The thing is that without some form of tariff (call it a VAT, if you like and if the WTO approves), there is no way to enforce taxes on international corporations. And all the corporations of any size ARE essentially international regardless of where their HQs are located.
The only way that we can hope to enforce corporate income taxes is through some kind of tariff. The result will (or would) be that an international business (supply chain) can pay greater tax on increased income due to that the cost of the imported good or component has decreased while retail/wholesale price remains constant OR the business (supply chain) can pay greater tariff due to that the cost of the imported good or component has increased. All this is relative to the jurisdiction of the IRS (that is, borders of the U.S.A.).
Googling about this, I see that the main objection raised by apologists for the rules of our current world system is ... it doesn't matter because corporations have much better methods available to them! Go figure. Apparently we are just to give up and accept that, thanks to years of sustained efforts by tax code lobbyists (and now the Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS), all the taxes need to come from the humble American working people, who are duty-bound somehow to subsidize their competition.
Thank you for the compliment. Your remark about locating bulk commodities in storage and the related paper or electronic proofs of possession (and of existence!) goes to a deeper level of understanding than mine. That's one of the reasons why I am content to remain a commenter rather than an originator of articles posted at Economic Populist.
My knowledge of commodities trading is entirely derivative (ha, ha, that's a joke, I guess). What I know leaves me very skeptical of that aspect of economic phenomena, even though I realize that it has to be acknowledged as fundamental to all the rest of economic analysis and measurement.
My learning on these matters started many years ago when I read Jim Fisk: The Career of an Improbable Rascal by W. A. Swanberg (published by Scribner, 1959). I am thinking, of course, of the history of Black Friday when paper could be called in Manhattan for more gold bullion than existed in the world. Then, at various times and through various personal sources, I became aware of the dense secrecy that is characteristic of every aspect of what we call 'Big Oil' (and even Big Oil's brother, 'Little Oil'). Then there was the great Enron scandal (Tails: Enron loses; Heads: a Grand Cayman LP partner wins). And then there is the mostly forgotten Great Soy Bean Scandal that brought down American Express, back when American Express was seen as a greater bastion of fiscal stability than the Bank of England.
(Not even reaching here Fisk's printing press for New York Central shares or the Savings and Loan industry scandal or the 1994 bankruptcy of Orange County California due to losses when the Orange County Treasurer decided that derivatives were a sound investment ... )
The thing is that although I have acquired some knowledge of economics, I am not a specialist and am not competent to post articles with the depth of evidential support that I admire greatly here at the Economic Populist. However, I'll take care in the future to make use of the real text editor and create links that are more descriptive of the source.
Here's the deal folks. We can gripe all we want about Goldman Sachs finally off-loading its floating sea of contango oil at a huge profit - at our expense - and yes, 40 cents of every gallon of gas you buy goes into some speculator's pocket (or some other such unnacceptable amount).
So the price of gas goes up 30%. Can you drive 30% less? I can. And I save wear and tear on my vehicle too. Now I won't cut off my nose to spite my face, but I've already planned for this and made my home a very nice place for grill-outs, hobby time and horticultural pursuits. And I don't drive to restaurants to eat out much either (sorry local restauranteurs, but keep the faith).
We're gonna collapse these bubbles if we stick together and boycott the fantasy of $4.00 gallon gas. People who HAVE TO drive less will have to drive less, but if people who can afford not to drive less, we'll make a demand impact. We did it in 2008 and we'll do it again even the wheels falkl off this economy again, which it will.
Beyond that, it's a great article and you might find some interesting affirmations and counterpoints here: http://letthemfail.us/archives/7951
All this economic activity is inter-related, it's NOT just a series of coincidences.
The argument against speculation is at some point someone must take possession of physical supply. So, a key is to locate that parked supply.
2old, consider learning how to format your links. If you're really ambitious, consider learning how to format a post and ask me for an author account. You seem itchin' to write and have good insight!
Over in the user guide is some help to get started on formatting, or writing in XHTML.
If international relationships were such a trigger to price increases, then we'd have a repetitive trigger in the form of Venezuela, supplier of 10% of domestic crude imports.
