically controlled by representatives of privately owned banks, rather than by public members of the FOMC. Also, the American Monetary Act -- the best proposal for monetary and financial reform -- envisions privately owned banks, although without their authorization to create money through fractional reserve practices.
See, American Monetary Institute --
www.monetary.org
All provisions of the American Monetary Act are included in bill currently before Congress, HR 2990.
See, PDF download on American Monetary Act --
www.monetary.org/hr6550bill.pdf
Also, see blog by Nikki Alexander (23 October 2011), Occupy the Treasury support HR 2990
__________
About "treason charges," the proposal of 'mountain matt' is extreme, although not really inappropriate in many cases. The problem is that without a change in the statutes for treason, it would be libelous to publish claims of treason.
But how about this? We should be demanding legislation broader than, but not unlike, the War Profiteering Prevention Act. The bill was never enacted, although some provisions were passed in 2008 -- as part of a deal that allowed oil drilling without regulations that, arguably, would have prevented the BP oil spill.
See, Costs of War are $4 Trillion article at Robert Oak blog here at EP (and my comment at bottom of page, including on the War Profiteering Prevention Act).
Also see, businesspundit.com article, The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers
When I suggest legislation broader than war profiteering, I have in mind such things as possible profiteering through deliberate manipulation of the gold market by Speaker Boehner in August, in timing of his unexpected walk-out from White House debt ceiling talks. (Insider information in that if you knew about this action before the market closed, you could have made a fortune using margin available through the Merc.)
Hello, weaver,
I have saved you from your -1 rating, countering it with a +1 to equal a great big ZERO. My view is that a -1 rating draws more attention to a comment than the ZERO does. (I'm not part of EP but I do get to vote on comments.)
Anyway, I think that there is something to the idea that the power of the executive branch expanded during the first two administrations of FDR, although this could hardly be rationally termed a "coup d'état". You need to take note that the power of the executive branch cannot be equated to the power of the presidency especially since all those powers were (and are) subject to judicial review. Expansion of the powers of the executive branch was mainly due to creation of such entities as the SEC and the NLRB, with the power of the presidency carefully isolated from operations of those agencies.
Power of the presidency was expanded during World War II (not during the Depression). Power of the presidency always expands during times of war, although the most egregious of such anti-constitutional expansions have been the War Powers legislation and the PATRIOT Act, which occurred long after FDR's time and not in times of war declared according to the Constitutional provision for declaration of war.
And then there's the matter of your completely overlooking the role of the Fed in extending (or even in creating) the Great Depression. (The Federal Reserve Act is dated 1916, long before FDR's first administration.)
However, I give you a high grade for originality in your "leaning" toward FDR's gold regulations as extending the Depression -- I guess all the way into the Nixon Administration
But how does that jibe with your recognition that "If gold price manipulation was the case, it would cause a lack of confidence in the legal money and probably contributed to the run on the banks." Are you aware that the runs on banks began in 1930, long before the first FDR administration (1933)? Are you aware of FDR's "nothing to fear but fear itself" radio talk that greatly restored confidence in banks?
Your idea that gold speculation contributed to runs on banks would seem to indicate that FDR's gold regulations contributed to confidence in the USD that lasted until Nixon repealed FDR's regulations in 1971. The original Bretton Woods agreement was in 1944. So if that ended the Depression (???), per another of your leanings, then there was no Depression all the way until Nixon nixed the closed the gold window in 1971. But, if the Depression ended after Bretton Woods, then how could FDR's gold regulations have extended the Depression? And anyway there was no Depression into 1971.
BTW, there was an attempted coup against President Franklin Roosevelt, exposed by retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler in 1934.
Your remarks just don't add up.
I don't really care if someone "wrote for the New York Times". That rubbish attacking FDR is not for this site.
Good frickin' God, look, this site is solid economics. Trying to claim somehow inflation is the fault, or due to immigration is pure, unmitigated bunk. So is trying to blame the housing bubble.
I'm sorry but please stop this nonsense.
Look, inflation has everything to do with global commodities and exchange rates and the housing bubble has everything to do with CDOs stuffed with MBSes.
I'm sorry but trying to blame everything on immigration is just really ridiculous.
The links aren't about the banks, it's a FDR blast which was a propaganda campaign that really hit up in 2008. Complete economic fiction and we'll assume that's because income inequality has swung into the macro economic economy and a host of people despise, absolutely despise middle classes or helping people, providing any social equalizers financially.