The Bush administration was so indifferent to this, it tried to overthrow Chavez and failed. The Bush people continued their harassment of Venezuela. When Obama came in, the meddling was put on a lower flame but it is still there.
So, if hostile/unstable regimes are such a trigger to prices, why isn't Venezuela mentioned as a cause to price increases? Ten percent of direct imports is certainly bigger than 2% from Libya that goes elsewhere. If hostile/unstable regimes of oil producers are such a trigger, why does the US government, over a 10 year period, try to destabilize and thus create hostilities with Venezuela?
There is no empirical basis for these histrionics impacting prices. It is selectively manufactured.
Yet they still get that money from Uncle Sam in the form of contracts. There was a bill before Congress about four years ago tat would bar US government contracts with corporations that off shored their headquarters. The screaming and moaning could be heard within a 100 mile radius of the Hill. It failed. That might be a good one to bring up again.
the corporate pawns still pushing their anti-tax agenda. If corporations have all this wealth and can't pay taxes, then I say let them go, we don't need people/business like that in OUR country, OH and take your supporters with you! We don't like fascism. n'cest pas?
America has long been a second world country and now its slipping into the third world category. The main culprits are the parasites in finance sucking the all wealth from the economy through unethical and fraudulent means. Having said this, Americans, even the middle class have been living an unsustainable life for more than two decades. Three bedroom homes are a luxury, not a necessity. I feel sorry for all these people who are slipping into poverty, but a small part of the fault is with the entire middle class. The middle class has long been disconnected with reality. Other third world countries often do not have a working democratic governments. America must be first country in the world in which the middle class eagerly allowed the democratic system to be destroyed by the plutocrats who threw a few temporary materialistic benefits at them. Reminds me of the story of an African chief in Ghana who sold away his tribe and territory to the Brits for a scotch and women. The American middle class especially the educated ones are that chief.
In theory, of course, IF supply goes down and demand stays constant, price will rise. And, with trade globalization, it doesn't much matter what the sources of U.S. imports are. But maybe demand will prove to be elastic. Maybe also supply.
Following is from today's Associated Press (tomorrow in Australia) --
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates
Saudi Arabia's oil minister denied that the surge in oil prices reflects a shortage of crude on the market but said that the kingdom is committed to tapping excess supplies if needed.
An uprising in OPEC member Libya has stoked supply concerns, increasing pressure on the producer bloc to pump more to ease prices. The oil minister of Saudi Arabia said the oil market remains well-supplied, however. He reiterated the kingdom's stance that the spike in oil costs stems more from financial speculation and unwarranted investor sentiment than industry fundamentals.
Associated Press (via Sydney Morning Herald online) March 9, 2011
Don't want to appear ignorant of the problems of the repression that the People's Republic has long embraced.
When I consider the remarkable results obtained by the technocratic leadership of the People's Republic of China, it appears likely to me that Wen and associates make maximal use of quantitative behavioral statistics.
I imagine Wen and associates to be an elite at the top of the Communist Party, but not really the Communist Party itself. In addressing the opening of the Congress, Wen speaks essentially to CP delegates about the 'people', reminding the CP members that, after all, they are supposed to be the party of the people -- common people, working people.
I assume that Wen and associates do not simply gather demographic and econometric data, they use recent historical data to generate future data.
Thinking along those 'social engineering' lines, the top technocrats probably see repression and repressive measures as just one more adjustable input in a complex system. Just as the Fed, for example, can turn up the volume on dollar-creation output, so can Wen and associates (through the Bank of China and many other institutions with more power but less independence than our Fed) turn up or tune down various inputs to the total socio-economic system based on a picture that they derive from recent historical data outputs in their dynamic data collection-analysis-control system.
The problem is that the CP base of Wen's state power mechanism (the totality of China's politico-socio-economic engine) is as corrupt as any other one-party autocracy. Wen probably realizes that he cannot simply turn a dial to dampen the volume of corruption, but he hopes that he can avail himself of the alternative -- turning a dial to increase the volume of repression and thus decrease the volume of dissent. Then he will wait a while (five years of the current Five Year Plan?) and see how it has worked. It's like macroeconomics or the excuse of the apologists of trade globalization: "There are always winners and losers." We don't worry about the losers, because the big picture is all that matters.
We believe that the way to address irregularities resulting from corruption is through the courts. Of course, it's a slow and inefficient process, as we see in the case of Benj. Franklin S&L bank --
But, in China, the judicial system and traditions are poorly developed.
However, I note that Wen did put corruption right up there with inflation, as an evil that needs to be controlled. And the top technocrats do understand and implement the principles of monetarism.
Will corruption ultimately bring down the engine of prosperity in China? Maybe. The problems with corruption that puts politics into the middle of business decisions include not only the resentment of those who have been deprived of their just rewards, but also that the results may be spectacularly inefficient, resulting in accretion over time of dead-weight that must be carried by more productive units in the economy.
Or will democracy somehow magically come to rule, as the supposed ineluctable result of trade globalization and the adoption of the forms of free enterprise in a politically managed neo-mercantilist system?
Or will democracy and civil liberty eventually emerge as the result of long hard-fought struggles, including the sacrifices of liberty-loving patriots?
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, the U.S. needs to pull together, because we are essential to the security of Taiwan, the RoK, and perhaps even of Japan. Certainly, the immediate price that Wen must pay for the policies of repression is that Taiwan and the RoK -- where the people have already earned their civil liberties the hard way -- will distance themselves from the prospect of a Greater China.
And, finally, returning to the question of what WE will do here in the Homeland: Will we be able to control inflation and corruption? Or will democracy and civil liberty wither away?
I went through all that myself with B of A, I am in the program but really don't want the house anymore about a year ago the furnace blew up I am a disabled combat vet and was engaged when I bought it she since left and I have no money to replace the furnace and I don't need a 5 bedroom house. My credit cards are all in default and so I am walking away from the house in June of this year. Personally I could rent cheaper and have extra money after. B of A is a crappy company that was picketed against in the 1960's and 1970's for treating folks bad and somehow they managed to grow regardless. All the banks that were given government money spent it as they wished and none of them care about people. Also remember politician = people that get paid to lie cheat steal and take bribes so of course they help banks abd auto companies.
I see the homeless coming up from the river. The women bother me the most. Some look like vets. Photo in the paper of a 64 year old woman being evicted from her tent. I've been here 30 years and we have always had "campers" on the river, but now we have many more. Children too. I couldn't watch 60 Minutes because no one really cares.
It doesn't matter if Libya sells directly to the US. Whoever they do sell to – and they exported a lot – will now be bidding up the price of oil from other suppliers, our suppliers.
Do you think it's possible we'll be creating 400,000+ new jobs?
Do you think it's possible we'll be creating 300,000+ new jobs within the next year?
Why is nothing being said about:
1. Reducing use of temporary work visas. We should be on a campaign to attack the "body shops" who exploit foreign workers and the Americans they take jobs away from. Why are we so afraid; the body shops aren't American owned.
2. Moratorium on extended family reunification immigration (siblings, parents, adult children). We don't need the sister of a former immigrant here; we do this to be nice. What we need is jobs for Americans!
3. More unemployment and other financial support for the long term unemployed. In most states able bodied adults can't even get welfare, not that the $200 or so you'd get would pay your rent or mortgage.
4. Food Stamps for long term unemployed who still have assets. AP did an article last summer that said about 20 states were now allowing people to get Food Stamps if they were not getting any current income. It's 100% federal government paid; states pay 1/2 administrative costs. For the time being I think this should be available in all 50 states. That's about $200 a month per person that people won't have to take out of their savings or beg from friends and relatives.
It doesn't matter if "things are picking up" if the rate is so slow that you won't get a job for another couple of years. I am so sick of the happy talk. What will it take for President Obama to acknowledge the terrible economic conditions out there for the down-and-outers?
I am getting a bit sick of all the coverage focused on public worker unions. Whatever happnes most of them will still have their jobs and pensions next year at this time. The few who lose their jobs will often have their own unions to blame for keeping current salaries -- and often continuing to get contracted raises -- and benefits during a financial crisis.