But look, I'm not interested in chasing down comments which claim things were are completely, 100%, economics 101, wrong. You can listen, learn but writing nonsense on this site does not fly.
Price stability is simply not wages. Labor costs are not the same thing as "price stability" and please, again, stop this.
It's one thing to argue against quantitative easing or using only core inflation for policy, but simply quite another to throw out a current rate, ignoring a strong deflationary period recently and project this claim Bernake's suggests we lose over 25% of PPP and keep wages flat. That is simply not what he is saying.
The links in the article touch on Bernanke's research papers, I'm not hunting down the connections for you beyond what I know I already looked at when writing up an article for this site.
I've had it on this frankly. I'm sorry, this site is also an educational reference site, so writing nonsense claiming it's fact is simply not going to be allowed.
Who's writing fiction? Sterling E. Edmunds contributed articles to the New York Times. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the pdf. Nothing on Snopes.com.
I read the post you linked, watched the videos and read the comments. Not much on gold except that Bernanke appears to be of the opinion that the U. S. was hoarding, which would be necessary as reserves in order to create more paper dollars, and that the domestic gold valuation was manipulated? If gold price manipulation was the case, it would cause a lack of confidence in the legal money and probably contributed to the run on the banks.
Bernanke's speech is disturbing, does he work for the United States or the Global economy? A targeted "inflation rate" (CPI I presume) of above 2% coupled with "price stability" (i.e. flat wages) is a tax. A 100 dollar bill will lose $25.43 in purchasing power in 10 years, and desired policy dictates that wages will be fixed or lower (i.e. price stability). The CPI excludes food and fuel, so there's no telling how badly inflation would devalue the Federal Reserve Note. (Price stability is achieved through immigration, which also causes housing inflation.)
I still don't get your resistance to brining up any document in the context of how the banksters conquered the USA in this forum. For populism to succeed, knowledge of the tools that the elite use to divide the population is essential.
"So, the real agenda is to destroy the United States. MNCs don't like nation-states, they are inconvenient for their agendas, except to play nation-states off of each other for tax, asset hiding and currency exchange purposes." -- Robert Oak
Reference is to "agendas" (plural) of MNCs. Of course, there are various corporation-specific agendas; however, the greater threat to nation-states (and to global stability) is the arch-agenda of global capital. That agenda is driven through corporations but represents a force that the management of no MNC can long resist. Moreover, the structure of global finance is such that there are no adequate means available to more enlightened MNC management leadership (or investor groups) to effect changes in a system that is structurally designed to drive the downward spiral of the race-to-the-bottom.
There is an overall agenda that is driven by the structure of global finance capitalism. This 'arch-agenda' isn't something governed by some secret group like 'the Illuminati' (Rockefellers and Rothschilds in an unholy alliance with China's Hu and Wen). The arch-agenda of global capital operates rather as a system of social dynamics that follows observable laws that have evolved over time and which have become accepted as laws of human nature, although these 'laws' are actually culturally determined in the complex reality of social globalization.
The situation was well examined, IMO, in the classic analysis of the Bhopal tragedy, The Enemy of Nature by Joel Kovel (2003). However, Kovel's prediction is problematic and doubtful, that the ultimate solution or cure for the race-to-the-bottom is anarcho-syndicalism. I also disagree with Kovel's prognosis that capitalism, as such, is the culprit. Nonetheless, Kovel's analysis of how contemporary finance capitalism functions to determine an arch-agenda with which no MNC can do other than conform is persuasive.
By carefully pursuing a neo-mercantilist agenda along with well-governed monetarist policy, some nation-states with autocratic governments -- like China and Singapore -- are able to resist the power of MNCs and of global capital. Such governments are able to play the MNCs as much as the MNCs are able to play them. Of course, a corrupt autocratic government or military dictatorship, with little or no populist base, inevitably and invariably caves to MNC agendas, even as the national economy and welfare is quickly driven into the toilet.
By contrast, nations with democratic traditions, including the rule of law, are having a difficult time resisting the globalist agenda, now that it has taken hold. IMO, this situation derives from two sources: (1) the WTO program to eliminate non-tariff barriers by first eliminating all barriers to the flow of capital along with tariff barriers on goods and services, and, (2) the now experientially bankrupt pseudo-economics of the "Austrian School" and related globalist pseudo-economic theories that set up the accumulation of free-floating capital as, in and of itself, the ultimate "good" that society should or must pursue. (The Citizens United ruling can be seen as a corollary of the experientially bankrupt pseudo-economics of the 'Austrian School'.)