Meanwhile the noose tightens around the long term unemployed and nobody's doing anything.
Distribute it at will. Those hedge funds hog the news, at least anything to do with their in crowd manipulations.
At another publication site, a few people said, 'Well, prices were going up anyway.' This misses the point. This is an intense short term play that will rake in a ton of money for the participants, all at our expense.
The awareness is accumulating out there, another story not covered, and people will reach a saturation point. As for now, just more of the same from those who offered "hope" and not much else.
that, in a normally functioning society, would be appearing all over the traditional mass media. Those hedge funds sure do have some pull, don't they!?
Sometimes a simple equation sums up the varieties of argument and data, as you just did:
TRADE GLOBALIZATION = UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT
And isn't this the unvarnished truth:
We inherit the worst of two worlds. Responsibility without power.
We're stuck in a culture of symbols that represent...symbols. There's no connection to reality. "Tapping the strategic oil reserve" is a phrase we've heard before. It's supposed to mean that the government is on our side. But it's just a sound byte, a remnant of a better PR machine, one that will have a palliative effect on our psyche. It amounts to nothing, as you so well articulated.
We're victims of a system that serves the interests of a very few with nihilistic goals like bigger yachts, better electronic toys, and badder Praetorian Guards.
None of that will work, including the guards. Gaddaffi is the true paradigm. After an endless orgy of material gorging and paranoid fortification, perfectly balanced (he thought), he's about to lose to an angry, unorganized, largely unarmed populace that's had enough.
The thing is that without some form of tariff (call it a VAT, if you like and if the WTO approves), there is no way to enforce taxes on international corporations. And all the corporations of any size ARE essentially international regardless of where their HQs are located.
The only way that we can hope to enforce corporate income taxes is through some kind of tariff. The result will (or would) be that an international business (supply chain) can pay greater tax on increased income due to that the cost of the imported good or component has decreased while retail/wholesale price remains constant OR the business (supply chain) can pay greater tariff due to that the cost of the imported good or component has increased. All this is relative to the jurisdiction of the IRS (that is, borders of the U.S.A.).
Googling about this, I see that the main objection raised by apologists for the rules of our current world system is ... it doesn't matter because corporations have much better methods available to them! Go figure. Apparently we are just to give up and accept that, thanks to years of sustained efforts by tax code lobbyists (and now the Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS), all the taxes need to come from the humble American working people, who are duty-bound somehow to subsidize their competition.
Thank you for the compliment. Your remark about locating bulk commodities in storage and the related paper or electronic proofs of possession (and of existence!) goes to a deeper level of understanding than mine. That's one of the reasons why I am content to remain a commenter rather than an originator of articles posted at Economic Populist.
My knowledge of commodities trading is entirely derivative (ha, ha, that's a joke, I guess). What I know leaves me very skeptical of that aspect of economic phenomena, even though I realize that it has to be acknowledged as fundamental to all the rest of economic analysis and measurement.
My learning on these matters started many years ago when I read Jim Fisk: The Career of an Improbable Rascal by W. A. Swanberg (published by Scribner, 1959). I am thinking, of course, of the history of Black Friday when paper could be called in Manhattan for more gold bullion than existed in the world. Then, at various times and through various personal sources, I became aware of the dense secrecy that is characteristic of every aspect of what we call 'Big Oil' (and even Big Oil's brother, 'Little Oil'). Then there was the great Enron scandal (Tails: Enron loses; Heads: a Grand Cayman LP partner wins). And then there is the mostly forgotten Great Soy Bean Scandal that brought down American Express, back when American Express was seen as a greater bastion of fiscal stability than the Bank of England.
(Not even reaching here Fisk's printing press for New York Central shares or the Savings and Loan industry scandal or the 1994 bankruptcy of Orange County California due to losses when the Orange County Treasurer decided that derivatives were a sound investment ... )
The thing is that although I have acquired some knowledge of economics, I am not a specialist and am not competent to post articles with the depth of evidential support that I admire greatly here at the Economic Populist. However, I'll take care in the future to make use of the real text editor and create links that are more descriptive of the source.
Norman C. Miller's 1964 Saturday Evening Post article on the American Express Vegetable Oil Scandal currently available online at David Xia's blogsite
Here's the deal folks. We can gripe all we want about Goldman Sachs finally off-loading its floating sea of contango oil at a huge profit - at our expense - and yes, 40 cents of every gallon of gas you buy goes into some speculator's pocket (or some other such unnacceptable amount).
So the price of gas goes up 30%. Can you drive 30% less? I can. And I save wear and tear on my vehicle too. Now I won't cut off my nose to spite my face, but I've already planned for this and made my home a very nice place for grill-outs, hobby time and horticultural pursuits. And I don't drive to restaurants to eat out much either (sorry local restauranteurs, but keep the faith).
We're gonna collapse these bubbles if we stick together and boycott the fantasy of $4.00 gallon gas. People who HAVE TO drive less will have to drive less, but if people who can afford not to drive less, we'll make a demand impact. We did it in 2008 and we'll do it again even the wheels falkl off this economy again, which it will.
Beyond that, it's a great article and you might find some interesting affirmations and counterpoints here:
http://letthemfail.us/archives/7951
All this economic activity is inter-related, it's NOT just a series of coincidences.
The argument against speculation is at some point someone must take possession of physical supply. So, a key is to locate that parked supply.
2old, consider learning how to format your links. If you're really ambitious, consider learning how to format a post and ask me for an author account. You seem itchin' to write and have good insight!
Over in the user guide is some help to get started on formatting, or writing in XHTML.
If international relationships were such a trigger to price increases, then we'd have a repetitive trigger in the form of Venezuela, supplier of 10% of domestic crude imports.
The Bush administration was so indifferent to this, it tried to overthrow Chavez and failed. The Bush people continued their harassment of Venezuela. When Obama came in, the meddling was put on a lower flame but it is still there.
So, if hostile/unstable regimes are such a trigger to prices, why isn't Venezuela mentioned as a cause to price increases? Ten percent of direct imports is certainly bigger than 2% from Libya that goes elsewhere. If hostile/unstable regimes of oil producers are such a trigger, why does the US government, over a 10 year period, try to destabilize and thus create hostilities with Venezuela?
There is no empirical basis for these histrionics impacting prices. It is selectively manufactured.
Yet they still get that money from Uncle Sam in the form of contracts. There was a bill before Congress about four years ago tat would bar US government contracts with corporations that off shored their headquarters. The screaming and moaning could be heard within a 100 mile radius of the Hill. It failed. That might be a good one to bring up again.
the corporate pawns still pushing their anti-tax agenda. If corporations have all this wealth and can't pay taxes, then I say let them go, we don't need people/business like that in OUR country, OH and take your supporters with you! We don't like fascism. n'cest pas?
America has long been a second world country and now its slipping into the third world category. The main culprits are the parasites in finance sucking the all wealth from the economy through unethical and fraudulent means. Having said this, Americans, even the middle class have been living an unsustainable life for more than two decades. Three bedroom homes are a luxury, not a necessity. I feel sorry for all these people who are slipping into poverty, but a small part of the fault is with the entire middle class. The middle class has long been disconnected with reality. Other third world countries often do not have a working democratic governments. America must be first country in the world in which the middle class eagerly allowed the democratic system to be destroyed by the plutocrats who threw a few temporary materialistic benefits at them. Reminds me of the story of an African chief in Ghana who sold away his tribe and territory to the Brits for a scotch and women. The American middle class especially the educated ones are that chief.
"The supply went down. The demand did not."
In theory, of course, IF supply goes down and demand stays constant, price will rise. And, with trade globalization, it doesn't much matter what the sources of U.S. imports are. But maybe demand will prove to be elastic. Maybe also supply.
Following is from today's Associated Press (tomorrow in Australia) --
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates
Saudi Arabia's oil minister denied that the surge in oil prices reflects a shortage of crude on the market but said that the kingdom is committed to tapping excess supplies if needed.