Among the many challenges presenting in our brave new world at the beginning of the Third Millennium -- now that the false religion of financial globalism has been exposed -- is the restructuring of trade barriers to include the regulation of capital flows. Unfortunately, there are many in government today (including the otherwise laudable Rep. Ron Paul) who still cling to the pseudo-scientific economic theories of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, ironically and falsely advanced as in support of individual liberty and the rule of law.
Absent intelligent call for structural reform both economic and political, it makes little difference whether we elect Barack Obama or a Republican in 2012. For fundamental economic reform, the first step for the USA is available in HR 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011. See, American Monetary Institute:
www.monetary.org
HR 2990 includes all provisions of the American Monetary Act. See, PDF download on American Monetary Act --
www.monetary.org/hr6550bill.pdf
If anyone is interested in the Kovel book, see review of The Enemy of Nature at CounterPunch.org (2003).
"Occupy protesters just want to 'give it to the man', because that is all the detail that their limited education and pop culture driven mentality can produce."
Their is a wide spectrum of education and economic understanding within the movement. Referring to the protestors as if they are a homogenous monolith is simple-minded. Perhaps this is caused by your "limited education and pop culture driven mentality." (See, two can play this game.)
"They need to grow up and join an organized movement with real leaders and real goals."
So far the movement has succeeded in shifting the national discourse from an idiotic obsession with deficits (which amounts to Hooverism given the current state of the economy) to the issue of jobs and wealth inequality. Please show which "organized movement with real leaders and real goals" has managed to do as much. Hurling mean-spirited insults at the movement that has already gotten better results than any other group or phenomenon in the country is what I would call "just [an] angry [child] throwing a temper tantrum."
that link is just pure fiction, CT, not appropriate for EP.
On Gold and it's relationship to the Great Depression, believe this or not, Bernanke has talked a lot about this and he has some really interesting research. some overviews on his research here.
Anyway, please refrain from linking to absurd CT.
and no, high tariffs did not cause the Great Depression. We've debunked that repeatedly as many other economists have as well. the U.S. was primarily a domestic economy in the early 1930's and Smoot-Hawley didn't raise tariffs by much in comparison to previous.
It's just a lobbyist talking point to push for more bad trade deals. They whip that bogus claim out as often as the other lobbyists name call people racist xenophobes to get their unlimited migration/foreign guest worker Visas passed.
I figured I’d get a “judging a book by its cover” response from the comment. I’m finding the similarities between the Depression era and today quite astounding — but largely in documents originating from the period. Sure, some noble social INSURANCE (not entitlement) programs came from the period, but a lot also went wrong.
I believe that we (myself) included have a superficial understanding of the Great Depression. Yes, the document (written by an attorney) has the slant of producerism, but the document contains an outline of the period that has survived, and is free from spin and paraphrased interpretation of those who did not live through the Depression.
For instance, I'm looking for instances (written within the period) of blame being laid on tariffs as the cause for extending the Depression. I lean more towards the gold control act extending the Depression and the Bretton Woods act as a agreement that broke the depression (fixed gold prices caused later problems though). I’m only finding modern economists who blame tariffs -- to support the concept of Income Tax -- which in turn is required to support central banking.
(I just searched the ROOSEVELT COUP D’ETAT document, it does not contain the word “tariff”)
I take the conservative slant of the document with a grain of salt, as I do with progressive and liberal POV writing -- but I read them both to try to understand grievances vs. spin. The value of the document is that I see similar action/reaction to today's economic hardship, and evidence of how the central banks (once again) manipulated process.
IMHO: Most in OWS blame the banksters, but the tool to defeating the banksters is in restoring sound currency.
Think Progress has some more stats and the fact in one month, people joined credit unions greater than all of 2010 is amazing.
That's before yesterday, bank transfer day and OWS is also holding a "move your money day" on Tuesday.
This is very exciting. It would be great if America acted in concert and used their consumer power to control corporate behavior and have a say in these monstrosities running the nation.
I actually closed out my Wells Fargo account awhile ago but I had similar problems, so they aren't exactly nice when trying to close out an account, or make it easy.