An uprising in OPEC member Libya has stoked supply concerns, increasing pressure on the producer bloc to pump more to ease prices. The oil minister of Saudi Arabia said the oil market remains well-supplied, however. He reiterated the kingdom's stance that the spike in oil costs stems more from financial speculation and unwarranted investor sentiment than industry fundamentals.
Associated Press (via Sydney Morning Herald online) March 9, 2011
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/a-look-at-economic-devel...
Has political corruption played a role in this?
Or are the top technocrats less competent than I suppose them to be?
Or both?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-08/china-faces-60-risk-of-bank-cri...
It wouldn't be like this if BoA management had been loyal to the ideals and integrity of A. P. Giannini.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/whomade/giannini_hi.html
Don't want to appear ignorant of the problems of the repression that the People's Republic has long embraced.
When I consider the remarkable results obtained by the technocratic leadership of the People's Republic of China, it appears likely to me that Wen and associates make maximal use of quantitative behavioral statistics.
I imagine Wen and associates to be an elite at the top of the Communist Party, but not really the Communist Party itself. In addressing the opening of the Congress, Wen speaks essentially to CP delegates about the 'people', reminding the CP members that, after all, they are supposed to be the party of the people -- common people, working people.
I assume that Wen and associates do not simply gather demographic and econometric data, they use recent historical data to generate future data.
Thinking along those 'social engineering' lines, the top technocrats probably see repression and repressive measures as just one more adjustable input in a complex system. Just as the Fed, for example, can turn up the volume on dollar-creation output, so can Wen and associates (through the Bank of China and many other institutions with more power but less independence than our Fed) turn up or tune down various inputs to the total socio-economic system based on a picture that they derive from recent historical data outputs in their dynamic data collection-analysis-control system.
The problem is that the CP base of Wen's state power mechanism (the totality of China's politico-socio-economic engine) is as corrupt as any other one-party autocracy. Wen probably realizes that he cannot simply turn a dial to dampen the volume of corruption, but he hopes that he can avail himself of the alternative -- turning a dial to increase the volume of repression and thus decrease the volume of dissent. Then he will wait a while (five years of the current Five Year Plan?) and see how it has worked. It's like macroeconomics or the excuse of the apologists of trade globalization: "There are always winners and losers." We don't worry about the losers, because the big picture is all that matters.
We believe that the way to address irregularities resulting from corruption is through the courts. Of course, it's a slow and inefficient process, as we see in the case of Benj. Franklin S&L bank --
http://www.benfranklinoregon.org/AboutUs.htm
But, in China, the judicial system and traditions are poorly developed.
However, I note that Wen did put corruption right up there with inflation, as an evil that needs to be controlled. And the top technocrats do understand and implement the principles of monetarism.
Will corruption ultimately bring down the engine of prosperity in China? Maybe. The problems with corruption that puts politics into the middle of business decisions include not only the resentment of those who have been deprived of their just rewards, but also that the results may be spectacularly inefficient, resulting in accretion over time of dead-weight that must be carried by more productive units in the economy.
Or will democracy somehow magically come to rule, as the supposed ineluctable result of trade globalization and the adoption of the forms of free enterprise in a politically managed neo-mercantilist system?
Or will democracy and civil liberty eventually emerge as the result of long hard-fought struggles, including the sacrifices of liberty-loving patriots?
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, the U.S. needs to pull together, because we are essential to the security of Taiwan, the RoK, and perhaps even of Japan. Certainly, the immediate price that Wen must pay for the policies of repression is that Taiwan and the RoK -- where the people have already earned their civil liberties the hard way -- will distance themselves from the prospect of a Greater China.
And, finally, returning to the question of what WE will do here in the Homeland: Will we be able to control inflation and corruption? Or will democracy and civil liberty wither away?
I went through all that myself with B of A, I am in the program but really don't want the house anymore about a year ago the furnace blew up I am a disabled combat vet and was engaged when I bought it she since left and I have no money to replace the furnace and I don't need a 5 bedroom house. My credit cards are all in default and so I am walking away from the house in June of this year. Personally I could rent cheaper and have extra money after. B of A is a crappy company that was picketed against in the 1960's and 1970's for treating folks bad and somehow they managed to grow regardless. All the banks that were given government money spent it as they wished and none of them care about people. Also remember politician = people that get paid to lie cheat steal and take bribes so of course they help banks abd auto companies.
I see the homeless coming up from the river. The women bother me the most. Some look like vets. Photo in the paper of a 64 year old woman being evicted from her tent. I've been here 30 years and we have always had "campers" on the river, but now we have many more. Children too. I couldn't watch 60 Minutes because no one really cares.
It doesn't matter if Libya sells directly to the US. Whoever they do sell to – and they exported a lot – will now be bidding up the price of oil from other suppliers, our suppliers.
The supply went down. The demand did not.
Do you think it's possible we'll be creating 400,000+ new jobs?
Do you think it's possible we'll be creating 300,000+ new jobs within the next year?
Why is nothing being said about:
1. Reducing use of temporary work visas. We should be on a campaign to attack the "body shops" who exploit foreign workers and the Americans they take jobs away from. Why are we so afraid; the body shops aren't American owned.
2. Moratorium on extended family reunification immigration (siblings, parents, adult children). We don't need the sister of a former immigrant here; we do this to be nice. What we need is jobs for Americans!
3. More unemployment and other financial support for the long term unemployed. In most states able bodied adults can't even get welfare, not that the $200 or so you'd get would pay your rent or mortgage.
4. Food Stamps for long term unemployed who still have assets. AP did an article last summer that said about 20 states were now allowing people to get Food Stamps if they were not getting any current income. It's 100% federal government paid; states pay 1/2 administrative costs. For the time being I think this should be available in all 50 states. That's about $200 a month per person that people won't have to take out of their savings or beg from friends and relatives.
It doesn't matter if "things are picking up" if the rate is so slow that you won't get a job for another couple of years. I am so sick of the happy talk. What will it take for President Obama to acknowledge the terrible economic conditions out there for the down-and-outers?
I am getting a bit sick of all the coverage focused on public worker unions. Whatever happnes most of them will still have their jobs and pensions next year at this time. The few who lose their jobs will often have their own unions to blame for keeping current salaries -- and often continuing to get contracted raises -- and benefits during a financial crisis.
Meanwhile the noose tightens around the long term unemployed and nobody's doing anything.
Distribute it at will. Those hedge funds hog the news, at least anything to do with their in crowd manipulations.
At another publication site, a few people said, 'Well, prices were going up anyway.' This misses the point. This is an intense short term play that will rake in a ton of money for the participants, all at our expense.
The awareness is accumulating out there, another story not covered, and people will reach a saturation point. As for now, just more of the same from those who offered "hope" and not much else.
that, in a normally functioning society, would be appearing all over the traditional mass media. Those hedge funds sure do have some pull, don't they!?
I have been looking at Economic Populist for good news rather than all the dreary pessimism (to which I have been contributing).
So here it is (with documentation):
Michael Moore says America is NOT broke!
http://truthout.org/michael-moore-america-is-not-broke68265
AND
Employment prospects improve: Big future for Charlie Sheen impersonators!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-wilstein/the-most-winning-charlie-_b_...
Sometimes a simple equation sums up the varieties of argument and data, as you just did:
And isn't this the unvarnished truth:
We're stuck in a culture of symbols that represent...symbols. There's no connection to reality. "Tapping the strategic oil reserve" is a phrase we've heard before. It's supposed to mean that the government is on our side. But it's just a sound byte, a remnant of a better PR machine, one that will have a palliative effect on our psyche. It amounts to nothing, as you so well articulated.
We're victims of a system that serves the interests of a very few with nihilistic goals like bigger yachts, better electronic toys, and badder Praetorian Guards.
None of that will work, including the guards. Gaddaffi is the true paradigm. After an endless orgy of material gorging and paranoid fortification, perfectly balanced (he thought), he's about to lose to an angry, unorganized, largely unarmed populace that's had enough.
Pages