This should push those with accounts at Wells Fargo over the line, story.
The intent of the occupy protesters does deserve respect. However, they have no leadership, no goal, and no plan. Just like the individual protesters themselves. They would like to say they are modelled after arab spring protests. However, the protesters in north africa had a goal. They wanted a new constitution and free elections after the removal of a dictator. Occupy protesters just want to "give it to the man", because that is all the detail that their limited education and pop culture driven mentality can produce. How will you give it to the man? By sitting in a cold park and protesting nothing in particular? Occupy protesters are just angry children throwing a temper tantrum. They need to grow up and join an organized movement with real leaders and real goals. Like nationalizing the Fed and banks, ending corporate personhood, limits to campaign funds, eliminating tax loopholes, single payer healthcare, and treason charges for corrupt politician and police.
I like the fact the purple font color matches the purple kool-aid. Yeah, Jim Jones and watch out for the cult. You simply have to be kidding me. The FDR administration laid the foundations to grow the U.S. middle classes to the largest in it's history. All sorts of things, now taken for granted were done in FDR's administration. Congress went along with FDR mainly because the country was in absolute crisis and the people voted them in to do it. That was the first 100 days often referred to. Hello, it was 1934 and people were literally starving, never mind shelter. Then, there was this minor thing called Hitler and a world war, which had a tendency to stream line Congressional action.
This site is an economics site and when it comes to analyzing, overviewing government statistics, it's key critical to be accurate because so many in the press, never mind regular people, get it wrong.
So, don't worry, every month when I overview this report, and I still have two more overviews to work on, I mention that foreign guest workers and illegals are counted, both in civilian non-institutional population and employed statistics.
But if you want to gain credibility that U.S. workers are being labor arbitraged by foreign workers on guest worker Visas, it's key critical to be deadly accurate and present valid data, statistics.
I agree that we can't objectively state that all of this months jobs went to temporary worker, Currently, the cap subject H-1B applications are 70.800 with an unknown number of exemptions.
BLS data is seasonally adjusted and subject to revision, they know the temporary workers are coming. Further, the DOL manages the BLS and the Labor Certification Applications for H-1B. I'd say there is a lot of pressure on BLS to use all of the tricks in the book to deliver a better job number. Does it matter if the H-1B arrive in Oct. or Nov -- especially if they were hired in Oct.?
The Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, shows 1.14 million non-immigrant admissions for FY-2010, from India which generally contributes about 50,000 H-1B, so the airlines are quite capable of transporting the workers in a single month.
After waiting six months, and with the three/six year clock ticking, and business preferring the H-1B over the green-card due to expedience (no FBI background check), why would you think that these workers wouldn't go to work immediately?
here we go again blaming everything on FDR, a president elected 4 times... this rule overturned by right wing republicans who never thought they'd have a president of their party again elected as president
once again we have an economic disaster created by republicans in which a democrat is trying to solve only to be vilified by the neo-conservatives.
you guys suck... plain and simple please just go away and let rational people fix the current problem
morons.
Every month I do point out foreign guest workers and illegals are counted in the statistics, but that said, one cannot say this month it's all H-1Bs. The payrolls are done by business survey, each month. So, the H-1Bs come year round in so many words via the survey.
Yes, the H-1B application date is April 1, the commencement date is Oct. 1 which began first fiscal qtr. of 2012.
From the H-1B wiki:
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services accepts H1-B visa applications no more than 6 months in advance of the requested start date, which is the start of the US fiscal year (October 1st of the previous year). Thus the first business day of April opens the H1-B visa application window.[8]
8 ^ "Information for Completing and Submitting an FY 2010 H-1B Cap Case". USCIS. Archived from the original on 2011-08-18. http://www.webcitation.org/612crusvx. Retrieved 2011-08-18. "H-1B petitions can be filed no more than six months in advance of the requested start date. Therefore, petitions seeking an FY 2010 H-1B Cap number with an Oct. 1, 2009 start date can be filed no sooner than April 1, 2009."
They are all added at one time, at that date? That seems odd since the survey in payrolls is from employers, and then the household survey goes into homes.
So, as far as I know employers do not all hire H-1Bs only on 10/1. If you can cite differently give me a link please.
I get you're trying to say the USCIS approves all Visas (although the cap/application is one thing, using them I thought is another), by certain dates but I thought that was in Q1, done by April or so, each year.
Pages